Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The immigration poster that symbolises the Dave’s dilemma.

SystemSystem Posts: 12,183
edited July 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The immigration poster that symbolises the Dave’s dilemma. Moves to win back UKIP switchers risk alienating 2010 LDs

As we keep on saying two big things have happened to voters since GE2010: The switch to Labour by 2010 LD voters following their party’s coalition deal with the Tories and the shrinkage of the CON vote as a result of the UKIP surge.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • ojcorbsojcorbs Posts: 30
    The poster van campaign is just hilarious. It looks completely amateurish and is cringe worthy at best. Plus the premise is ridiculous, 'we are arresting illegals, so tell us if you are an illegal and we won't arrest you' They should try this one on people who pirate off the internet, or grow pot in their garden sheds. Do they really think this will make any difference at all?!

    Meanwhile Farage and UKIP won't touch this with a ten-foot bargepole, silly season is in full swing.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Latest YouGov / The Sun results 30th July - Con 34%, Lab 40%, LD 10%, UKIP 12%; APP -29
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    edited July 2013
    YouGov

    Which of the following do you think are the most important issues facing the country at this time?
    Please tick up to three.

    Economy: 66(+2)
    Immigration & Asylum: 50(-1)
    Health: 41(+4)
    Welfare Benefits: 28(-2))
    Housing: 16(0)
    Crime: 13(-1)
    Pension: 13(0)
    Education: 13(0)
    Europe: 12 (+1)
    Tax: 8(-3)

    Which of the following do you think are the most important issues facing you and your family at this time?
    Please tick up to three.

    Economy: 54(-1)
    Health: 38(+1)
    Pensions: 28(+1)
    Tax: 20(-2)
    Education:: 15(0)
    Welfare Benefits: 15 (+1)
    Immigration & Asylum: 14(0)
    Housing: 13(0)
    Family Life & Childcare: 12(+1)
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    FPT (curse of the new thread)

    NickPalmer said:

    Pretty consistent with the other polls - the Tories are clearly recovering the UKIP froth for now, but Labour's vote is unchanged, as is the LibDem preference for Labour. It's reasonable to guess that the Tory jump includes former UKIP people who are now officially don't know but admit to preferring the Tories.


    I think that points towards a pretty fair summary of the situation since the last election (and why I suspect there will be a hung Parliament next time).

    Basically, neither the Tories nor Labour have convinced anyone who did not support them at the last election to become committed backers. This is not surprising given that there was such a clear divide (at least in presentation) on macroeconomic issues - the most important topic at the 2010 election.

    There have been two basic shifts:

    (1) A chunk of the left-leaning LibDems who believe that they were voting for a morally-upright version of Labour has moved to back Ed. This isn't because Ed has positively convinced them of anything, but because they are pissed off with Clegg and they don't consider the Tories.

    (2) A chunk of Tories moved to UKIP. This seems to be unwinding for now, driven by better party management, more discipline, fading of the noise over gay marriage and other liberal moves by this government.

    I think that the 2015 election will, at its core, be driven by macro considerations again. So it is logical that the core votes for Labour and the Tories will remain the same. That means there are only two factors to play for:

    - How many of the UKIP 12% the Tories can win back. If they get them down to 5 (based on Cameron's comment) and win all that share that gets the Tories to 40-41%.

    - How many of the LD defectors vote for Labour. Let's say that all of Labour's gains (+8 I think) since 2010 are from this source.

    Implications is that Labour's range is 29-37, and the Tories are 34 - 41. My guess is that it will end up with Tories around 35/36 and Labour on 33/34. Seats will dependent on vote distribution.

    But the basic conclusion is we are heading for a hung Parliament - but with all to play for
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    OGH, I think the mistake that you are making is that most LD-Lab switchers will blame the LDs for this.

    Isn't the most likely reaction that the LD-Lab switchers decide "this confirms my prejudice that the Tories eat babies"? Admittedly this may have a second-order impact of reinforcing their dislike of Clegg for forming a coalition with the baby-eaters, but that doesn't seem that likely to me. However, given that Clegg/Cable have made it pretty clear they don't approve perhaps it will help them differentiate from the Tories among this group?

    If anything, given Clegg's opposition could this possibly (a) attract UKIP waverers back to the Tories and (b) persuade some LD-Lab waverers that Clegg isn't that bad after all.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,970
    Charles said:

    OGH, I think the mistake that you are making is that most LD-Lab switchers will blame the LDs for this.

    Isn't the most likely reaction that the LD-Lab switchers decide "this confirms my prejudice that the Tories eat babies"? Admittedly this may have a second-order impact of reinforcing their dislike of Clegg for forming a coalition with the baby-eaters, but that doesn't seem that likely to me. However, given that Clegg/Cable have made it pretty clear they don't approve perhaps it will help them differentiate from the Tories among this group?

    If anything, given Clegg's opposition could this possibly (a) attract UKIP waverers back to the Tories and (b) persuade some LD-Lab waverers that Clegg isn't that bad after all.

    I think OGHs argument is that they will be more likely to vote Labour to ensure a Labour majority.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited July 2013
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    OGH, I think the mistake that you are making is that most LD-Lab switchers will blame the LDs for this.

    Isn't the most likely reaction that the LD-Lab switchers decide "this confirms my prejudice that the Tories eat babies"? Admittedly this may have a second-order impact of reinforcing their dislike of Clegg for forming a coalition with the baby-eaters, but that doesn't seem that likely to me. However, given that Clegg/Cable have made it pretty clear they don't approve perhaps it will help them differentiate from the Tories among this group?

    If anything, given Clegg's opposition could this possibly (a) attract UKIP waverers back to the Tories and (b) persuade some LD-Lab waverers that Clegg isn't that bad after all.

    I think OGHs argument is that they will be more likely to vote Labour to ensure a Labour majority.
    And I'm not sure it will play like that. I don't think it will impact the relative view of Labour and the LibDems that much. Just confirm prejudices.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited July 2013
    From anecdotes I've read- the vans appear to have either pushed Kippers into saying 'urgh evil Torees - we'd never do this' or 'Oh, the Tories are taking this seriously for once, I may vote for them after all'.

    Labour activists and LDs are all saying 'urgh' but as YouGov showed yesterday - no VI group actually thought they were racist though they may not have personally liked them. And even that was IIRC 47:41 still approving. I personally wasn't keen on them.

    Hard to unpick the genuine view and the partisan knee-jerk response out of it.
    Charles said:

    OGH, I think the mistake that you are making is that most LD-Lab switchers will blame the LDs for this.

    Isn't the most likely reaction that the LD-Lab switchers decide "this confirms my prejudice that the Tories eat babies"? Admittedly this may have a second-order impact of reinforcing their dislike of Clegg for forming a coalition with the baby-eaters, but that doesn't seem that likely to me. However, given that Clegg/Cable have made it pretty clear they don't approve perhaps it will help them differentiate from the Tories among this group?

    If anything, given Clegg's opposition could this possibly (a) attract UKIP waverers back to the Tories and (b) persuade some LD-Lab waverers that Clegg isn't that bad after all.

  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited July 2013
    The way 2010 Lib Dem voters are being mentioned, anyone would think that their votes will exclusively determine the outcome of the next election. Strikes me as highly unlikely
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724

    The way 2010 Lib Dem voters are being mentioned, anyone would think that their votes will exclusively determine the outcome of the next election. Strikes me as highly unlikely

    Everything is good news for the LDs.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    risk alienating 2010 LDs
    The posters are about illegal immigrants, people who by definition have already committed a crime.

    Is the LD campaign in 2015 really going to be "we love illegal immigrants"?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Scott_P said:

    risk alienating 2010 LDs
    The posters are about illegal immigrants, people who by definition have already committed a crime.

    Is the LD campaign in 2015 really going to be "we love illegal immigrants"?

    IIRC - some of the fall out from Cleggasm was more voters becoming aware that the LDs were keen on an amnesty for illegals. That didn't go down terribly well. I'm against amnesties here - we already have enough trouble trying to find the buggers and deport them/and if they've been here for ages and had kids its virtually impossible - it just encourages more of the same like paying off kidnappers.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Does anyone know what The Sun is up to today - the wrap-around cover and What We Stand For bit inside?

    It reads like the Sun's version of a Tory manifesto. I know its planning to go paywall shortly - is this the last one before they do?

    http://t.co/P0zukZYUtZ
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    The poll shows that 50% of 2010 Labour support the poster campaign and a higher number from the North and Midland/Wales give their support.

    Today's YouGov shows 9% of 2010LD going to UKIP and that highest UKIP support comes from North and Midlands/Wales.

    The LDs could find themselves (again) on the wrong side of public sympathy by their opposition to the poster - as to the average voter-in-the-street, the removal of illegal immigrants is natural justice.

    That the LDs are stuck at 8%-10%VI shows that their public pronouncements are not resonating with the electorate.

    Incidentally on legal/illegal immigrants, some 6,000 have been found in Slough living in "sheds" in back gardens. Of course they could be cannabis hot-houses.

    "A spy plane equipped with a thermal imaging camera has found that more than 6,000 outbuildings in one town could be 'beds in sheds' converted by rogue landlords.

    Slough Borough Council is the first local authority in the country to pay for the specially-adapted aircraft to fly over streets picking up heat from sheds and garages."

    It spent £24,000 on flights to build up a precise 3D map of every building in the Berkshire town. The results mean thousands could be living there without planning permission or contributing council tax.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2381451/Slough-spy-plane-detects-6-000-illegal-beds-sheds-thermal-imaging.html#ixzz2abGR3xu9
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,970
    edited July 2013
    Plato said:

    Does anyone know what The Sun is up to today - the wrap-around cover and What We Stand For bit inside?

    It reads like the Sun's version of a Tory manifesto. I know its planning to go paywall shortly - is this the last one before they do?

    http://t.co/P0zukZYUtZ

    The front page is here.. http://imgur.com/a/6ncFU

    I was going to say where is the Queen.. but there she is hiding out on the S.
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    I think the Conservatives have got all the LD2010 voters they're ever going to get (between 10% and 15% on the adjusted figures) without self-combusting as a party.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Millsy said:

    I think the Conservatives have got all the LD2010 voters they're ever going to get (between 10% and 15% on the adjusted figures) without self-combusting as a party.

    That depends how many 2010 LDs were really Labour voters who didn't like Gordon Brown. Are they really going to get off the sofa to elect Ed Miliband?
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Plato said:

    Does anyone know what The Sun is up to today - the wrap-around cover and What We Stand For bit inside?

    It reads like the Sun's version of a Tory manifesto. I know its planning to go paywall shortly - is this the last one before they do?

    http://t.co/P0zukZYUtZ

    @Plato;

    Yes paywall in a day or so: Thee are some lovely quotes:

    " Both Labour and the Tories have had disastrous failures and major achievements. Even the Lib Dems have their moments.

    We just can’t think of any right now."

    " This country needs — and deserves — a strong vision for the next decade, backed by strong leadership to see it through.

    When evidence of that emerges, we will support it."

    " The welfare state was designed to stop people going hungry. It was a noble aim.

    But the handouts became so generous and easy to claim that successive generations have grown up to view idling on benefits as a permanent lifestyle choice.

    This culture of entitlement exploded under the last Labour Government and MUST end.

    It has destroyed entire communities and is bleeding Britain dry.

    The cap on benefits brought in by this Government is still way too generous and must be cut.

    Our welfare system should be a safety net for those in dire straits. Not a bonanza for scroungers."

    " We’re proud of the NHS. At least we are proud of what it could be.

    Successive scandals and thousands of needless deaths have exposed a culture that put box-ticking and targets before patient care.

    Some “modernisations” have been a disaster. GPs should not run businesses. They should heal the sick. It’s that simple.

    David Cameron was WRONG to ring-fence NHS spending three years ago.

    It looked good politically but it has held back vital reforms and kept useless pen-pushers in jobs.

    As the population gets older, the problems will get worse.

    The NHS can no longer be a sacred cow which must remain untouched.

    Urgent surgery is required."

    Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/5042756/At-dawn-of-Sun-where-The-Sun-stands-on-issues-vital-to-us-readers-and-Britain.html#ixzz2abJOWKUd






  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Scott_P said:

    Millsy said:

    I think the Conservatives have got all the LD2010 voters they're ever going to get (between 10% and 15% on the adjusted figures) without self-combusting as a party.

    That depends how many 2010 LDs were really Labour voters who didn't like Gordon Brown. Are they really going to get off the sofa to elect Ed Miliband?
    Or were still sore about Iraq and had formed a habit of being LD instead or were redder than Labour as @NickPalmer has noted previously.

    Or of course voters who actually want the Euro, greenie stuff, PR et al. They're stuck at about 10-12pts and bob about for 3rd/4th place with Kippers with YGov. Is this the core vote that will rise to say 15pts when a significant election is on the cards?
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    So Lib Dhimmies are opponents of the rule-of-law. Shame that that stance could not help Michael Brown nor Chris Huhne.

    Liberals my arse....
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    @Financier - thanks for that, I was trying to read it off the graphic and going cross-eyed in the process.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited July 2013
    Financier said:

    " This country needs — and deserves — a strong vision for the next decade, backed by strong leadership to see it through.

    When evidence of that emerges, we will support it."

    The Sun is offering its hand to David Cameron. Why now? What is Rupert's quid pro quo?
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    Financier said:

    Latest YouGov / The Sun results 30th July - Con 34%, Lab 40%, LD 10%, UKIP 12%; APP -29

    The correct figures in this poll are Con 34 Lab 40 LD 11 UKIP 10 . There is a discrepancy between the full data results and the headline description .
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Interesting move - Demos are pushing at what may be an open-door, just not the one many would expect...

    "David Cameron is being urged to stop EU migrants claiming benefits during their first two years in Britain in a radical move to tighten Brussels labour laws. The option is one of several presented to a government review by a left-wing think-tank. Others include capping the numbers of foreign jobseekers, reserving more jobs for British workers and excluding the poorest EU nations altogether.

    ...The think-tank Demos will today raise the stakes over the scale of the overhaul needed. Its submission to the Balance of Competencies Review says that the arrival of more than 1.5 million migrants since 2004, was “the biggest peacetime movement in European history.” It has been a “bewildering development” for many Britons, writes its director David Goodhart, who says that the negative aspects have been underestimated.

    Rather than seeking a UK opt-out, Mr Cameron should make common cause with politicians in countries such as the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and Sweden to offer more protection for native workers, he argues." http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3830055.ece
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,971
    Millsy said:

    I think the Conservatives have got all the LD2010 voters they're ever going to get (between 10% and 15% on the adjusted figures) without self-combusting as a party.

    Don't be so sure. The recent poll of Lib Dem members over David Ward's comments have really pi**ed off Mrs J, along with their recent poor reactions to sexual shenanigans.

    http://www.libdemvoice.org/david-ward-35511.html

    She might still vote Lib Dem if our local candidate is good, but she is also turned off by Labour. If she was to vote Conservative, then it would be a first for her, but she is considering it (although our MP is Lansley).

    Perhaps the Liberal Democrats should drop the 'liberal' part of their name ...
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,441
    Reading through this thread, it's left me wondering why the Greens aren't doing much better.
    Big chunk of lefties protestors available,lots of leftish policies, party unsullied by power so ideal for purists, established home for protest voters. UKIP have picked up more dissatisfied LDs than the Greens . Have the Greens just thrown in the towel or is something else at play ?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited July 2013
    More from that Demos paper.

    “The price the EU pays in terms of unpopularity and mistrust is too high for the relatively modest economic gains associated with unqualified free movement.”

    As well as a two-year limit on benefits it says that Mr Cameron should press for the right to reserve apprenticeships for British youngsters and restrict employment boosting tax-breaks for those that take on native workers. Most controversially, EU countries should be prevented from joining the free labour market until their GDPs are at least 75 per cent of the average, to prevent them exporting unemployment, it suggests.

    The case for reform is further underlined by two research reports published last week for the Migration Advisory Committee, the Home Office body currently studying the impact of foreign workers on Britain’s labour market. Although numbers have slowed from a peak in 2008, the gulf in education between migrant and native jobseekers is growing. “Migrants who have been in the UK for less than five years are on average nine years younger than natives, more than twice as likely to be educated to degree level and more likely to be female,” a paper by Frontier Economics published last week sates.

    The qualification gap was “particularly stark” in lower-paid sectors.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,441

    Financier said:

    " This country needs — and deserves — a strong vision for the next decade, backed by strong leadership to see it through.

    When evidence of that emerges, we will support it."

    The Sun is offering its hand to David Cameron. Why now? What is Rupert's quid pro quo?
    Why does their need to be a quid pro quo ? Revenge is already a strong enough motive.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724

    Reading through this thread, it's left me wondering why the Greens aren't doing much better.
    Big chunk of lefties protestors available,lots of leftish policies, party unsullied by power so ideal for purists, established home for protest voters. UKIP have picked up more dissatisfied LDs than the Greens . Have the Greens just thrown in the towel or is something else at play ?

    Greenies and Kippers disagree violently over AGW and windfarms - I can't imagine many swapping sides on that basis alone.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,441
    Plato said:

    Reading through this thread, it's left me wondering why the Greens aren't doing much better.
    Big chunk of lefties protestors available,lots of leftish policies, party unsullied by power so ideal for purists, established home for protest voters. UKIP have picked up more dissatisfied LDs than the Greens . Have the Greens just thrown in the towel or is something else at play ?

    Greenies and Kippers disagree violently over AGW and windfarms - I can't imagine many swapping sides on that basis alone.
    Of course Miss P. However it strikes me as odd that as the 2010 LD vote fragmented that the Greens haven't been leading beneficiaries. The rightish LDs have trooped off to UKIP and the Leftish ones to Labour, whereas I'd have thought the Greens should have been more of a natural home for protest votes on the Left. Yet the Greens despite having an MP, with a high profile in the media and an established party base, don't seem to have prospered.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708

    The way 2010 Lib Dem voters are being mentioned, anyone would think that their votes will exclusively determine the outcome of the next election. Strikes me as highly unlikely

    Who else do you think is going to do it, Gordon Brown voters for Cameron or Cameron voters for Ed Miliband?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Of course none of these Conservative policy choices work in isolation. They are part of a raft of issues and positions that Cameron is banking on to put together a coalition of diverse voters for another Coalition government or at a stretch a majority :

    1. Overt and dog whistle immigration policy - Reverse Ukip rise.
    2. 2017 EU referendum - Reverse Ukip rise
    3. Limit Labour NHS lead.
    4. Social reforms including gay marriage.
    5. Keep right wing media on side over Leverson.
    6. Be nice to the LibDems - He'll likely need them again.
    7. Depress Labour turnout. The two Ed's back in charge.
    8. Drive differential turnout of potential pro-government voters up - PM Ed !!

    And biggest of all :

    The improving economy in all its guises.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382

    Spot on as ever Edmund

    This is so bloody obvious and we will be proved right on May 7th 2015

    The way 2010 Lib Dem voters are being mentioned, anyone would think that their votes will exclusively determine the outcome of the next election. Strikes me as highly unlikely

    Who else do you think is going to do it, Gordon Brown voters for Cameron or Cameron voters for Ed Miliband?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,441
    tim said:

    Plato said:

    Reading through this thread, it's left me wondering why the Greens aren't doing much better.
    Big chunk of lefties protestors available,lots of leftish policies, party unsullied by power so ideal for purists, established home for protest voters. UKIP have picked up more dissatisfied LDs than the Greens . Have the Greens just thrown in the towel or is something else at play ?

    Greenies and Kippers disagree violently over AGW and windfarms - I can't imagine many swapping sides on that basis alone.
    Of course Miss P. However it strikes me as odd that as the 2010 LD vote fragmented that the Greens haven't been leading beneficiaries. The rightish LDs have trooped off to UKIP and the Leftish ones to Labour, whereas I'd have thought the Greens should have been more of a natural home for protest votes on the Left. Yet the Greens despite having an MP, with a high profile in the media and an established party base, don't seem to have prospered.

    Unlike Tory voters who decamp to UKIP Lib Dem voters understand FPTP
    daft statement tim. Mid term you would expect all the protest parties to be at their zenith. Votes don't really start to concentrate until the last 6 months before the GE.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    @Alanbrooke

    That Labour are the only one of the Big Three in Oppo and are on a pitiful mid-single digit lead with YouGov or even worse with ICM and ComRes is stunning.

    That many in Labour and Leftish LDs are so complacent about it - even more so.

    We are at the supposed high-point for mid-term blues and yet HMG are generally doing rather well as all the pollsters are showing.

    I'm greatly heartened that cross-over appears to be coming much sooner than I hoped for. With 22 months to go, Labour need to pull their finger out, 35% strategy or not.
  • The reason that this van campaign will not work for Dave: nobody believes in it. If he were really bothered about immigration, he'd want to quit the EU. Farage didn't have any embarrassment describing it as 'unpleasant'.

    It is so obviously posturing that even those who are not interested in politics can see it. Ask your 'control groups'.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,441
    edited July 2013

    The reason that this van campaign will not work for Dave: nobody believes in it. If he were really bothered about immigration, he'd want to quit the EU. Farage didn't have any embarrassment describing it as 'unpleasant'.

    It is so obviously posturing that even those who are not interested in politics can see it. Ask your 'control groups'.

    The van campaign isn't meant to work. It's a PR stunt to get people talking and they are.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I disagree - and most voters would prefer to stay in according to most polling.

    I want immigration tackled as I think its harming the low skilled homegrown here, but I don't want to be out of the EU - I want to see it reformed. And its control over us reduced significantly.

    That a large % of our population is Eurosceptic strengthens our hand in the negotiations, as does the attempt by the Tories to get a ref bill on the books.

    The reason that this van campaign will not work for Dave: nobody believes in it. If he were really bothered about immigration, he'd want to quit the EU. Farage didn't have any embarrassment describing it as 'unpleasant'.

    It is so obviously posturing that even those who are not interested in politics can see it. Ask your 'control groups'.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,441
    tim said:

    tim said:

    Plato said:

    Reading through this thread, it's left me wondering why the Greens aren't doing much better.
    Big chunk of lefties protestors available,lots of leftish policies, party unsullied by power so ideal for purists, established home for protest voters. UKIP have picked up more dissatisfied LDs than the Greens . Have the Greens just thrown in the towel or is something else at play ?

    Greenies and Kippers disagree violently over AGW and windfarms - I can't imagine many swapping sides on that basis alone.
    Of course Miss P. However it strikes me as odd that as the 2010 LD vote fragmented that the Greens haven't been leading beneficiaries. The rightish LDs have trooped off to UKIP and the Leftish ones to Labour, whereas I'd have thought the Greens should have been more of a natural home for protest votes on the Left. Yet the Greens despite having an MP, with a high profile in the media and an established party base, don't seem to have prospered.

    Unlike Tory voters who decamp to UKIP Lib Dem voters understand FPTP
    daft statement tim. Mid term you would expect all the protest parties to be at their zenith. Votes don't really start to concentrate until the last 6 months before the GE.
    Obviously you have a point there and I have money on UKIP 5-10%.
    But the scale of the Tory membership loss, many to UKIP is not the usual impact of a protest vote, it's damaging the Tories on the ground.


    except it wasn't UKIP I was talking about, I was talking about the Greens and why they haven't been a bigger beneficiary of the 2010 LD vote. If even UKIP can get votes from the LDs why can't the Greens especially as now's the time to log a protest vote.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    So Lib Dhimmies are opponents of the rule-of-law. Shame that that stance could not help Michael Brown nor Chris Huhne.

    Liberals my arse....

    When did the LDs last have a policy anyway ? Did the laufhing at 15 yr term luvvie senators put them off ?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited July 2013

    The reason that this van campaign will not work for Dave: nobody believes in it. If he were really bothered about immigration, he'd want to quit the EU. Farage didn't have any embarrassment describing it as 'unpleasant'.

    It is so obviously posturing that even those who are not interested in politics can see it. Ask your 'control groups'.

    The van campaign isn't meant to work. It's a PR stunt to get people talking and they are.
    It got more cut-through for £10k than anyone could possibly imagine - in EAV [equivalent advertising value] terms its enormous.

    By getting people talking - its also shown that no one group of voters thinks its racist nor that it was a terrible thing to do on balance. The gap between what gets some all upset and the rest of the population is confirmed yet again.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    @Alanbrooke The Greens are a nasty authoritarian party that wants to control every aspect of the way we live our lives using the environment as the peg
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,441
    tim said:

    The reason that this van campaign will not work for Dave: nobody believes in it. If he were really bothered about immigration, he'd want to quit the EU. Farage didn't have any embarrassment describing it as 'unpleasant'.

    It is so obviously posturing that even those who are not interested in politics can see it. Ask your 'control groups'.

    The van campaign isn't meant to work. It's a PR stunt to get people talking and they are.
    Dave got people talking about immigration and Europe earlier this year -UKIP benefited.
    He can't outflank

    Does he have to try ? All he has to do is make it seem he'll be almost as tough as UKIP rather than keep upping the ante. That will be enough for a lot of voters when combined with the prospect he has a chance to be in Govt. and Farage hasn't.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,441

    @Alanbrooke The Greens are a nasty authoritarian party that wants to control every aspect of the way we live our lives using the environment as the peg

    Sounds like Dave's Conservatives, maybe they'll get more LD votes after all ;-).
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    edited July 2013

    @Alanbrooke The Greens Lib Dems are a nasty authoritarian party that wants to control every aspect of the way we live our lives using the environment debasement of the word Liberal as the peg

    Fixed it for you.
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    Sky showing the fracking protestors. Eerie similarities with the travellers camp a year or so ago. I wonder how many of these protestors actually live in the community?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,850
    Good morning, everyone.

    Would this really be a vote-deciding matter?

    And why are [some] people irked that illegal immigrants are being asked to leave?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited July 2013
    Blue_rog said:

    Sky showing the fracking protestors. Eerie similarities with the travellers camp a year or so ago. I wonder how many of these protestors actually live in the community?

    Very few from what I've seen and read. Most of them are serial Occupy/treehuggers who move from photo-op to another. Someone did a quick check on the most vocal and they're mostly residents at least 15-25 miles away. I could pop along and claim to be a local on that basis.

    I spent many evenings in the Balcombe Social Club - and lost a lot of games of bar billiards. It was a genuine club/need to be signed in where the locals looked at you through narrowed eyes until you'd been several dozen times and even then, you weren't one-of-us.
  • The reason that this van campaign will not work for Dave: nobody believes in it. If he were really bothered about immigration, he'd want to quit the EU. Farage didn't have any embarrassment describing it as 'unpleasant'.

    It is so obviously posturing that even those who are not interested in politics can see it. Ask your 'control groups'.

    The van campaign isn't meant to work. It's a PR stunt to get people talking and they are.
    They are talking. And that certainly helps UKIP.

    'Vote UKIP---get more of what you want'
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Re: The Sun 'Manifesto' - What We Stand For.

    This is an example to all political parties of how to write a manifesto and even an election pamphlet.

    It is concise, it uses simple English that all can understand, it contains humour and it is written in a positive manner and a way that can appeal to the reader.

    Above all it is unambiguous and not hedged with caveats - like we would like to do this but the ECHR/EU/Coalition Part/Judges etc wont let us.

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    tim said:

    tim said:

    Plato said:

    Reading through this thread, it's left me wondering why the Greens aren't doing much better.
    Big chunk of lefties protestors available,lots of leftish policies, party unsullied by power so ideal for purists, established home for protest voters. UKIP have picked up more dissatisfied LDs than the Greens . Have the Greens just thrown in the towel or is something else at play ?

    Greenies and Kippers disagree violently over AGW and windfarms - I can't imagine many swapping sides on that basis alone.
    Of course Miss P. However it strikes me as odd that as the 2010 LD vote fragmented that the Greens haven't been leading beneficiaries. The rightish LDs have trooped off to UKIP and the Leftish ones to Labour, whereas I'd have thought the Greens should have been more of a natural home for protest votes on the Left. Yet the Greens despite having an MP, with a high profile in the media and an established party base, don't seem to have prospered.

    Unlike Tory voters who decamp to UKIP Lib Dem voters understand FPTP
    daft statement tim. Mid term you would expect all the protest parties to be at their zenith. Votes don't really start to concentrate until the last 6 months before the GE.
    Obviously you have a point there and I have money on UKIP 5-10%.
    But the scale of the Tory membership loss, many to UKIP is not the usual impact of a protest vote, it's damaging the Tories on the ground.


    If even UKIP can get votes from the LDs why can't the Greens
    I was under the impression that the Greens were picking up similar levels of 2010 Lib Dems. I'm sure someone can check (I can't right now).
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    The Tories will never win over those voters who have said they will vote Labour since the Coalition was formed, but previously voted Lib Dem. These people regard the Tories as anathema.

    However, having a dispute with the Lib Dems over immigration might help to convince these voters that the Lib Dems are not merely Tory poodles, and so win some of these voters back to the Lib Dems away from Labour - and that would help the Tories providing it happens in the right seats.

    It is the differentiation strategy that Edmund in Tokyo has been going on about for some time.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724

    The reason that this van campaign will not work for Dave: nobody believes in it. If he were really bothered about immigration, he'd want to quit the EU. Farage didn't have any embarrassment describing it as 'unpleasant'.

    It is so obviously posturing that even those who are not interested in politics can see it. Ask your 'control groups'.

    The van campaign isn't meant to work. It's a PR stunt to get people talking and they are.
    They are talking. And that certainly helps UKIP.

    'Vote UKIP---get more of what you want'
    Again I disagree - when another party starts to park its tanks on your lawn and has more opportunity to actually change things - it doesn't increase the Kipper vote - it eats away at those who are concerned, but prefer clinging to nurse ie Tories.

    It's just how people behave.
  • Plato said:

    I disagree - and most voters would prefer to stay in according to most polling.

    I want immigration tackled as I think its harming the low skilled homegrown here, but I don't want to be out of the EU - I want to see it reformed. And its control over us reduced significantly.

    That a large % of our population is Eurosceptic strengthens our hand in the negotiations, as does the attempt by the Tories to get a ref bill on the books.


    The reason that this van campaign will not work for Dave: nobody believes in it. If he were really bothered about immigration, he'd want to quit the EU. Farage didn't have any embarrassment describing it as 'unpleasant'.

    It is so obviously posturing that even those who are not interested in politics can see it. Ask your 'control groups'.

    The one thing that strengthens our hand with the EU is....a strong UKIP. The best way to improve the deal we get from the EU is to vote UKIP (even if you'd vote to to stay in the EU in the referendum).

    Its like voting SNP, even if you'd vote to stay in the Union. It improves the deals available.

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Blue_rog said:

    Sky showing the fracking protestors. Eerie similarities with the travellers camp a year or so ago. I wonder how many of these protestors actually live in the community?

    Of course we know the local community is strongly against fracking.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    The Conservatives' way of squaring this circle is to campaign not on wedge issues but on competence. Every move should be pondered on whether it is more or less likely to make them look like a party of capable government.

    On that test this poster campaign fails dismally, since it looks amateurish and fairly silly.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Financier said:

    Re: The Sun 'Manifesto' - What We Stand For.

    This is an example to all political parties of how to write a manifesto and even an election pamphlet.

    It is concise, it uses simple English that all can understand, it contains humour and it is written in a positive manner and a way that can appeal to the reader.

    Above all it is unambiguous and not hedged with caveats - like we would like to do this but the ECHR/EU/Coalition Part/Judges etc wont let us.

    I totally agree - Tim Monty wrote his 5pt plan for the Tories in the Times a couple of days ago and I got bored within the first 3 paragraphs.

    Writing top quality tabloidese is a real art and very hard to do. Saying something compelling, entertaining and with a punch in 100 words rather than 500 words is a greatly under appreciated talent.
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    Neil said:

    Blue_rog said:

    Sky showing the fracking protestors. Eerie similarities with the travellers camp a year or so ago. I wonder how many of these protestors actually live in the community?

    Of course we know the local community is strongly against fracking.
    I think they're occupants from the 'desolate' NE and they're hoping to frighten off the developers so they go to the NE and take the jobs with them.
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    Plato said:

    Financier said:

    Re: The Sun 'Manifesto' - What We Stand For.

    This is an example to all political parties of how to write a manifesto and even an election pamphlet.

    It is concise, it uses simple English that all can understand, it contains humour and it is written in a positive manner and a way that can appeal to the reader.

    Above all it is unambiguous and not hedged with caveats - like we would like to do this but the ECHR/EU/Coalition Part/Judges etc wont let us.

    I totally agree - Tim Monty wrote his 5pt plan for the Tories in the Times a couple of days ago and I got bored within the first 3 paragraphs.

    Writing top quality tabloidese is a real art and very hard to do. Saying something compelling, entertaining and with a punch in 100 words rather than 500 words is a greatly under appreciated talent.
    Perhaps the political spinners should employ the twitterati to get short punchy messages to communicate :-)
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,441
    edited July 2013
    @ David Kendrick

    recent polling would tend to suggest otherwise. I'd suggest the biggest problem now facing UKIP is Dave has stopped the war with his own party for the time being at least.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    A perfect Mail story.

    The Fifty Shades of Grey series of erotic novels are the favorite reading material among former CIA captives being held at the notorious Guantanamo detention camp, it has emerged.

    U.S. congressman Jim Moran made the revelation after touring Camp 7, the top-security facility that holds more than a dozen 'high-value' prisoners.

    The Democratic Representative of Virginia said the bestselling book by British author E. L. James was the most requested book - even beating the Koran. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2381429/Fifty-Shades-Grey--Koran--requested-book-Guantanamo-Bay.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,441
    tim said:

    tim said:

    The reason that this van campaign will not work for Dave: nobody believes in it. If he were really bothered about immigration, he'd want to quit the EU. Farage didn't have any embarrassment describing it as 'unpleasant'.

    It is so obviously posturing that even those who are not interested in politics can see it. Ask your 'control groups'.

    The van campaign isn't meant to work. It's a PR stunt to get people talking and they are.
    Dave got people talking about immigration and Europe earlier this year -UKIP benefited.
    He can't outflank

    Does he have to try ? All he has to do is make it seem he'll be almost as tough as UKIP rather than keep upping the ante. That will be enough for a lot of voters when combined with the prospect he has a chance to be in Govt. and Farage hasn't.

    He can't be as tough as UKIP because he wants to let 29 Million Romanians and Bulgarians in.

    So the stunts will get more and more ludicrous as he tries to blur that issue.
    We saw at the weekend his migration policy is based on a tourism survey (ok a bigger one than the TripAdvisor hospital one) but they'll still claim that making Indians paying £3k bonds is evidence based to appeal to the squalid right.
    your problem on arguing this line is you don't understand the perspective of people who want contolled immigration. Most righties want a controlled system responding to national need rather than Labour's system of ut venient. So scare stories will excite the kippers but not really worry anybody else.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,685
    Much of that Sun manifesto is meaningless or idiotic.

    They argue for strong leadership and vision. As if anyone would disagree.
    They say the NHS should not be untouchable and at the same time attack modernisation. Arguably it has been touched rather a lot.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,773

    @Alanbrooke The Greens are a nasty authoritarian party that wants to control every aspect of the way we live our lives using the environment as the peg

    Too true OGH. Basically they just want us to have less freedoms and have less fun, and have less money. That's not really a recipe for electoral success.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Plato said:

    Financier said:

    Re: The Sun 'Manifesto' - What We Stand For.

    This is an example to all political parties of how to write a manifesto and even an election pamphlet.

    It is concise, it uses simple English that all can understand, it contains humour and it is written in a positive manner and a way that can appeal to the reader.

    Above all it is unambiguous and not hedged with caveats - like we would like to do this but the ECHR/EU/Coalition Part/Judges etc wont let us.

    I totally agree - Tim Monty wrote his 5pt plan for the Tories in the Times a couple of days ago and I got bored within the first 3 paragraphs.

    Writing top quality tabloidese is a real art and very hard to do. Saying something compelling, entertaining and with a punch in 100 words rather than 500 words is a greatly under appreciated talent.
    Labour's pledge card was a fine example.

    Some 20 or 30 years ago the Sun published a collection of its front covers. I took a couple into a Daily Mirror pub and the Mirror hacks were all over them.

    It always used to be said that the best exemplar of concise summarising was the non-financial news in the Financial Times.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited July 2013
    As OGH never tires of reminding us on Europe - salience is key - so what do 2010 Lib Dems worry about:

    Issues affecting Country (me/my family)
    Economy: 74 (61)
    Immigration: 33 (9)

    So how far ahead is Labour on the Economy, given that 32% of 2010 Lib Dems say they are now going to vote for them?

    Which party could handle better - Lab vs Con:
    The economy: +4
    Immigration: -4

    Compared with Lab's lead among 2010 Lib Dems on other areas that's very close:

    Law & Order: -11
    Education: +11
    Tax: +14
    Unemployment: +23
    Europe: +4

    There's a phrase I'm trying to recall......
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Jonathan said:

    Much of that Sun manifesto is meaningless or idiotic.

    They argue for strong leadership and vision. As if anyone would disagree.
    They say the NHS should not be untouchable and at the same time attack modernisation. Arguably it has been touched rather a lot.

    @Jonathan

    You may say so but I doubt if the average Sun reader would agree with you.

    The Sun are very good at knowing their readership, what they want and what they will accept (and that includes Page3).
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Neil said:

    tim said:

    tim said:

    Plato said:

    Reading through this thread, it's left me wondering why the Greens aren't doing much better.
    Big chunk of lefties protestors available,lots of leftish policies, party unsullied by power so ideal for purists, established home for protest voters. UKIP have picked up more dissatisfied LDs than the Greens . Have the Greens just thrown in the towel or is something else at play ?

    Greenies and Kippers disagree violently over AGW and windfarms - I can't imagine many swapping sides on that basis alone.
    Of course Miss P. However it strikes me as odd that as the 2010 LD vote fragmented that the Greens haven't been leading beneficiaries. The rightish LDs have trooped off to UKIP and the Leftish ones to Labour, whereas I'd have thought the Greens should have been more of a natural home for protest votes on the Left. Yet the Greens despite having an MP, with a high profile in the media and an established party base, don't seem to have prospered.

    Unlike Tory voters who decamp to UKIP Lib Dem voters understand FPTP
    daft statement tim. Mid term you would expect all the protest parties to be at their zenith. Votes don't really start to concentrate until the last 6 months before the GE.
    Obviously you have a point there and I have money on UKIP 5-10%.
    But the scale of the Tory membership loss, many to UKIP is not the usual impact of a protest vote, it's damaging the Tories on the ground.


    If even UKIP can get votes from the LDs why can't the Greens
    I was under the impression that the Greens were picking up similar levels of 2010 Lib Dems. I'm sure someone can check (I can't right now).
    Nope: 2010 Lib Dems:
    Con: 12
    Lab: 32
    Lib Dem: 39
    UKIP: 9
    Green: 3
    SNP/PC: 2


  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,543
    The Tory strategy, as I understand it, has three stages:

    1. 2013 - shore up the Tory vote. Get the frothy UKIP defectors back.
    2. 2014 - undermine Labour. Attack Miliband and claim Labour not ready for government. Claim huge credit for any economic improvements.
    3. 2015 - go centrist, claim to be government for all the people. Win.

    The Labour strategy is broadly:

    1. 2013 - rubbish the Government. Not that they're evil, just that they're useless. Solidify the left LD vote. Avoid commitments.
    2. 2014 - make carefully-funded populist policy commitments to win some centrist ex-Tories and floating voters. Win the spring conference and build image of steady determination. Attack falling living standards.
    3. 2015 - go centrist, claim to be government-in-waiting for all the people. Win.

    Both 2013 strategies are working fairly well. In particular, as Mike notes, the Tory strategy is both recovering the UKIP vote and reinforcing the ex-LD Labour vote. Because the UKIP defections were larger and frothier, that effect is larger so the overall lead is narrowing. Strategically, though, the Tory problem is harder - they've had to move right for stage 1, and a lot of centre-left voters now won't give them a hearing at all. Yet if the centre-left bloc isn't eroded, Labour wins.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    if the centre-left bloc isn't eroded, Labour wins.

    The good news for Tories is that Ed is doing his level best to erode the centre-left bloc.

    Save Ed!
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    And given that the Sun is about to go Paywall - its clearly a big nudge to their own readers what to expect if they sign up to pay for it online as well as offline.

    As mission statements go - its very comprehensive and very clear.
    Financier said:

    Jonathan said:

    Much of that Sun manifesto is meaningless or idiotic.

    They argue for strong leadership and vision. As if anyone would disagree.
    They say the NHS should not be untouchable and at the same time attack modernisation. Arguably it has been touched rather a lot.

    @Jonathan

    You may say so but I doubt if the average Sun reader would agree with you.

    The Sun are very good at knowing their readership, what they want and what they will accept (and that includes Page3).
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,850
    Mr. Palmer, those are some interesting strategy thoughts. An issue for Labour might be the funding of populist policies. I know you highlighted the need for them to be careful in this area, but a significant danger is if Labour seem a bit spendthrift.

    I also agree that the Conservatives are in a peculiar position. Those on the right of the right and/or who are rightwing and feel let down can go to UKIP (may return to the blues if they're more anti-Labour than pro-UKIP come the GE), right-friendly lefties could go for Clegg's Lib Dems and lefty lefties would never vote Conservative anyway.

    The Coalition has made things weird for all the parties, to a greater or lesser extent.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,685
    Financier said:

    Jonathan said:

    Much of that Sun manifesto is meaningless or idiotic.

    They argue for strong leadership and vision. As if anyone would disagree.
    They say the NHS should not be untouchable and at the same time attack modernisation. Arguably it has been touched rather a lot.

    @Jonathan

    You may say so but I doubt if the average Sun reader would agree with you.

    The Sun are very good at knowing their readership, what they want and what they will accept (and that includes Page3).
    It matters that it doesn't stand up to a moments scrutiny, let alone the scrutiny to which real manifestos are subjected.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @IanDunt
    Cameron's Grazia interview. Shapps pre-election speech. Even Osborne's father-in-law is on front pages. Where is Labour?
    One other thing that Shapps’ speech is a reminder of is how oddly quiet Labour is being for an opposition party in summer. Normally—and especially less than two years out from a general election—oppositions try and make hay in the summer, embarrassing the government on a host of issues. But with the exception of Andy Burnham on 111, Labour has been oddly quiet.
    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/07/shappss-trinity-of-labour-weaknesses/
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited July 2013
    @NickPalmer

    1. 2013 - rubbish the Government. Not that they're evil, just that they're useless. Solidify the left LD vote. Avoid commitments.

    2. 2014 - make carefully-funded populist policy commitments to win some centrist ex-Tories and floating voters. Win the spring conference and build image of steady determination. Attack falling living standards.

    3.... Win.

    4. Wake up and discover this didn't happen because the public don't like Ed Balls and think EdM is weak.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    @Alanbrooke The Greens are a nasty authoritarian party that wants to control every aspect of the way we live our lives using the environment as the peg

    Too true OGH. Basically they just want us to have less freedoms and have less fun, and have less money. That's not really a recipe for electoral success.
    But the Green party is the party most likely to come out for legalising crystal meth. If you can't have more fun in those circumstances then it's not our fault.
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    Today at midday the Tory Euro lists will be revealed.

    So in afternoon we can agree on who is already renewing his Bruxelles office contracts, who has a chance and who can book an holiday for summer 2014.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    And in return for the Bedroom Tax - Shapps is being equally misleading, but unfortunately this stuff sticks as its almost believable.

    "There are also attacks on what the Tories believe to be the trinity of Labour weaknesses: the economy, welfare and immigration. Shapps argues that Labour’s spending plans would lead to higher mortgage rates.

    He claims that Labour would make claiming benefits a human rights, a reference to this story, and that this could lead to ‘prisoners – serving a life sentence at Her Majesty’s Pleasure to be entitled to housing benefit’; a claim that is certain to infuriate Labour. He also argues that under Labour, immigration would start going up again."

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/07/shappss-trinity-of-labour-weaknesses/
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019

    The Labour strategy is broadly:

    3. 2015 - go centrist, claim to be government-in-waiting for all the people. Win.

    (tongue firmly in cheek) I think you might be on to something there Nick :-)
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,441
    tim said:

    tim said:

    tim said:

    The reason that this van campaign will not work for Dave: nobody believes in it. If he were really bothered about immigration, he'd want to quit the EU. Farage didn't have any embarrassment describing it as 'unpleasant'.

    It is so obviously posturing that even those who are not interested in politics can see it. Ask your 'control groups'.

    The van campaign isn't meant to work. It's a PR stunt to get people talking and they are.
    Dave got people talking about immigration and Europe earlier this year -UKIP benefited.
    He can't outflank

    Does he have to try ? of voters when combined with the prospect he has a chance to be in Govt. and Farage hasn't.

    He can't be as tough as UKIP because he wants to let 29 Million Romanians and Bulgarians in.


    your problem on arguing this line is you don't understand the perspective of people who want contolled immigration. Most righties want a controlled system responding to national need rather than Labour's system of ut venient. So scare stories will excite the kippers but not really worry anybody else.

    I understand what happened in the polls last time Cameron tried to talk tough on immigration.
    Salience of immigration jumped by 20% among Tory voters and the UKIP polling rose substantially.
    Last month immigration salience fell among Tories for the first rime in 6 months by 10% and the UKIP VI fell with it.
    Go and look at the Ipsos MORI issues index

    Dave getting Tories excited about immigration helps UKIP
    You're sort of making my original point, he doesn't have to be more anti than UKIP just tough enough to convey, message understood. Voters can choose between Cameron who has a chance of being PM and Farage who is condemned to stand on the sidelines performing PR tricks whoever gets in. And of course we have yet to see what Ed has to say on the matter, we may yet get a nostra culpa from him.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,291
    edited July 2013
    In Mr. Lympe-Pole's absence, it is my solemn duty to report that

    THE GOOD NEWS KEEPS ON COMING

    http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/uk-economy-close-escape-velocity-115822178.html
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699

    Neil said:

    tim said:

    tim said:

    Plato said:

    Reading through this thread, it's left me wondering why the Greens aren't doing much better.
    Big chunk of lefties protestors available,lots of leftish policies, party unsullied by power so ideal for purists, established home for protest voters. UKIP have picked up more dissatisfied LDs than the Greens . Have the Greens just thrown in the towel or is something else at play ?

    Greenies and Kippers disagree violently over AGW and windfarms - I can't imagine many swapping sides on that basis alone.
    Of course Miss P. However it strikes me as odd that as the 2010 LD vote fragmented that the Greens haven't been leading beneficiaries. The rightish LDs have trooped off to UKIP and the Leftish ones to Labour, whereas I'd have thought the Greens should have been more of a natural home for protest votes on the Left. Yet the Greens despite having an MP, with a high profile in the media and an established party base, don't seem to have prospered.

    Unlike Tory voters who decamp to UKIP Lib Dem voters understand FPTP
    daft statement tim. Mid term you would expect all the protest parties to be at their zenith. Votes don't really start to concentrate until the last 6 months before the GE.
    Obviously you have a point there and I have money on UKIP 5-10%.
    But the scale of the Tory membership loss, many to UKIP is not the usual impact of a protest vote, it's damaging the Tories on the ground.


    If even UKIP can get votes from the LDs why can't the Greens
    I was under the impression that the Greens were picking up similar levels of 2010 Lib Dems. I'm sure someone can check (I can't right now).
    Nope: 2010 Lib Dems:
    Con: 12
    Lab: 32
    Lib Dem: 39
    UKIP: 9
    Green: 3
    SNP/PC: 2


    Those figures are NOT CORRECT , they do not include the Won't Vote and Don't Knows ( in this poll 26% ) so the correct figures are roughly
    Con 9
    Lab 24
    LD 30
    UKIP 7
    Others 4
    DK/WV 26

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Blue_rog said:

    The Labour strategy is broadly:

    claim to be government-in-waiting for all the people benefit scroungers, illegal immigrants, tax-payer funded Union officials, and hereditary Labour candidates. Win!
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    That jump in Health (diff vs July 1/2) - across the board, except for.......

    Issues Facing Country - Health:
    OA: 41 (+10)
    Con: 35 (+12)
    Lab: 50 (+10)
    LibD: 49 (+21)
    UKIP: 24 (+3)
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    @Neil

    by my count, 24 Labour Southwark Cllrs out of 35 will stand again in 2014. That's 68%
    In Hackney it's 31 out of 49 (63%), in Greenwich 27 out of 39 (69%), in Brent 29 out of 41 (70%), in Newham 41 out of 60 (70%).
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,971
    Plato said:

    Blue_rog said:

    Sky showing the fracking protestors. Eerie similarities with the travellers camp a year or so ago. I wonder how many of these protestors actually live in the community?

    Very few from what I've seen and read. Most of them are serial Occupy/treehuggers who move from photo-op to another. Someone did a quick check on the most vocal and they're mostly residents at least 15-25 miles away. I could pop along and claim to be a local on that basis.

    I spent many evenings in the Balcombe Social Club - and lost a lot of games of bar billiards. It was a genuine club/need to be signed in where the locals looked at you through narrowed eyes until you'd been several dozen times and even then, you weren't one-of-us.
    I think this lot of protesters are fairly pants, but support their right to protest. It would be nice if they stuck to the fact and weren't stupidly alarmist (Oh my God, they've had to get a nuclear waste licence!)

    However the 15-25 miles comment is a bit misleading. As I understand it, the current controversy is over a drill site in a village, presumably to check underlying conditions. No fracking will be taking place.

    But given steerable drills (they can drill long distances horizontally as well as vertically), and the threat of more sites, I can see why they'd want to nip it in the bud early before it gets to their home areas.

    Oh, and if you want really despicable Green nuttery:
    https://earthfirst.org.uk/actionreports/content/sabotage-nuclear-train-france

    Incredible.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    I always find it strange that given their age profile UKIP supporters have so little interest in health.

    That jump in Health (diff vs July 1/2) - across the board, except for.......

    Issues Facing Country - Health:
    OA: 41 (+10)
    Con: 35 (+12)
    Lab: 50 (+10)
    LibD: 49 (+21)
    UKIP: 24 (+3)

  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    @NickPalmer

    Your point of "win the Spring Conference" contains massive assumptions and uncertainties.

    How certain is it that McCluskey will toe the line, accept opt-in and continue to fund Labour. Does Labour have a Plan B for financial security - and the race to the bottom or public funding is not the answer.

    If McCluskey storms out in a huff, what is the likelihood that he will: join SWP, set up a TU party or something else?

    Also, like all the front benches, the general public view EDM and his front bench as out-of-touch and live in a world that is so detached (in manner as well as experience) from their problems that they do not comprehend. Will this lead to more NOTA in 2015 after a rise in turnout in 2010?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,850
    Morris Dancer's Historical Guide to Winning:

    The Alexander the Great Route:
    1) Hone your skills whilst a teenager.
    2) Kill and replace the previous leader.
    3) Inspire your men by fighting in the frontline alongside them.
    4) Enable your lieutenants to exercise a degree of autonomy (Parmenio, Craterus etc). Remember to kill them if you suspect they might be thinking of enacting step 2) themselves.
    5) Recognise the weakness in the enemy. Trust your lieutenants to hold the line whilst you hammer the weakness and target the enemy leader directly. Kill him or force him to flee.

    Actually, I started writing this in a silly way, but strong lieutenants (like a strong secondary cast in a book) is actually very important. Despite the historical problems with describing a man's loyal friends as a Praetorian Guard there is no equivalent unit for Miliband. Is there even an equivalent individual?

    Cameroons are thin on the ground, but Osborne, Gove and perhaps Hague spring to mind.

    Alexander had a large number, including top class generals like Craterus and Parmenio. Whilst the Great man deserves his credit, he would not have had the freedom to leave behind certain cities and forge ahead without reliable, skilled and intelligent men to maintain siegeworks and take them by storm, if possible.

    I think 5) is a point that the Conservatives foolishly slackened on against Brown (at the height of his unpopularity) and perhaps Miliband likewise. The best time to kick a man is when he's down.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,291
    So NickP and Mike S explain this: if the Tories were 10% behind Labour before UKIP's take-off, why are they are now only trailing by around 5% despite the purples still being in double figures?

    And why shouldn't that swingback accelerate if the economy (by far the greatest determinant of voting behaviour) continue to improve over the next 18 months?
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    It all started John with Weybridge South
    JohnO said:

    In Mr. Lympe-Pole's absence, it is my solemn duty to report that

    THE GOOD NEWS KEEPS ON COMING

    http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/uk-economy-close-escape-velocity-115822178.html

  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,291
    edited July 2013
    Financier said:

    @NickPalmer

    Your point of "win the Spring Conference" contains massive assumptions and uncertainties.

    How certain is it that McCluskey will toe the line, accept opt-in and continue to fund Labour. Does Labour have a Plan B for financial security - and the race to the bottom or public funding is not the answer.

    If McCluskey storms out in a huff, what is the likelihood that he will: join SWP, set up a TU party or something else?

    Also, like all the front benches, the general public view EDM and his front bench as out-of-touch and live in a world that is so detached (in manner as well as experience) from their problems that they do not comprehend. Will this lead to more NOTA in 2015 after a rise in turnout in 2010?

    Oh, Ed will 'win' next spring but we await to see precisely what is being proposed. i doubt whether it will do him or Labour much good (unlike Blair and Clause IV). No chance of McCluskey or UNITE defecting. Not a chance - forget that one.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited July 2013
    Perhaps that shows through in 'issues affecting me/my family':

    Health
    OA: 38 (+3)
    Con: 38 (+5)
    Lab: 41 (+1)
    LibD: 32 (-2)
    UKIP: 38 (+7)

    So UKIP voters worry about it on behalf of themselves, but not the country.....

    I always find it strange that given their age profile UKIP supporters have so little interest in health.

    That jump in Health (diff vs July 1/2) - across the board, except for.......

    Issues Facing Country - Health:
    OA: 41 (+10)
    Con: 35 (+12)
    Lab: 50 (+10)
    LibD: 49 (+21)
    UKIP: 24 (+3)

  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    test
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    That's very much Mr Hodges point that EdM doesn't have a Praetorian Guard nevermind outriders.

    Morris Dancer's Historical Guide to Winning:

  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    edited July 2013
    @MarkSenior
    and on the same basis for last night's Comres Poll
    2010 LD voters now in %

    Con 7
    Lab 20
    LD 35
    UKIP 3
    Others 5
    Refused/DK 30

    My impression is that the number of LD to Lab switchers is slowly declining and moving to DK but more analysis is needed and I haven't got the time to do it now .
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    Barclays Bank fiasco shows that Britain urgently needs to cut the umbilical cord to financial services sector.

    The Canary Wharf welfare queens need to be cut loose. An FTT needs to be introduced pronto and the whole sector shrunk.
  • Why not view the data in the article as the fact that up to 31% of the infamous 2010 LDs could vote Conservative and not LD because of the LD stance on immigration? That is about 7% of those voting. It would also seal the fate of about 20 LD MPs.
This discussion has been closed.