Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Ipsos MORI guide to what happened segment by segment at GE
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Ipsos MORI guide to what happened segment by segment at GE2017
This morning Ipsos MORI produced their regular analysis of what happened segment by segment at GE2017. The firm has been doing this at every election for many years and it is generally regarded as a leading source ahead of the full BES study.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The thing is that they do need to be tackled, especially the triple lock. How can that be done when giveaways to the electorate seem to work?
But, they took a beating among the 35-44 year olds, and a lot of pensioners stayed at home, and that cost them their majority.
Pensioners who are receiving all the perks (WFA, bus passes, TV licences, etc) Should continue to receive them as it's mean to take them away when they are used to them.
However the perks shouldn't be offered to new pensioners... Nature will ensure that eventually all the perks stop...
The triple lock is a more difficult question though.
This isn't what the table says, but it is true if you consider LAB+LD =Anti-Tory Block
Those 55 and over were able to vote in GE1979. Those in the group 45-59 came of age during the Thatcher years. The conservatives were very unpopular with young voters in the 80s
The Conservatives carried 45-54 year olds. I've read that 47 is the age at which more people started voting Conservative than labour.
Now that the average pensioner income has moved up to being much more in line with average earnings, replace it with a commitment that the pension will increase in line with earnings every year.
Bus passes are a subsidy to the transport sector not to pensioners - that's a different decision.
TV licenses should be up to the BBC if they want to continue this. Not something for the government.
Anyway, must be off.
But I do agree that tactical voting is very much on the up. I was surprised that "tribal loyalty" scored as highly as it did as a reason to vote but it was still only just over 10%.
They need to have more popular policies, and the voters will come. It will always happen in a two party system. It might mean a Corbyn goverment at some point, but policical parties always renew and reform (just not maybe staying in office when they do).
My reading of this is that the Tories lost mothers with kids still at home, in particular.
I heard from my wife that the cancellation of free school lunches was particularly unpopular. "Breakfasts" didn't cut it because giving their kids breakfast is one of the few bonding times working parents have with their children in the morning, and they both relish that and expect the school to provide lunch.
They also quite like Corbyn.
On the other hand, I met plenty of men in their 30s and 40s (and it was always men) on the doorstep who had nothing but vitriol for Corbyn.
I do think the Tories were confident (arrogant?) enough to think that they were going to win no matter what so putting in things that needed to be addressed but would not necessarily be popular was a good way of ensuring they could not be attacked for them afterwards.
In principle this was a good idea and I did wonder about whether this was what they were doing at the time. In practice it relied upon having both a good handle on what the polls were really saying at the start of the election and a good handle on what the effect would be of introducing so many potentially unpopular issues. Clearly the Tories were way out on one or both of these.
Also, generation money piñata for greedy baby boomers.
That's extraordinary.
Among 18-24 year olds, Labour increased its vote share much more among women than men. - is this because more girls go to university than boys?
However, only half of 2015 Liberal Democrat voters stuck with the party this time (30% went to Labour, 15% to the Conservatives) - The reason why bets on Clegg and Mulholland to lose their seats to Labour came good.
Today's Corbynista millennials will all be greedy Tories in 2050!
Meanwhile, they hope Corbyn/McDonnell overreach themselves and blow-up, by milking the Far-Left insurrection stuff to a degree that really scares people.
It's probably only a 25-30% shot, but there is a shot there of Labour going backwards and the Conservatives clocking a small overall majority in GE2022.
However, the problem was that the policies, especially the social care changes, were not explained properly. No groundwork had been done to set the scene in the run-up to the manifesto appearing, and Conservative MPs, and even ministers, were caught unawares. Even that might not have been too disastrous, but to compound the problem there was no attempt to appear in the media to explain the proposal, until it was too late - the opposition had already successfully and devastatingly painted it as the 'dementia tax' (despite it being the exact opposite). It was a textbook example of how not to announce a policy in an area which is inevitably controversial.
Tenure (change in brackets):
Social renters - Conservatives 26% (+8 pp), Labour 57% (+8 pp)
Private renters - Conservatives 31% (+3 pp), Labour 54% (+15 pp)
Edit: Though I suspect London accounts for a lot of the swing in the private renters vote.
Edit. You will also feel more strongly about the issue when your children are involved, rather than a nice to have for the population at large. So grammar schools are a strong negative for a minority of the population and a slight positive for a majority, maybe.
25-34 males - Conservatives -5 pp and Labour +20 pp
I went to a state grammar school myself, and used to be a firm supporter. Now I don't think it's the right way to go having seen the very good comprehensives that my children go to, which can work very well for bright kids. But this issue alone would not sway my vote, not by a long chalk.
mind you what do I know - I thought a borderline-communist terrorist supporter wouldn't get over 25%...
Apart from anything else I'm scared to complain too much because I don't have security of tenure. I know that they can just give notice and we'll have to find somewhere else to rent. And another deposit. And moving costs.
What I would expect next time around is a significant increase in the number of Labour seats in Scotland mainly but not exclusively at the expense of the SNP. Labour in Scotland are, in my judgement, on their way back.
I wouldn't mind signing up to that, as a landlord. But I'd probably want better references and guarantees, and a higher rent.
Oops
I think as long as Corbyn himself is there, there will be a sizeable anti-Corbyn turnout (not sure whether it will be enough to stop a Lab government, but it will probably prevent any Labour majority) - but if Corbyn can pick a left wing successor without the baggage, it could be very bad for the Tories.
I could easily have failed the 11+, but I reckon I'd have got the same GCSE results at a secondary modern.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-iain-duncan-smith-boundary-changes-set-for-labour-defeat-electoral-calculus_uk_59482f87e4b0edb84c14d20f
So I'd really like to see the economy producing some better investment opportunities than buy-to-let.
Lots of comments like "what kind of woman enjoys ripping animals to shreds?"
I think that's largely presentational, and both would legally amount to more or less the same thing in the short-term.
He ought to have been one of those British military commanders who combined superb bad judgement with total unfitness to lead, leading to the Fall of Singapore, or the First Afghan War.
Seems amazing to me that Tory MPs are buying the idea that it was all down to the SpADs.
Of course, Theresa May deserves lots of criticism for keeping them in place and following their advice.
You could probably buy an ok 2-bedroom terrace house in the North, now, if you had £10k of savings to cover 5% deposit, stamp duty, legal fees and moving costs, and get a very affordable mortgage on it.
But, you'd have to live in the North. In the South, forget it.
I like David Herdson's quip that he looks just like Lord Salisbury, and there the analogy ends.
If it means less landlords and more properties go on the market - even if prices drop - then that would be a good thing.
I think young women found him cuddly and avuncular.
That said, yougov, which got it bang-on, did record similarish leads in early April.
We could blame Martin Boon for fun. Particularly since he annoyed me greatly on more than one occasion.
1) Labour is led by Corbyn, who is off-the-scale batshit lefty toxic
2) So we are going to win big
3) But for numerous reasons in the next 5 years we will be in a tough place financially
4) So let's put some "hard choices" in the manifesto
5) We will still win comfortably
It all rather fell down because (1) turned out not to be true and (2) the campaign was off-the-scale crap
Even with Corbynmania and maintaining the unpopular policies it could still have ended up with a Tory majority of 50-odd, if only the campaign (and Theresa) has not been so calamitously piss poor.
For example a properly explained policy around taking winter fuel payments off richer pensioners could have been sold just fine. But they messed the presentation of it all up SOOO badly it beggars belief :-(
In fact...
http://tinyurl.com/yba426bj
Uncanny.
All my mortgage applications show warnings that you should "consider if you could afford this mortgage if interest rates went up to 10% or 11%", and then illustrate the eye-watering amount it would cost were this the case.
Of course, no-one could afford virtually any mortgage at that level, and they know this.