Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If EdM retains the 2010 LD>LAB switchers then it is job wel
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If EdM retains the 2010 LD>LAB switchers then it is job well done
EdM at TUC
Only thing that matters electorally is that LAB keeps 2010 LDs who've switched
My view: nothing's changed pic.twitter.com/8mAI3VMgS2
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
• A ComRes poll for ITV has found that 68% of people think trade unions should spend less time involved in national politics. Only 12% said they they did not agree with that proposition. But the poll also found general support for unions. Some 49% said they were good for Britain overall, against 22% who disagreed. Asked whether they had too much say over what happens in Britain, respondents were evenly split - with 36% saying yes and 36% saying no.
• Members of the Usdaw shopworkers union have voted by 93% to keep their political fund. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/10/ed-milibands-tuc-speech-on-labours-links-with-the-unions-politics-live-blog#block-522f0defe4b005df22aa309b
"It was a bit rich for Ed Miliband to bang on about the iniquities of zero-hours contracts when, according to a recent survey by the Chartered Institute of Personal and Development, employers in the voluntary sector (34pc) and the public sector (24pc) are more likely to use zero hours contracts than private sector employers (17pc).
http://www.cipd.co.uk/pressoff...
Unions are far stronger in the public sector than the private sector. So why didn't Mr Miliband tell Barons Dave Prentis and Len McCluskey to sort out the problem of zero-hours contracts in their own backyard before shedding crocodile tears about how bad the zero-hours contract situation was in the private sector?
We know why, of course. Public sector unions put him where he is today.
The assumption is that the group of people most likely to vote at GE2015 will be those who voted at GE2010.
Your comment represents a high level of wishful thinking.
I hope the conservatives make this point in their response to Ed's speech.
What's your thoughts on ed giving into a EU referendum for labour ?
Ahead of the last election we were shocked when friends working in the public sector in jobs like accountancy, HR etc who we thought were 'sound' (thats for the redsters) said they were voting for Labour as they were worried about their jobs and thought the blues were anti-public sector, reds pro it.
Now they may still vote that way next election but perhaps they won't ... so the assumption that the Gordon Brown 29% is rock-solid 'bottom' is a questionable one I feel, how much was there cling to nanny for fear of worse which may now not apply...
Just saying.... OGH is a pb-god but then again he thought Bercow might lose to Farage so he is not entirely like the Pope....
Labour local election results.
2011: 37%
2012: 38%
2013: 29%
In Tory/lib dem fights, they switch not one jot - giving the best possible result for the left. Simples.
Very sly these switchers. bit like huffalumps and woozels.
Labour desperately needs to grow a pair and decide who they represent and what their offer is - rubbishing Osborne et al is clearly not going anywhere - the polling has been telling us this for months.
Or they switch to Blue to avoid the debacle of a Miliband govt.
Lib dem switchers never switch to blue. Nobody who votes lib dem would countenance voting for the tories!!
I thought everyone knew that.
5-7% of LibDems to Labour.
Fine Mike. That is now but May 2015 will be an entirely different kettle of hot water that Ed will be warming his toes in. Very hot water .... and just, you understand, for the sake of clarity I should make it clear :
Ed Miliband will never be Prime Minister.
Don't shoot me fellow herdmembers.
If by any chance Clegg did step down before GE2015 then Farron would be in with a good chance of taking the leadership. He would certainly broaden the party's appeal.
Farron didn't vote for student fee increases and abstained on Syria.
Not sure you can gurantee that nobody who voted labour in 2010 will not vote tory in 2015 . Labour to tory switching of course happens (if conditions are right -ie economy etc)
Looking at the last ICM Guardian poll we find (Table 3) that there was just 1 person who told ICM that they voted Labour in 2010, but now intended to vote Conservative in a general election, with 3 people going in the other direction. So with less than 20 months to go until the election, it does not look like the Conservatives have made much progress on that.
The largest movements were 25 respondents who said they were Lib Dem to Labour switchers and 20 who said they were switching from Conservative to UKIP.
Had there been FPTP then Liberals in Oz would have won around 115 of 150 seats instead of about 88, and had Labor stalled by another 2 or 3% then a wipeout would have eventuated.
And there must be a market/betting opportunity in how long Clarke can stay awake. He seems to struggle with PMQs these days.
"Data excludes those who definitely will not vote (11%), don't know who they would vote for (21%) or refuse to answer (10%)"
Table 2 has "don't knows" as C 14%, L 14% , LD 32% ..
Suggests that if LDs up their propensity to vote they will stuff Miliband. Go yellers.
But not in lib dem/tory battlegrounds. There the lib dem vote is rock solid and will be next time around. Because everybody hates the tories.
"I used to vote LibDem and look what happened to me !!"
This is one more reason why Labour are so set on being negative about the Conservatives: it really helps them in tactical terms, when selective switchers change based on an anti-Conservative basis. It's also much easier to attack than defend, but, over time, has dramatically eroded trust in politics and politicians generally.
We need to know also where Lib Dem/Lab switchers are mostly located. If they're disproportionately located in places like Newcastle, Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester, Gateshead etc., then they'll certainly push up the Labour majorities in those seats, but they won't contribute much towards winning marginal seats.
It is possible that there will be a 1992-style swing in the polling booth to the incumbent Tories, but worth noting that if you add up those percentages you get 42%. Overall turnout at the last GE was 65.1%, so the majority of that 42% simply is not going to vote.
You can put your faith in non-voters if you want...
My readng is that there'll disproportionate 2010 LD>LAB switching for the general election.
Edited extra bit: also, can I just confirm a Welsh thing? Considering having a title of Gesith, and was thinking of changing the spelling to Gesidd. In Welsh, that'd be pronounced 'Gesith', right?
Still, the papers have to write about something.....
For the Liberals:
Solomon
Lyons
For Labor:
Lilley
Lingiari
That leaves 11 seats still in doubt:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dERmb2NsbmpUNmlyOHplOTNOTE9iZVE#gid=0
The Lib Dem national vote started from such an inefficient geographic allocation in the first place, that they can (in theory) afford to lose a greater proportion of their votes than the other parties could, so long as they lose those votes in the "right" places. But I suspect the Lib Dems will actually lose votes in some of the "wrong" places too - they have done reasonably well in Scotland in the past, but won't in the foreseeable future.
And I think the strongest and simplest case that Mike is right, is that the number of LD -> Lab switchers is so large, and there are enough Con/Lab marginals where they will make a difference, in addition to any seats the Lib Dems lose to Labour.
EDIT - ach, Mike got in first. Must write shorter. Or type faster.
I actually did an experiment on that very subject recently. I went through every Labour held constituency where there could plausibly be a 10% swing from LD to Lab. It turns out there are about 100 seats in that category: Labour seats like Sheffield Central and Hull North where the LDs almost won last time.
The point is — as SeanF says — that the majority of movement from LD to Lab could take place in seats like this, but it would mean no seats changing hands in theory. (Of course in practice Labour would take a few seats from the LDs like Manchester Withington).
Conversely the number of lib dem switchers in Eastleigh will be zero....
What's so wrong with this seemingly incontrovertible argument? It is wrong as its core because it ignores the one fundamental truth about British politics, and that is that the majority don't have allegiances, and that trend is only growing. There are 100,000 Conservative members, 187,000 Labour members and around 47,000 LibDems. All three parties show sharp declines in membership.
So the three main parties have roughly 350,000 members.
Yet at recent General Elections the numbers who voted were:
2010 30 million
2005 27 million
2001 26 million
General Elections are won and lost by a vast swathe of floaters, people who are swayed by the prevailing mood, amongst them first time voters, people who come out and vote based on a number of factors the most important of which is looking after No.1, which is the economy in their own pocket.
I hope your prediction doesn't come true, but I must agree that things still look best for Labour regarding MPs after the election.
The big question, therefore, is the uniformity of the disgruntlement.
There are several reasons.
Firstly, although I think that Brown was arguably our worst PM in history many serious people disagreed. They were persuaded by the wiles of Mandy that this was "no time for a novice", they had some respect for Alastair Darling and Osborne was an unknown quantity. I think it is very optimistic to believe that these people will all feel that way about Ed Miliband when they have to make the choice.
Secondly, Mandy's campaign was very successful in scaring people, particularly those that worked for the public sector or received working benefits. Some, almost a million by the election, will have seen those fears borne out in that they will no longer work for the public sector but 5m will not and working benefits are still here for the lower paid (that is under the £50 odd thousand that used to get them). Some of those will feel conned and some will not be so scared anymore.
Thirdly, on current estimates, there will be something like another 2m more people working in this country by 2015. A lot of them will be paying tax and a bit more concerned about how much tax they pay and how it is spent. More than 100% of this increase will be in the private sector given the reduction in public sector employment.
Fourthly, people are just not as tribal anymore. Politics is more volatile.
I could go on but what I think we will see over the next 18 months is some recovery in the Lib Dems, some reduction in the Westminster vote for UKIP, some movement of the floating voters from Labour to the tories and a net situation whereby the tories win the popular vote. Whether that will be by enough to get a majority is much harder to call. Probably not.
In the first, the Lib Dem switchers to Labour will make no difference, in the second they will help Labour and in the third they will help the Tories.
The relatively scant evidence that we have to date [Eastleigh by-election, Ashcroft opinion polling, local election results] does suggest that there will be fewer Lib Dem to Labour switchers in Lib Dem held seats where the Tories are second.
Unfortunately, none of the opinion polls break down respondents who live in the Middle England Towns and Their Hinterlands [named by Blair Freeburn] which are where so many of the marginals are located - that is settlements with a population roughly between 10,000 - 250,000. These are places like Gloucester, Carlisle, Ipswich and Wolverhampton. They are in all regions of the UK.
Ashcroft comes fairly close to picking these places out, but his highest delimiter is at 10,000, so he combines all of these sorts of places with the large cities such as Manchester.
"Robin Hood tax and Tobin tax" - point of order (to the BBC): Robin Hood wanted less taxation, not more.
Disclaimer: I don't know if he was guilty or not, and I don't wish to imply otherwise.
With the Syrian intervention,fracking,attack on Guardian journalists,Lobbying bill and Snooping bill,it`s time for real Lib Dems to ask for their money back
Approve 68%
Disapprove 12%
Mike is right, though: this is the key question. I am not convinced, that come to the ballot box, many will not revert to their previous loyalty. But I guess we have yet to see - and the key point will be when the Lib Dems truly disengage from the Coalitin. Will be interesting to watch.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/
Ahem. It's 'Sir Jackie'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/24031963
However, typo aside, he's probably right, and others have made similar comments. It would seem a weird decision to me. Not only because of the potential for alpha drivers butting heads, but also because both men will probably retire in the nearer rather than distant future, whereas Hulkenberg (or Di Resta) would be a good driver now who can stay for a long time, and inherit number one status.
It would also be entirely contrary to Ferrari's long-standing number one driver approach. Raikkonen, apparently, was made a Ferrari driver on 10 September a few years back, so if he is joining the team it may well be confirmed tomorrow.
Lib Dem (2010)
Support : 75 (68)
Oppose: 15 (12)
Also the greatest group of 2010 Lib Dems (38%) say it will make no difference to their voting as they were not going to vote for Labour anyway......and while 21% say it will make them more likely to vote Labour - that's the same as 2010 Labour.
But kudos for chutzpah on condescending to those who are always wrong and never learn on your great "non-story"!
Celebrity or not, what has happened to him has been utterly brutal. Hopefully Mr Turner can get back to focussing on his acting career now.
Just to remind all:
No speculation about Nigel Evans' guilt or innocence. Any posts on this topic will now require a link from a reputable UK news organisation.
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/
But I think singling out seats with plausible 10% LD->LAB swing, misses out the effect a smaller swing could have on Lab/Con marginals.
An exercise I have been intending to do at some point - grind down the Lib Dem vote in each constituency, by a factor based on a geographical weighting (the LDs have not taken disproportionate hits in the North and Scotland) and incumbency (not just for the usual bonus, but because the LDs are going to be fighting tooth and nail in a handful of winnable constituencies and would be mad to target any significant resources at the rest). Assume that these LD switchers will go Labour or Tory, and there are no Lab->Con switchers. Calculate exactly what percentage of those LD switchers the Tories need to capture to get a majority, and ditto for Labour. I am quite confident that it will bear Mike out - the current polls would suggest Tories would be miles away from their critical ex-LD capture percentage, and Labour above it.
Labour might only be narrowly above it, since their current projected Commons leads also benefit from Tory->Lab switchers. It would be possible to recalculate the critical ex-LD capture percentages for a variety of CON->LAB uniform swings, and I suspect the critical percentage for Labour comes down a lot with even relatively small CON -> LAB swings. But it'd be interesting to crunch the numbers properly. As a refinement, Scottish and Welsh ex-LDs might turn to a nationalist party, but I don't think that'd make a big difference to the outcome.
"But the court heard that medical experts who had examined the girl had found no clear physical evidence that she had ever been sexually abused.
When she was examined two years after the last alleged attack, tests indicated that she had not had full sex, the jury was told."
I mean, how on earth did this get to the jury?
except of course in the lib dem/conservative/UKIP fights, where you would presumably want them to keep voting lib dem (such as Eastleigh).
As it is to be in about 20 months, there is a degree of speculation, calculation, experience and maybe some bias from wishful thinking in transforming the information we have today into a result in 20 months time.
The information fed in that any projections are based on is information that is collected in an environment that is radically different from any recent political cycle. That gives a massive unknown as to how the unknown of coalition and a single parliamentary opposition party has altered responses so far, and more importantly, how those who have amended or not amended responses since 2010 will behave in the polling booth in 2015. Are responses with passion and belief or with a shrug of resignation and lack of choice?
I think there is a knowledge vacuum that makes projecting 2015 this far out a hobby that could easily make you come a cropper and fall on your ARSE, or any other part of the anatomy.
I note that while it was supposed to be announced today no announcement has been forthcoming....
The 12th Lib Dem seat on the Labour target list is Cardiff Central, which is held with a majority of 4576 (12.7%).
The 12th Lib Dem seat on the Conservative target list is Eastbourne, which is held with a majority of 3435 (6.6%).
Although the majority over the Conservatives is lower in Eastbourne, the Lib Dem - Labour swing required for the seat to change hands is higher there than in Cardiff Central [6.6% compared to 6.4%]. This suggests that even if the Lib Dem to Labour swing is uniform, this will not disproportionately benefit the Tories as we often assume on here.
The evolution of Robin Hood (and also King Arthur) is rather fascinating in what it shows about society of the time of the evolution (and particularly as those in power re-shaped it for their own purposes at various points).
"Plans to introduce a financial transactions tax (FTT) in 2014 are illegal, EU lawyers have concluded.
The findings, presented by Brussels' legal services team, stated that the plan, which would introduce a levy of financial transactions in 11 EU member states, "exceeds member states' jurisdiction for taxation under the norms of international customary law".
The 14-page legal opinion, seen by Reuters, said the FTT was not compatible with the EU treaty "as it infringes upon the taxing competences of non participating member states", while introducing it only in some member states would also be "discriminatory and likely to lead to distortion of competition to the detriment of non participating member states".
While the lawyers' findings are not binding, it will make FTT plans harder to introduce in their current form. "
Won't win him many votes of course but very important for one of our key industries.
Thanks for the response.
A further problem for the Tories is that this set of voters are probably going to be highly tactical, rather than tribally Labour. Essentially using their vote to try to get rid of the Tories.
Libs holding off the Tories in some seats, Lab taking seats elsewhere thanks to the tactical element, add in UKIP splitting the Right, an absolute nightmare for the Tories.
DavidL highlights the optimistic scenario whereby the Tories might scrape something together, but even that seems slightly far fetched going by recent trends.
In short, Ed Miliband is highly likely to be Prime Minister in 20 months time.
"The unprecedented rate of national improvement that this new data shows is cause for celebration," Sir Michael Wilshaw told a meeting of leading headteachers in Manchester.
Ofsted's annual schools health check shows that by the middle of this year its inspectors had rated 78% of schools in England as either good or outstanding, an increase of 9% in the space of 12 months, which Wilshaw said was the fastest increase in the watchdog's history.
"More schools are getting to good, and doing so more quickly, than ever before. More children are getting a better education as a result," Wilshaw said, citing a figure of 600,000 more schoolchildren in England now getting at least a good standard of education compared with at the beginning of the 2012 academic year. http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/sep/09/schools-advances-ofsted-chief-wilshaw