Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The problem with the swing-back theory is that so few CON v
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The problem with the swing-back theory is that so few CON voters have actually switched to LAB since GE2010
Ahead of previous elections this far out the proportion of switchers has been substantially higher and this group have represented a good target for the governing party to try to rope in again.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Jonathan said:
For me the most interesting point in that Article is that Ed has few allies left. He has taken on virtually every powerful group both inside and outside his party. Whilst undeniably brave and not without reason, it has left him very exposed.
There is nothing particularly brave about upsetting your own team without a very good reason. There was nothing brave about Falkirk. It was just stupid.
As our "labour insider" who may or may not have been a very good friend of Ed Balls, possibly even his best friend, pointed out in a highly percipient thread on here the loss of Tom Watson meant that Ed was vulnerable. The Labour machine is just not protecting its leader anymore. How Ed must reflect on the time that Labour had a lunatic in charge of the country and everyone in the party was too scared to say anything about it. Changed days indeed.
Some 44 per cent of people (and 30 per cent of Labour supporters) believe welfare spending is too high, while only 18 per cent think it is too low and 17 per cent say it is about right.
When those who say the welfare bill is too high are asked who they believe is responsible for it,
54% Blame the last Lab Govt
5% Blame the coalition
31% blame both equally
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-benefits-on-welfare-at-labours-expense-8812897.html
http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/09/12/local-by-election-preview-september-12th-2013/
In both 1955 and 1966, the incumbent first-term government increased vote share and majority.
As for seats, some you win, some you lose. I live in Wakefield now. That seat stayed Labour in 1983 but even on a hung-parliament result it's now a marginal, as is next-door Morley & Outwood (whereas its predecessor, Normanton, never was).
Looking at the current polling I'd expect Lib->Lab switchers to stick, at least where it counts, but Con->don't-vote to be normal, and Con->UKIP to swing back with a vengeance.
Last night's spat over the Niqab in the dock - looks like its 2007 guidelines responsible:
"In 2007 guidelines issued by the Judicial Studies Board urged judges to remain sensitive when asking defendants to remove veils, suggesting there should be “no sense of obligation or pressure”.
Rather than the 2013 Judge:
Judge Murphy said: “I will not have the defendant dictating to the court how she wishes to appear.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10305828/Muslim-defendant-allowed-to-wear-face-veil-in-the-dock.html
"Mr Cable said: “Matthew is an independent minded member of the House of Lords, with his own views. He does not speak for me. His comments were seriously unhelpful.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10305919/Vince-Cable-distances-himself-from-Lord-Oakeshott-after-peer-calls-for-Nick-Clegg-to-be-sacked.html
"NOTE that an earlier version of this post was published prematurely last night and was taken down after a short period."
...................................................
Oh what a shame .... OGH suffering again from premature publication !!
Actually, on consideration, you've got a better point than I believed at first. He resembles a very large demographic across the country.
The papers are piling in now:
"RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Who gave Cyril Smith the keys to the sweet shop?
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2419316/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Who-gave-Cyril-Smith-keys-sweet-shop.html#ixzz2ekTexI1b
Please delete the spam from "cody121" published @ 6.30am.
Thank you.
" ...As you might expect from the son of a Marxist academic, Miliband had placed his faith in history moving his way. The idea is less daft that it sounds. When the Lib Dems went into coalition, half of their members defected to Labour, giving Miliband a huge advantage. He also believed that the financial crisis would nudge Britain Leftwards. On being named “Minister to Watch” in the 2008 Spectator awards, he said the crisis had shown the relevance of his father’s theories. The audience laughed, assuming this was a joke. The look on his face made clear that it wasn’t.
But it turns out that the financial crisis has made people more concerned about government waste. From Australia to Norway, it is now conservative arguments that are in the ascendant. British voters are hugely concerned about over-generous benefits. The single toughest policy that Cameron has introduced, the welfare cap, is also his most popular – and by some margin. Even Barack Obama’s administration is now cutting government spending far faster than George Osborne has dared..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10304690/Even-Labour-supporters-dont-think-that-Ed-Milibands-up-to-it.html
Cons 33.7% (-3.8%)
Lab 31.1% (-4%)
UKIP 16.3% (+16.3%)
IND 8.3% (-7.1%)
LD 5.9% (+0.8%)
Green 4.7% (-2.1%)
The MP in question was suspended by Michael Howard and later quietly reinstated. We didn't speak to each other for about 18 months, but at some point I ran into her and said it was maybe time we moved on and happy New Year. She laughed and said yes, you too. So if she's not still fretting about it, I'm not sure Stark Dawning should be.
SeanT will write whatever he feels comfortable with in his blog. So long as he quotes me in full rather than selectively I don't have a problem with that either.
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/w93gt3j33b/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-120913.pdf
It's going to be DAVID CAMERON'S conservatives vs ed miliband's LABOUR
"Every conference season, I am struck by the fact that a disobliging remark about the wastefulness of the State will elicit a cheer from a Tory fringe meeting. A reference to the inadequacy of the market is a certain prompt for applause at a Labour meeting. The Liberal Democrats will cheer both of those propositions. Half the audience wants to ban all fizzy drinks. The other half wants people carrying state secrets to walk unhindered through airport lounges.
It is clear enough which sort of liberal should join Labour and equally apparent what kind of liberal would survive in the Conservative Party. From the strict point of view of advancing liberal ideas, it is not at all evident what species of liberal would be better off joining the Liberal Democrats. Which is always the big question for this pantomime horse of a party, which has gained only political defeat from a long series of intellectual victories" http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/philipcollins/article3867618.ece
Tory Peers @Torypeers
“@LordAshcroft: Never, under any circumstances, take a sleeping pill and a laxative on the same night.” > deepest commiserations
Lib Dem peer Lord Oakeshott, the world's worst plotter, wants Nick Cleggster replaced as party leader. By whom, I wonder, Vince?
Those with right-of-centre (eg Gove, Redwood & Carswell's supporters) have already left for UKIP, whilst there is no genuinely right-wing mainstream political party in the UK - unlike in the USA, where they offer centre-right and degrees of right-wing, we have the opposite: '50 shades of pink'
"There is and always has been room for a party that is both economically and socially liberal."
I agree entirely. I believe it's called UKIP.
The other aspect - though linked - is about leadership and competence, neither of which is particularly related to policy, so it's entirely possible to appeal to LD and UKIP (and SNP, Plaid and Labour) at the same time. Especially when set against Empty Ed.
" Unite, the union run by Len McCluskey, has established a specialist department to draw up new methods for use against employers in case of industrial action.
It follows the emergence of a document instructing workers to “create maximum instability” during strikes by targeting energy supplies and supply lines. It calls on employees to “map” their companies’ “vulnerabilities” long before any strike is called...
The guide, intended to be seen only by union organisers, urges striking workers to establish where they could hit “distribution choke points” and undermine “sensitive clients and suppliers.” It advisers strikers to identify peaks in output and "significant deadlines" in order to make strike action more damaging..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10304817/Labours-donor-Unite-sets-up-strike-tactics-unit.html
isn't the precendent that people really only focus their minds on the run up to the election and then the percentages start to shift.
Miss Plato, McCluskey sounds like he needs a slap in the face with some sort of giant fish.
Miss Vance, I recall reading about the judge and the veil. The reasoning (we've got to be able ascertain your identity) does seem rather unassailable.
Top attributes for Ed Miliband 2010 LibDems (weighted sample 1090)
Out of his depth: 50
Weak: 39
Indecisive: 27
Out of Touch: 20
OT,there could still be swingback to the Lib-Dems.I think it will be limited under Clegg but who knows under a new leader.Cam needs Clegg to step down before the election
"In raw political terms, the fact that voters hold Labour accountable by a margin of ten to one for the size of the benefits bill is about as about politically toxic as it gets.
The poll finding, in our forthcoming pamphlet “Labour’s manifesto uncut: How to win in 2015 and why”, shows the scale of Labour’s real challenge, underneath its broad opinion poll lead.
Over half of those who think welfare spending is too high (54 per cent) blame Labour, with only five per cent pointing the finger at the coalition.
Meanwhile 45 per cent trust Cameron to control welfare spending and prevent it rising out of control, compared to 14 per cent who back Ed Miliband.
This gap goes to the heart of Labour’s credibility as a party of government, so narrowing it must be a strategic priority.
But the problem goes deeper than simply convincing floating voters Labour is tough but fair on social security costs. The entire collectivist model underpinning the welfare state is now on the table..." http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2013/09/12/uncut-poll-reveals-public-blame-last-labour-government-not-tories-for-today’s-benefits-bill/
For those that worry about the deficit and government borrowing Labour has offered absolutely nothing. They have opposed every cut, ran the too far, too fast line (when I suspect most tory supporters thought too slow, too little) and refused to set out a clear alternative. It is actually surprising that as many as 2 in 100 have switched.
Of course the majority of the population are more worried about how the economy is affecting them than abstractions like the deficit. The old Reagan observation about how a recession was when your neighbour lost his job and a depression was when you lost yours is bang on the money. The key to the next election is whether the tories can offer a good enough package to at least some of this larger group to persuade them that the tories are better for them. Until the beginning of this year that was looking highly problematic but now, not so much.
Labour need a clear plan that persuades the vast majority of this group (since they will not get the tories) that they will be better off with them. They are running a risk in not having such a plan and in having people that the press seem determined to destroy presenting it. My guess is that Ed Balls knows this. My guess is that Ed Miliband is reluctant to commit himself to anything specific in a fairly fast changing situation. He needs to get off the fence.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-rivers/syrian-public-opinion_b_3915550.html
The Russians are their friends and they don't trust the US.
"Labour needs to articulate a new golden rule on welfare. Apart from the disabled and most vulnerable, work is expected. It is the duty of all adults to put their shoulder to the wheel. Work is normal.
At the moment, the public don’t think the party of labour has the workers’ interests at heart. In fact 41 per cent of trade unionists agree that the benefits bill is too high."
The Great Tax Robbery: How Britain Became a Tax Haven for Fat Cats and Big Business [Kindle Edition]
I do recall them though expressing outrage when their then beloved banks were accused of reckless lending. Not outrage that their then beloved banks had engaged in reckless lending but outrage that they were being accused of doing when those lefties saw nothing wrong with those lending policies and indeed demanded government intervention so that their then beloved banks could continue those same reckless lending policies.
Because if you take away Brown's housing bubble what does that leave of Labour's economic record but rising debt, rising unemployment, rising trade deficit, falling industrial production and falling productivity growth. But all of these could be ignored as long as Labour had their rising house prices and the consequent encouragement it gave to consumer spending.
Housing bubbles damage the economy and reduce economic and social mobility and that's what Labour achieved from 2000 onwards.
And what will be Labour's economic strategy the next time they're in government?
To create another housing bubble.
Chortle ....
For example,when Obama was going to lose the House vote on Syria,he was to have become a lame-duck President.But the media have gone pretty easy on Cam who did go on to lose a vote on going to war-something unprecedented since the1800`s.
Miliband has contributed to this by opposing Murdoch and firming up his support for the coalition.
These confusing Labour positions are confusing.
Labour have learnt the lessons and they are going to build houses.Lots of them.This will limit housing price rises and also help first-time buyers to get onto the ladder while protecting them from an artificial boom.
Likely to rate as one of the funniest posts of the week !!
One also has to wonder why Osborne having criticised Brown`s housing policy is desperate to copy him wholesale and create a new housing bubble.Clearly keeping one`s own job trumps national interest.
Labour won't build any more houses than the Tories would. If I believed that they would, I could probably vote for them.
In lieu of any policies, Labour's attack line seems to be that .....
(1) A housing bubble is being created and that's bad,
(2) There is no feel-good factor.
The "bubble" exists only in tiny parts of the South but they are terrified it may expand and help to negate number (2) for home owners. For social housing, they'll rely on the bedroom tax story.
Were Labour in power, would they be happy for a small increase in house prices in this part of the electoral cycle? Yes. Will they seek to discourage the Tories from doing it? Yes.
Are they hypocritical? Do they think the electorate is that gullible? Yes and yes.
The next election comes down to the strength of the economy, whether Ed is seen as a viable PM and the scope of differential turnout in the marginals.
Andy Burnham has so many lessons to learn he'd be safer going back to school.
A disabled man was asked to pay £30 to retrieve his lost wallet from a bus company. Arthur Adlam, 31, had just drawn his disability allowance and had around £225 in his wallet when he accidentally left it behind on the bus.
But his panic quickly turned to disbeleif when he was told that though his property had been handed in, it would cost him almost £30 to get it back. Father-of-four Arthur, 31, left the wallet on the seat of a Stagecoach bus in his home town of Dunfermline, Fife.
But staff at the bus station told him it was company policy to take a 12 per cent cut plus a 50p 'admin fee' - a total of £27.50 - just to get it back. Furious Mr Adlam said: 'It’s an outrage. They told me they couldn’t give it back without charging me. 'They charged me for something that doesn’t belong to them. No one should pay to get their own money back.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2418619/Bus-company-takes-12-PER-CENT-cut-money-inside-disabled-passenger-s-wallet-left-seat.html#ixzz2el05bRFt
It`s better than repeating the mistakes of the past with tax-payer backed mortgages with stagnant wages and a rise in interest rates almost certain to make a lot of them unaffordable.
It is not getting any better
http://blogs.channel4.com/faisal-islam-on-economics/osbornes-skyscraper-totem-britains-global-export-houses/19594
Labour have learnt the lessons and they are going to build houses.Lots of them.
I have seen no policy statement at all from Labour on how they plan to dismantle the planning laws. (or any other policy for that matter). The ONLY substantive issue stopping house building is planning. Demand is surely there. But building can't take place until plans are granted. 'We'll build houses' is an empty statement. 'We'll massively liberalise planning' would be a solid policy - but not an electorally winning one in MIddle England. And there's the rub.
Company policy isn't law. The gentleman should have called the police and the local press and ask them to afford him of their services.
It will be pointing at squids next..
I note that tim hasn't responded to my question of how he defines a bubble. It's a pity, I was hoping to be able to take some more money off him by framing a bet around the definition.
Events do not always coincide with length of governments. Certain ideologies and ways of thinking transcend governments and last for decades.
Is that why they didn't build any houses, are you serious..
If you were out canvassig is that the answer you would give to a prospective voter.
13 years .. no houses built..
Definition of Ridicule: is the subjection of someone or something to mockery and derision.
Definition of Repetition: is the act or process or an instance of repeating or being repeated.
Definition of Catch Phrase: is a phrase that has become a catchword.
Repetition can lead to ridicule.
Repetition of a word or phrase that has not become a catch phrase will result in ridicule.
Examples: 'as a father Dave' 'Cammieblair'
Repetition of a phrase or word that has become a catchphrase will not lead to ridicule.
Example: 'omnishambles'
Intelligence: knowing when to stop boring the pants of everyone and becoming a the subject of ridicule by tedious repetition of inane dull dead catchphrases.