politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson argues that the falling cost of living might

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson argues that the falling cost of living might not be Miliband’s magic bullet

Two news stories this week again highlighted the critical issue of the cost of living, which Ed Miliband made the centrepiece of his conference speech, and which Labour has been pushing ever since its leaders worked out that a genuine economic recovery was underway.

Read the full story here

GeoffM

First for insomniacs!

MikeSmithson

Your thesis is based on the premise that "it's the economy stupid".

It isn't. Just ask Mitt Romney who had double digit leads on managing the economy on the eve of the election a year ago in to the 2012 White House race. He lost.

Sunil_Prasannan

Falling cost of living?

Philip_Thompson

Don't forget for the cost of living that the totemic petrol prices have had their biggest monthly fall in prices for 5 years.

Labour have continued to run with the Brown/Balls line of "too far, too fast" from before the election until recently when it's become clear coalition policies are working. Far better than our neighbours with major deficits have coped. So now for the economic argument they're left on a shrinking platform about cost of living and conceding most of the rest of the terrain. The dangers are that the Tories (and LDs possibly) can claim the bigger picture and if in the next 18 months it feels like the cost of living is easing up then where does that leave Labour?

Yes Economic policy isn't the be all and end all, but it is very important.

JohnLoony

I've only just noticed that someone was asking me what I thought of Malcolm Rifkind at the Croydon Conservative Federation dinner (which was to commemorate the achievements of Margaret Thatcher).

He spoke without notes for perhaps 15 or 20 minutes and reeled off a series of humorous (and humorous-but-making-a-serious-point) anecdotes about Mrs Thatcher - both from his own experience and from other sources such as Charles Moore's book.

It is worth remembering (as someone pointed out) that he was one of only four ministers who served in government on the front bench for the entire 18 years of the Thatcher/Major era.

Ricardohos

What an excellent article David. Chapeau. You invariably post well informed, reasoned and balanced articles. Pb.com's greatest asset.

I think it's worth mentioning that 19 months is a relatively long time: plenty enough indeed to turn the general economic recovery into a standard of living mini boom if they so choose. In fact it would only take about 3 months to effect a big change in people's 'take home'. So around this time next year let's see how that issue that Labour have been rather desperately latching onto, looks.

Ricardohos

MikeSmithson said:

Your thesis is based on the premise that "it's the economy stupid".

It isn't. Just ask Mitt Romney who had double digit leads on managing the economy on the eve of the election a year ago in to the 2012 White House race. He lost.

For every rule there is an exception and as usual you are blinkered to oblivion on this. Your response also assumes a number of things that aren't necessarily true, such as who was best placed to continue the slow US recovery at that time, and ensure the benefits went to the widest group of people. The incumbency factor (something you routinely ignore on pb Mike) is also a massive factor in times of economic hardship.

It is indeed the economy stupid. This doesn't mean other factors are irrelevant, merely that the economy is the most important.

Ricardohos

MikeSmithson said:

Your thesis is based on the premise that "it's the economy stupid".

It isn't. Just ask Mitt Romney who had double digit leads on managing the economy on the eve of the election a year ago in to the 2012 White House race. He lost.

edmundintokyo

MikeSmithson said:

Your thesis is based on the premise that "it's the economy stupid".

It isn't. Just ask Mitt Romney who had double digit leads on managing the economy on the eve of the election a year ago in to the 2012 White House race. He lost.

There are two distinct theories about the economy. One is that the side with the highest ratings wins, but the other more plausible one is that if the economy is improving people feel generally happy about the government and makes them more likely reelect them. The second one fits with Obama getting reelected, and IIRC tracks other presidential elections pretty well. It doesn't explain Major losing the way he did in 1997, but that had the exceptional circumstance that the improvement came after the government's economic policy publicly and expensively melted down, and they got forced by the markets to change it.

AndyJS

JohnLoony said:

I've only just noticed that someone was asking me what I thought of Malcolm Rifkind at the Croydon Conservative Federation dinner (which was to commemorate the achievements of Margaret Thatcher).

He spoke without notes for perhaps 15 or 20 minutes and reeled off a series of humorous (and humorous-but-making-a-serious-point) anecdotes about Mrs Thatcher - both from his own experience and from other sources such as Charles Moore's book.

It is worth remembering (as someone pointed out) that he was one of only four ministers who served in government on the front bench for the entire 18 years of the Thatcher/Major era.

Trying to think who the other three were. How about Ken Clarke, John Gummer, Kenneth Baker?

AveryLP

MikeSmithson said:

Your thesis is based on the premise that "it's the economy stupid".

It isn't. Just ask Mitt Romney who had double digit leads on managing the economy on the eve of the election a year ago in to the 2012 White House race. He lost.

This comparison is not fair.

Exit Polls from the 2012 Presidential Election showed that economic issues were rated top as "the most important problem facing the country". An example would be Pew Research [Oct 2012] where the findings were:

What do you think is the most important problem               
facing the country today?                                     
%		                                                          
25   Unemployment/Lack of jobs                                
25   Economy (general)                                        
 9   Dissatisfaction with government/politics/(Barack) Obama  
 8   Deficit/National debt/Balanced budget/Government spending
 5   Health care/costs/accessibility                          
 3   Partisanship/Parties/Gridlock                            

So, if the economy did have the highest salience amongst voters, what decided the outcome?

I remember being surprised from at US exit polls showing how satisfied 2008 Dem voters were with Obama's handling of the economy and how confident they were that he would 'finish the job' if allowed a second term.

This confidence in Obama is shown in the New York Times exit polls (see: http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-polls ) where responses favoured Obama rather than Romney on the question.

Do You Think the Nation’s Economy Is:             

                      Dem    Rep    Margin        
Excellent or good     90%     9%    Obama    +81% 
Not so good/poor      38%    60%    Romney   +22% 

So even though Romney may have been seen as better qualified to run the economy, with better policies and more interest in that aspect of the presidency, the key point was that US voters were satisfied (or at least not dissatisfied) with the state of the economy under Obama.

It certainly helped Obama that the recession started under Bush and that the Democrats had been out of power in the crucial eight years leading up to the crash.

Obama's hands were clean in a way that those of Brown's boys will never be in 2015.

CarlottaVance

MikeSmithson said:

Your thesis is based on the premise that "it's the economy stupid".

It isn't. Just ask Mitt Romney who had double digit leads on managing the economy on the eve of the election a year ago in to the 2012 White House race. He lost.

Or we could ask YouGov, in the UK, about UK polls:

"It is clear that, despite regular (and occasionally sharp) fluctuations along the way, the overall trend is broadly one of the Conservatives gradually closing the gap on Labour. While Labour remains ahead, the gap between the two has gone from typically around the 10 to 12 point range back at the start of the year to around 4 to 6 points now.

So Labour are losing ground, but why? The answer is obviously complicated, but I would suggest that some of the following charts help to explain this trend – and if I had to summarise, I would use that old cliché: ‘It’s the economy, stupid.’

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/10/15/its-long-term-trends-stupid/

JohnLoony

AndyJS said:

Trying to think who the other three were. How about Ken Clarke, John Gummer, Kenneth Baker?

Wikipedia says Patrick Mayhew, Lynda Chalker & Ken Clarke. 18 years continuously in government is the longest since Palmerston.

CarlottaVance

"Here the Nationalists are guilty of rewriting history. I can't remember the last time a leading pro-UK politician argued seriously that Scotland could not survive as an independent country. Finding a list of quotes to that effect would have been a far harder task for the SNP spinners. "

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/snp-must-now-say-a-word-to-the-whys.22455230

CarlottaVance

"The other problem with Ms Sturgeon’s idea is that it focuses attention on energy bills as a means of raising money for implementing government policies. The bulk of the cash raised in this way goes to support renewable energy. This money comes out of all UK consumer bills, but much of it gets spent on Scottish wind farms.

SNP ministers have yet to produce a convincing explanation why consumers in the rest of the UK will happily continue paying this money to support an industry in what, with independence, will become a foreign country. Anger at high energy bills is just as great south of the Border and cutting bills by ending support for foreigners sounds like an easy electoral promise for English politicians."

http://www.scotsman.com/news/leaders-borderline-possibility-of-cutting-costs-1-3148682

Mick_Pork

MikeSmithson said:

Your thesis is based on the premise that "it's the economy stupid".

It isn't. Just ask Mitt Romney who had double digit leads on managing the economy on the eve of the election a year ago in to the 2012 White House race. He lost.

You don't seriously expect the PB Romneys to learn their lesson do you?
That's about as likely as the scottish tory surgers learning theirs.

Has there been a trend in the polling? Yes there has.
Is it hard to explain? Nope.

Here it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png

surbiton

David Herdson's analysis above can be summarised in two words: Wishful thinking.

Mick_Pork

CarlottaVance said:

"The other problem with Ms Sturgeon’s idea is that it

Will be far more believable than Cammie's Cast Iron guarantee on energy prices was?

Millions to see energy bills fall after David Cameron promises tariff reform

Millions of households will see a fall in their gas and electricity bills after David Cameron said he will force energy companies to give every customer the cheapest possible deal.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/household-bills/9616124/Millions-to-see-energy-bills-fall-after-David-Cameron-promises-tariff-reform.html

Which brings us neatly to the problem with tory spinners pretending that populism is something they would never dream of doing and that austerity is all. Quite simply that it's bullshit and come the budget before the next election you are absolutely going to see some cost of living politicking from Osbrowne. Not to mention the promises and pledges made in the election manifestos which will be specifically designed with marginal voters and cost of living in mind.

Will there be a huge amount of fiscal room for extravagant pledges? Not at all which is why they will be cloaked in the language of austerity and all 'affordable', 'stimulus based' and 'fully costed'. Usually by shuffling money about from department to department. It always happens and it always will happen whether in austerity or out of it.

CarlottaVance

@Mick_Pork - so rUK energy bills will continue to subsidise Scottish renewables post-independence?

Another promise not within the gift of the SNP......

CarlottaVance

Project Fear:

"Scotland’s social security system will be dismantled. Scotland’s public services and universal benefits will be under threat. Scotland’s budget will be cut."

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/scottish-voters-warned-of-consequences-of-no-vote-1.1566102

Ricardohos

edmundintokyo said:

MikeSmithson said:

Your thesis is based on the premise that "it's the economy stupid".

It isn't. Just ask Mitt Romney who had double digit leads on managing the economy on the eve of the election a year ago in to the 2012 White House race. He lost.

There are two distinct theories about the economy. One is that the side with the highest ratings wins, but the other more plausible one is that if the economy is improving people feel generally happy about the government and makes them more likely reelect them. The second one fits with Obama getting reelected, and IIRC tracks other presidential elections pretty well. It doesn't explain Major losing the way he did in 1997, but that had the exceptional circumstance that the improvement came after the government's economic policy publicly and expensively melted down, and they got forced by the markets to change it.

Absolutely spot on Edmund, Avery too.

This is a subtle but vital distinction (Mick pork take note).

I really think OGH should also take far, far, more notice of the incumbency factor. Remember that Margaret Thatcher only won in 1979 by 6% with a 40 odd seat majority DESPITE the winter of discontent and Labour's economic catastrophe, which included calling in the IMF under that prize berk Dennis Healey. The 5% swing to the Conservatives from Labour was also identical to what Cameron achieved to unseat Gordon Brown.

The reason for this is that most people tend to prefer the devil they know, the status quo, so unless things are really and manifestly awry they'd rather stick than twist.

In the last 35 years there have only been 2 Governments thrown out: 1997 and 2010.

Under-estimate the power of the Incumbent at your peril.

Mick_Pork

@CarlottaVance

Misconstrue and misrepresent it however you wish. Reserved matters will clearly no longer be reserved in an independent scotland. You should have paid more attention to Mr Herdson because if any other party picks up this idea and tries to run with it now it's going to be very amusing indeed.

The dimmer PB tories already tried the 'marxist' nonsense for little Ed's freeze plan and it didn't work. Nor will yet more shrieking and bleating from project fear and the No campaign change the fact that all promises and pledges boil down to trust which is something the westminster parties and leaders are woefully short of in scotland.

I can of course show you the recent polling on the scottish government compared to the coalitions approval ratings should you persist in your delusion that because a tory spinner or a tory leaning paper says something about the SNP government then that means it will be automatically be believed in scotland.

The only thing more amusing would be the petulant whining from the No campaign as they belatedly realise that the independence referendum is a choice between two very different things. Project Fear and No have conspicuously displayed almost no positive vision of scotland's future whereas Yes campaign will continue showing the scottish public their positive vision right alongside the obvious consequences of a return to the status quo and westminster rule. Hard to believe the No campaign didn't realise this was always going to be the case but then we are dealing with some of the exact same people who were in charge of labour's 2011 scottish election debacle.

RobD

Mick_Pork said:

@CarlottaVance

Misconstrue and misrepresent it however you wish. Reserved matters will clearly no longer be reserved in an independent scotland. You should have paid more attention to Mr Herdson because if any other party picks up this idea and tries to run with it now it's going to be very amusing indeed.

Saying social security will end if people vote no is a tad alarmist, IMO.

RobD

While we are burning the midnight oil, some opinion poll numbers Salmond woudl give his left nut for...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonian_independence_referendum,_2014#Opinion_polling

Any people in the loop with what is going on with this, the article states that no date has been decided (despite the title of the article suggesting otherwise)

edmundintokyo

Ricardohos said:

edmundintokyo said:

MikeSmithson said:

Your thesis is based on the premise that "it's the economy stupid".

It isn't. Just ask Mitt Romney who had double digit leads on managing the economy on the eve of the election a year ago in to the 2012 White House race. He lost.

There are two distinct theories about the economy. One is that the side with the highest ratings wins, but the other more plausible one is that if the economy is improving people feel generally happy about the government and makes them more likely reelect them. The second one fits with Obama getting reelected, and IIRC tracks other presidential elections pretty well. It doesn't explain Major losing the way he did in 1997, but that had the exceptional circumstance that the improvement came after the government's economic policy publicly and expensively melted down, and they got forced by the markets to change it.

Absolutely spot on Edmund, Avery too.

This is a subtle but vital distinction (Mick pork take note).

I really think OGH should also take far, far, more notice of the incumbency factor. Remember that Margaret Thatcher only won in 1979 by 6% with a 40 odd seat majority DESPITE the winter of discontent and Labour's economic catastrophe, which included calling in the IMF under that prize berk Dennis Healey. The 5% swing to the Conservatives from Labour was also identical to what Cameron achieved to unseat Gordon Brown.

The reason for this is that most people tend to prefer the devil they know, the status quo, so unless things are really and manifestly awry they'd rather stick than twist.

In the last 35 years there have only been 2 Governments thrown out: 1997 and 2010.

Under-estimate the power of the Incumbent at your peril.

Those incumbency examples don't work very well if you're trying to get to Con Maj, or even Con NOM. The governing party lost vote share in every single election, including 1983 after the Falklands War. Can anybody come up with a plausible vote split for next time where Con to lose vote share and win a majority? The way I see it on pretty much all non-bonkers assumptions about the way the votes split next time Cameron has to gain vote share to keep his job.

Mick_Pork

@Ricardohos

I watched the more amusing PB Romneys refuse to believe the simple truth that being seen as almost comically out of touch with the voters and cost of living during austerity was something that would always negate and overcome Romney's claims for being seen as more economically competent.

This is just a small taste of the Romneyshambles in action.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFUUDrh9wNg

Now which party leader has the biggest problem with being see by the voters as "out of touch"? So until that improves Cammie had best keep trying to hammer down that kipper vote since that is proving pretty successful right now.

The voter has little patience for being told 'they've never had it so good' if their own experience of the economy and their cost of living is markedly at odds with that spin.
Nor will the tories have an election in campaign in 2015 with a message to the voter telling them to 'just grin and bear it' as the manifesto pledges and budget politicking on cost of living will prove. The tories are going to have their own marginal friendly cost of living policy packages and promises along with everyone else. You can be certain of that.

SouthamObserver

As I've said on here a few times now, the Tories *should* win in 2015. The economy is clearly improving, Labour has failed to develop a compelling narrative and the party's leader is far from appealing, to say the least. However, against that we have to factor in the fact that we are also in an unprecedented situation. There is no previous coalition against which to make comparisons in polling, we have seen the rise of a fourth and popularist right wing party, which is pulling the Tories rightward too, while we know that for a good number of voters their belief in the toxicity of the Tory brand itself is a primary motivation when they go to the polls.

The bottom line is that to win outright the Tories are almost certainly going to need more people to vote for them than did in 2010. And the more new voters Labour picks up, the more new voters the Tories will need. They are also going to have to take a fair few seats from the LibDems. These are not impossible things, but on balance they look less rather than more likely. Thus, for me, the most probable outcome in 2015 remains a hung Parliament. The Tories being the largest party in that Parliament looks slightly more possible than it did a few months back.

CarlottaVance

Mick_Pork said:

@CarlottaVance

Misconstrue and misrepresent it however you wish.

Its a direct quote from Nicola Sturgeon's speech, printed in that notorious Unionist rag The Irish Times.

I guess we'll both have to wait for the magic White Paper when 'all questions will be answered'......like why the English, Welsh & Northern Irish are going to continue to subsidise the Scots' renewables.....to take one example.....

CarlottaVance

@SO - fair summary - of course 'surprises' in the EU polls or the Scottish Independence referendum may galvanise turn out - but this far out its impossible to predict and 'all to play for'.

I'm sure in May 2015 there will be people posting on here 'it was obvious 18 months out that [fill in winner] was going to win because of [fill in reason]......but in truth, it ain't, despite what the more excitable posters on both wings may claim.

SouthamObserver

@EiT - The Tories need a perfect storm to win outright in my view: an LD collapse in seats they are defending against the Tories, an unprecedented level of anti-Labour tactical voting in Labour marginal and target seats, and an SNP surge in Scotland. It is possible, but right now it looks unlikely.

CarlottaVance

Mick_Pork said:

I can of course show you the recent polling on the scottish government compared to the coalitions approval ratings

So Dunfermline's a shoo-in then?

Noted.

At least you can't use the 'mid-term unpopular government line' if you don't romp home.....

CarlottaVance

SouthamObserver said:

It is possible, right now it looks likely.

Unlikely surely?

SouthamObserver

CarlottaVance said:

SouthamObserver said:

It is possible, right now it looks likely.

Unlikely surely?

Yup. iPhones and thick fingers don't mix. Have now edited.

edmundintokyo

SouthamObserver said:

@EiT - The Tories need a perfect storm to win outright in my view: an LD collapse in seats they are defending against the Tories, an unprecedented level of anti-Labour tactical voting in Labour marginal and target seats, and an SNP surge in Scotland. It is possible, right now it looks likely.

I guess the dog that hasn't barked so far is centrist 2010-LibDem-types going Con. This is what the Tories need to match the left-leaning equivalent going Lab. In theory this should be possible given a growing economy, especially since coalition as a form of government isn't polling very well. But it's a very intricate thing for the Tories to try to message: Coalition is disastrous, but The Coalition has been wonderful.

Mick_Pork

SouthamObserver said:

There is no previous coalition against which to make comparisons in polling

And why is that? It's because a hung parliament is extremely rare under FPTP. The simple fact is that the less lib dem MPs there are the less chance of a hung parliament there is. 2015 will not be like 2010 since those voters who were happy with voting tactically for a hung parliament are almost certain to have have diminished in numbers after seeing it in action. Labour voters in particular are somewhat unlikely to tactically vote lib dem in huge numbers to keep the tories out anymore. They may well have spotted a small flaw in that plan by now.

If the kippers collapse after the EU elections then the tories have every chance of taking advantage of that. If little Ed proves to be less than adroit on the campaign trail then that too could make a big difference. Likewise if the tories fall into EU madness yet again then labour could pull well ahead. Just as if Osbrowne has another omnishambles during the campaign then that could push the tories well down.

The 2015 election is not even close to being decided so the idea that it must inevitably end in hung parliament is as fallacious as the idea that either the tories or labour have it in the bag. The lib dem have always wished for a hung parliament at every election (for obvious reasons) but that hardly means it's going to happen at every election as the electoral record proves.

SouthamObserver

CarlottaVance said:

@SO - fair summary - of course 'surprises' in the EU polls or the Scottish Independence referendum may galvanise turn out - but this far out its impossible to predict and 'all to play for'.

I'm sure in May 2015 there will be people posting on here 'it was obvious 18 months out that [fill in winner] was going to win because of [fill in reason]......but in truth, it ain't, despite what the more excitable posters on both wings may claim.

Agreed. It was only around the turn of 2010 that a hung Parliament became a realistic scenario, even then quite a few on here and elsewhere missed or refused to accept it. I did not change my Tory majority nailed on view til quite late, though I did get there before election day. The voting system is such a big factor. A lot of folk forget the GE is not a national election, but 650 individual ones. That sounds trite, but it is absolutely true. You can get a dreadful vote share (29% say), but still end up with a good number of MPs, or you can put on one million votes overall and actually go backwards in seats.

Mick_Pork

CarlottaVance said:

Mick_Pork said:

I can of course show you the recent polling on the scottish government compared to the coalitions approval ratings

So Dunfermline's a shoo-in then?

Noted.

At least you can't use the 'mid-term unpopular government line' if you don't romp home.....

Complete and utter bullshit. Extrapolating the scottish government's fortunes just on Dunfermline is as moronic as extrapolating the lib dems fortunes based solely on Eastleigh.
It might have escaped your notice that both are the type of highly unusual by-elections that have somewhat massive local factors in play due to how they came about. The lib dems would have romped home in Eastleigh if it wasn't for those rather glaring legal matters with Huhne. Instead it took the kippers to split the right wing vote and save them.

Though if you seriously want to engage in that I will of course extrapolate the scottish tory vote in Dunfermline to the tory government's performance and we'll see who fares better.

CarlottaVance

Mick_Pork said:

CarlottaVance said:

Mick_Pork said:

I can of course show you the recent polling on the scottish government compared to the coalitions approval ratings

So Dunfermline's a shoo-in then?

Noted.

At least you can't use the 'mid-term unpopular government line' if you don't romp home.....

Complete and utter bullshit.

Getting the excuses in already.

Noted.

Mick_Pork

CarlottaVance said:

Mick_Pork said:

CarlottaVance said:

Mick_Pork said:

I can of course show you the recent polling on the scottish government compared to the coalitions approval ratings

So Dunfermline's a shoo-in then?

Noted.

At least you can't use the 'mid-term unpopular government line' if you don't romp home.....

Complete and utter bullshit.

Getting the excuses in already.

Noted.

Oh noes! A scottish tory has made a note of something. Is it yet another scottish tory surge?

LOL

What's your excuse for this then?

BusinessforScotland ‏@BizforScotland

Latest poll finds that satisfaction with the Scottish Government is +23, 10 point increase since May. (UK Gov -28) http://ow.ly/pWM7B

SouthamObserver

Mick_Pork said:

SouthamObserver said:

There is no previous coalition against which to make comparisons in polling

And why is that? It's because a hung parliament is extremely rare under FPTP. The simple fact is that the less lib dem MPs there are the less chance of a hung parliament there is. 2015 will not be like 2010 since those voters who were happy with voting tactically for a hung parliament are almost certain to have have diminished in numbers after seeing it in action. Labour voters in particular are somewhat unlikely to tactically vote lib dem in huge numbers to keep the tories out anymore. They may well have spotted a small flaw in that plan by now.

If the kippers collapse after the EU elections then the tories have every chance of taking advantage of that. If little Ed proves to be less than adroit on the campaign trail then that too could make a big difference. Likewise if the tories fall into EU madness yet again then labour could pull well ahead. Just as if Osbrowne has another omnishambles during the campaign then that could push the tories well down.

The 2015 election is not even close to being decided so the idea that it must inevitably end in hung parliament is as fallacious as the idea that either the tories or labour have it in the bag. The lib dem have always wished for a hung parliament at every election (for obvious reasons) but that hardly means it's going to happen at every election as the electoral record proves.

Anyone saying a hung Parliament in 2015 is inevitable is a fool. But getting from the 2010 result to an outright majority for either party looks a stretch to me. For the Tories it almost certainly means a pretty sizeable increase in vote share, for Labour it definitely means winning well over 50 more seats. As things stand, neither seems very likely.

firstlight40

Great article once again David,

The economy is improving; but it is true that people do not feel better off because homeowners for example cannot take 10% of their income from their housing equity as happened in 2000 to 2008. If they are low income the increase in fuel bills will hurt, if their income is higher other taxes will; for example for every £ I earn extra this year the revenue gets 73p. Labout have got to be careful banging on about the cost of living because their only answer is once again to bribe electors with money that does not exist or try and get it from others (companies or rich individuals).

However Labour should be able to scare public sector workers into voting for them; there's still a lot more to be done here on pensions and other benefits (automatic salary increments) including a continuing pay freeze, if I was a public sector worker there would be a lot to be worried about looking at a 2nd term tory government.

CarlottaVance

@Mick_Pork - Nicola answered that yesterday - the SNP are both "in government" and "in opposition" to Westminster - a luxury no one has enjoyed before.

But thanks for reminding us that "unpopular mid-term government" will not be trotted out nextFriday.....

SouthamObserver

edmundintokyo said:

SouthamObserver said:

@EiT - The Tories need a perfect storm to win outright in my view: an LD collapse in seats they are defending against the Tories, an unprecedented level of anti-Labour tactical voting in Labour marginal and target seats, and an SNP surge in Scotland. It is possible, right now it looks likely.

I guess the dog that hasn't barked so far is centrist 2010-LibDem-types going Con. This is what the Tories need to match the left-leaning equivalent going Lab. In theory this should be possible given a growing economy, especially since coalition as a form of government isn't polling very well. But it's a very intricate thing for the Tories to try to message: Coalition is disastrous, but The Coalition has been wonderful.

The Tory swing to the right, including the more pronounced Euroscepticism, is going to make it much harder for them to get votes in the centre. It looks to me like they have decided on a strategy - focus entirely on winning over UKIPers that have not previously voted Tory and hope to retain the 2010 vote. If that is successful that may just get over the line. It's basically a mirror of the Labour strategy of adding 2010 LDs to the 2010 Labour vote. Overall it means both parties are talking very specifically to very different parts of the electorate. In doing so, they probably help to reinforce the other side's message!

edmundintokyo

SouthamObserver said:

Mick_Pork said:

SouthamObserver said:

There is no previous coalition against which to make comparisons in polling

And why is that? It's because a hung parliament is extremely rare under FPTP. The simple fact is that the less lib dem MPs there are the less chance of a hung parliament there is. 2015 will not be like 2010 since those voters who were happy with voting tactically for a hung parliament are almost certain to have have diminished in numbers after seeing it in action. Labour voters in particular are somewhat unlikely to tactically vote lib dem in huge numbers to keep the tories out anymore. They may well have spotted a small flaw in that plan by now.

If the kippers collapse after the EU elections then the tories have every chance of taking advantage of that. If little Ed proves to be less than adroit on the campaign trail then that too could make a big difference. Likewise if the tories fall into EU madness yet again then labour could pull well ahead. Just as if Osbrowne has another omnishambles during the campaign then that could push the tories well down.

The 2015 election is not even close to being decided so the idea that it must inevitably end in hung parliament is as fallacious as the idea that either the tories or labour have it in the bag. The lib dem have always wished for a hung parliament at every election (for obvious reasons) but that hardly means it's going to happen at every election as the electoral record proves.

Anyone saying a hung Parliament in 2015 is inevitable is a fool. But getting from the 2010 result to an outright majority for either party looks a stretch to me. For the Tories it almost certainly means a pretty sizeable increase in vote share, for Labour it definitely means winning well over 50 more seats. As things stand, neither seems very likely.

And that's before incumbency kicks in, especially trying to get to Lab maj. It's going to take some fairly chunky swings to dislodge the first-term incumbents who dislodged Labour incumbents in 2010.

Mick_Pork

SouthamObserver said:

But getting from the 2010 result to an outright majority for either party looks a stretch to me.

Only if things stay almost exactly as they are from now until 2015 and the total votes cast fall in precisely the right proportion to cause a hung parliament. Something which as we already know is very unlikely. It's nothing to do with how things look right now or party allegiance and everything to do with the reason hung parliaments are so rare under FPTP. It's just a fact that FPTP is not conducive to hung parliaments. Sure, because we just had one it may superficially look more likely but that just isn't the case over a longer time period.

If the election looks ever more like a straight battle between the tories and labour then that will inevitably squeeze all the other parties. We may not have had that many huge swings in VI this parliament yet but they can and they do happen.

A hung parliament could of course occur again but so could a tory or a labour victory and it is the coalition that is the exceptional occurrence not the usual one like a tory or labour win.

DecrepitJohnL

Conceding the economic debate is the danger of Miliband's Faustian pact with Darling and the Blairites not to attack Osborne's economic policy for fear of splitting Labour. If austerity at home is compared with austerity in Europe it is not remarkably surprising that one is doing marginally better than the other, and since the natural state of the economy is growth (perhaps aided by selling state banks that turned out not to cost the trillions of pounds forecast by Conservatives in oppposition based on the assumption that every single asset was toxic) will mean green shoots for some. That said, the rising (wrong word in headline btw?) cost of living and falling real wages for many voters may still see Labour home in 2015.

AndreaParma_82

Another retirement: Frank Doran from Aberdeen North

His wife Joan Ruddock is also retiring in Lewisham Deptford. First elected in 1987, he managed to lose his seat in 1992 before coming back in 1997. He was born in 1949

edmundintokyo

SouthamObserver said:

edmundintokyo said:

SouthamObserver said:

@EiT - The Tories need a perfect storm to win outright in my view: an LD collapse in seats they are defending against the Tories, an unprecedented level of anti-Labour tactical voting in Labour marginal and target seats, and an SNP surge in Scotland. It is possible, right now it looks likely.

I guess the dog that hasn't barked so far is centrist 2010-LibDem-types going Con. This is what the Tories need to match the left-leaning equivalent going Lab. In theory this should be possible given a growing economy, especially since coalition as a form of government isn't polling very well. But it's a very intricate thing for the Tories to try to message: Coalition is disastrous, but The Coalition has been wonderful.

The Tory swing to the right, including the more pronounced Euroscepticism, is going to make it much harder for them to get votes in the centre. It looks to me like they have decided on a strategy - focus entirely on winning over UKIPers that have not previously voted Tory and hope to retain the 2010 vote. If that is successful that may just get over the line. It's basically a mirror of the Labour strategy of adding 2010 LDs to the 2010 Labour vote. Overall it means both parties are talking very specifically to very different parts of the electorate. In doing so, they probably help to reinforce the other side's message!

I agree, but the Cleggasm probably swept up quite a few voters who weren't particularly political, and who will potentially be open to good economic news or even some moderately right-wing populist gestures. These also sound like the kind of people who won't make up their minds until the campaign.

But like I say, appealing to them is complicated. It's similar to the problem the LibDems have acting as an internal opposition: Logically it makes perfectly good sense to say, "We did as good a job as we could under the circumstances, but it would have been better without those other guys". But it's hard to get that story across to disinterested voters via the bipolar media, which boxes everybody into proclaiming everything either a triumph or a disaster.

CarlottaVance

AndreaParma_82 said:

Another retirement: Frank Doran from Aberdeen North

His wife Joan Ruddock is also retiring in Lewisham Deptford. First elected in 1987, he managed to lose his seat in 1992 before coming back in 1997. He was born in 1949

Both pretty healthy Labour majorities, so the lack of incumbency should not be an issue in 2015.

TGOHF

I'll miss the scottish referendum chat when its all over....

Mick_Pork

CarlottaVance said:

@Mick_Pork - Nicola answered that yesterday - the SNP are both "in government" and "in opposition" to Westminster - a luxury no one has enjoyed before.

Oh for god's sake at least get the facts right lest you look any more of an inept fool.
Who formed the scottish government from 2007-2011? Here's a clue since you seem mired in stupidity this morning, it certainly wasn't the scottish tories.

Which party was "in government" alongside scottish labour in scotland from 1999-2007 and also had the 'luxury' of being "in opposition" to Westminster during that time?

Why has the scottish government's approval rating gone up 10 points since May?

But thanks for reminding us that scottish tories are as out of touch and clueless as ever....

Plato

Excellent piece, Mr Herdson - thank you. I firmly believe it is essentially 'It's the economy, stupid' that will be the biggest factor.

Where perhaps I have an issue is around the notion of the cost of living tactic Labour is using - its a subset of the economy. If the Tories can explain it in those terms, it may be neutralised. It's not a simple soundbite though.

Plato

Andrea Parma @AndreaParma82
Another retirement: Frank Doran from Aberdeen North. His wife is also retiring in Lewisham Deptford.

NickPalmer

Nice cartoon, as always! And thanks to David for the thought-provoking piece.

Leaving aside what we think personally about the economy and its management, it's clear that as things improve, as they should, people will think macroeconomics are broadly right. The argument that they'd have improved faster with other policies is abstruse and people lose patience with it.

Equally, if people don't feel they're doing well personally, they'll tend to feel microeconomics is wrong. THe argument that it will all benefit them in the end meets scepticism, especially if there are examples of projects and wealthy people doing very well from government largesse.
Whether 18 months is enough time for people to start to feel that they're benefiting personally I rather doubt.

Richardho's point about incumbency is too generalised. The experience of a number of Labour candidates is that the incumbent MPs are generally mentioned without enthusiasm, to put it mildly, and the Ashcroft marginals poll does suggest the absence of an incumbency bonus where it matters. I'm sure there are exceptions, and that may make the results quite uneven. I agree with Carlotta that it's not securely predictable, but it's hard to see Labour failing to gain ground significantly over 2010, and equally hard to see LibDems wanting to push on with the coalition if it's lost ground, in the teeth of membership and 2010 voter opinion.

ThomasNashe

It is the final point in David's post that I would dispute. Those 2010 Lib-Dem deserters are going to be sticking with Labour no matter what happens. They were by and large the people who originally deserted Lab over tuition fees, Iraq - feeling that Lab had become too much like the Tories and that the Lib-Dems were the truly left-wing party. Imagine the visceral reaction when they found out they had effectively voted Tory. They ain't going back no matter how rosy the economy looks in 18 months time.

On the other hand the assumption that Labour automatically has the c.30% who voted for them in 2010 in the bag is I think a mistaken one. Believe it or not, some of them voted positively for Brown, and may well feel that Ed does not quite have the same 'gravitas'.

CarlottaVance

Mick_Pork said:

Who formed the scottish government from 2007-2011? Here's a clue since you seem mired in stupidity this morning, it certainly wasn't the scottish Tories .

My point exactly - the SNP enjoys the luxury of being in both government and in opposition to Westminster - something no other Scottish government has enjoyed before.

I love it when you bluster - have you been canvassing in Dunfermline?

That bad?

Mick_Pork

Golly! Just when things couldn't look worse for the GOP. ;^ )

Blake Hounshell ‏@blakehounshell

Fresh off Lonegan triumph RT @politico: Sarah Palin hints at tea party primaries http://politi.co/1cXUExI

And so it begins... again.

LOL

Mick_Pork

CarlottaVance said:

That bad?

You certainly seem to be trying for some kind of award for comical incompetence today, I'll give you that.

You said

"the SNP are both "in government" and "in opposition" to Westminster - a luxury no one has enjoyed before."

Which is complete and utter nonsense since both the SNP and the scottish lib dems have been "in government" in scotland and "in opposition" to Westminster before.

Your amusing excuses and inept wriggling are indeed very funny though, so by all means keep it up.

edmundintokyo

NickPalmer said:

equally hard to see LibDems wanting to push on with the coalition if it's lost ground, in the teeth of membership and 2010 voter opinion.

If they lose seats their chances of a kingmaker slot are limited, but if they had it I think they'd go with whoever made the best offer. They'd have a justification that passed the laugh test for whatever they wanted to do: If they or the Tories lost support that would show the voters rejecting coalition with Con, but if Con had beaten Lab in the popular vote they could say the voters had told them to carry on.

The question we haven't discussed much is what the parties could and would offer. If you're Cameron, how about a referendum on PR in exchange for boundaries and an EU referendum? The voters would probably kill PR, and Cameron's BATNA would be the end of his career.

david_herdson

MikeSmithson said:

Your thesis is based on the premise that "it's the economy stupid".

It isn't. Just ask Mitt Romney who had double digit leads on managing the economy on the eve of the election a year ago in to the 2012 White House race. He lost.

It is the economy stupid, providing that you don't scare the horses too much on other issues which are seen as important, that the economy is itself seen as a key factor in the political debate, and that swing voters believe that even if you can deliver on the economy, you will deliver for people 'like them'.

Romney failed on too many of those other points and Obama was given enough credit for his own handling of the issue that Romney's lead was of less relevance (c.f. Miliband and Balls, whose record both in government and opposition has so many targets to hit, the biggest problem is deciding which ones to concentrate on).

Roger

Labour's strategy should be based around the theme that Cameron's Tories are a party for the privileged. It's widely believed and simple to develop. The only thing that trumps a sense of unfairness is self interest and as an opposition there's not much they can do about that.
It's time they brought in some outside talent to make the theme coherent.

CarlottaVance

@Mick_Pork - since 2007 the SNP has been both in government in Edinburgh and in Opposition to Westminster - which part of that is unclear?

Was the Westminster government from 1999 - 2007 Tory?

Back to Dunfermline then.

If the Lib Dems can hold Eastleigh after their MP resigns in scandal, and are part of (as you never tire of reminding us) a deeply unpopular government, surely the SNP, (as you never tire of reminding us) a very popular government can hold Dunfermline?

Mick_Pork

david_herdson said:

MikeSmithson said:

Your thesis is based on the premise that "it's the economy stupid".

It isn't. Just ask Mitt Romney who had double digit leads on managing the economy on the eve of the election a year ago in to the 2012 White House race. He lost.

It is the economy stupid, providing that you don't scare the horses too much on other issues

Or to put it more accurately for Romney, provided you don't look like an out of touch plutocrat who has no concept of what ordinary voters are going through and the cost of living.

Yorkcity

It only needs the interest rates to normalise compared to inflation, as they must at some point.

I presume rather cynically as all governments do , this will start straight after a general election, so the summer of 2015.
The cost of living then for many with mortgages will be dire .

David Herdson says..
"Will concentrating instead on people’s pay packets trump the big picture when most agree that the cuts are necessary?"

Depends on if you have the luxury to look at the big picture, or you would prefer a pay rise to pay the bills.

edmundintokyo

Roger said:

Labour's strategy should be based around the theme that Cameron's Tories are a party for the privileged. It's widely believed and simple to develop. The only thing that trumps a sense of unfairness is self interest and as an opposition there's not much they can do about that.
It's time they brought in some outside talent to make the theme coherent.

Ed Miliband isn't the ideal messenger for that. Labour would be better doing a deal with Farage: They get him into the debates (even if they have to debate without Cameron) and in return he takes a populist hatchet to the Tories.

david_herdson

SouthamObserver said:

edmundintokyo said:

SouthamObserver said:

@EiT - The Tories need a perfect storm to win outright in my view: an LD collapse in seats they are defending against the Tories, an unprecedented level of anti-Labour tactical voting in Labour marginal and target seats, and an SNP surge in Scotland. It is possible, right now it looks likely.

I guess the dog that hasn't barked so far is centrist 2010-LibDem-types going Con. This is what the Tories need to match the left-leaning equivalent going Lab. In theory this should be possible given a growing economy, especially since coalition as a form of government isn't polling very well. But it's a very intricate thing for the Tories to try to message: Coalition is disastrous, but The Coalition has been wonderful.

The Tory swing to the right, including the more pronounced Euroscepticism, is going to make it much harder for them to get votes in the centre. It looks to me like they have decided on a strategy - focus entirely on winning over UKIPers that have not previously voted Tory and hope to retain the 2010 vote. If that is successful that may just get over the line. It's basically a mirror of the Labour strategy of adding 2010 LDs to the 2010 Labour vote. Overall it means both parties are talking very specifically to very different parts of the electorate. In doing so, they probably help to reinforce the other side's message!

There are many different centre grounds. Cameron trying to appeal to Guardian readers will never work: Roger isn't going to vote Tory this side of the apocalypse. Aiming at Sun readers who went for Brown in 2010 because they believed his hype about being the best man on the economy, on the other hand, is a different kettle of fish.

Mick_Pork

@Carlottavance

You wrongly claimed that this current SNP administration was the only one that has been both "in government" and "in opposition" to Westminster - a luxury no one has enjoyed before" as some kind of rather pathetic excuse for current strong approval ratings.

The fact is both a previous SNP administration and the scottish lib dems have enjoyed that 'luxury'. So not only was what you claimed false but it's possible use as some kind of excuse for strong approval ratings is quite clearly twaddle.

Back to those approval ratings then.

Since your excuse is obvious nonsense then just why are those approval ratings so positive and have risen 10 points from May while Cammie's coalition are well into the negative?

MonikerDiCanio

tim said:

Mick_Pork said:

david_herdson said:

MikeSmithson said:

Your thesis is based on the premise that "it's the economy stupid".

It isn't. Just ask Mitt Romney who had double digit leads on managing the economy on the eve of the election a year ago in to the 2012 White House race. He lost.

It is the economy stupid, providing that you don't scare the horses too much on other issues

Or to put it more accurately for Romney, provided you don't look like an out of touch plutocrat who has no concept of what ordinary voters are going through and the cost of living.

Good job the Tory leadership is seen as completely different from Romney isn't it.
The idea that a party is led by a bunch of rich kids in it for their mates could be damaging

Romney represented the Republicans on whose watch the US economy had crashed. He tried to blame Obama for the Republican toxic economic legacy. He lost. Justly.

Ed Miliband represents Labour on whose watch the UK economy crashed. He will try to blame Cameron for Labour's toxic economic legacy . He will lose. Justly.

Mick_Pork

david_herdson said:

Cameron trying to appeal to Guardian readers will never work

That would probably have been more useful advice at the time when he tried it.

Cameron told: it's time to ditch Churchill

Polly Toynbee, not Winston, should set Tory social agenda, says adviser

One of David Cameron's key policy advisers will urge the party today to abandon its Churchillian and "out of date" ideas about the welfare state, the Guardian has learned. Greg Clark, who is overhauling the party's approach to poverty at the Tory leader's request, will urge Conservatives to look to the Guardian commentator Polly Toynbee rather than the wartime leader.

His proposals are likely to infuriate many in the grassroots - and in the Tory press - but they suggest the party is seeking to outflank the government in surprising areas, as they have already done by campaigning as champions of the NHS.

Mr Clark, a shadow minister and confidant of the Tory leader who has been working on the party's comprehensive policy review, argues that the Tories must attack inequality.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/nov/22/uk.conservatives

Blofelds_Cat

surbiton said:

David Herdson's analysis above can be summarised in two words: Wishful thinking.

Surbiton's response to DH's analysis can be summarised in 2 words: wishful thinking.
And that's the nature of tribal politics

Gerry_Mander

Yorkcity said:

It only needs the interest rates to normalise compared to inflation, as they must at some point.

I presume rather cynically as all governments do , this will start straight after a general election, so the summer of 2015.
The cost of living then for many with mortgages will be dire .

David Herdson says..
"Will concentrating instead on people’s pay packets trump the big picture when most agree that the cuts are necessary?"

Depends on if you have the luxury to look at the big picture, or you would prefer a pay rise to pay the bills.

Not when the looking at the big picture includes having a wage acket in the first place. There are plenty of people struggling right now, but at least they have jobs, and more of them are getting jobs. And yes, we have been in this position over the last few years, for the first time ever.

SMukesh

Interesting idea but fits into the trend of Tory commentators saying why X,Y,Z will eventually turn out good for them in the end and Labour ones vice versa.I agree with Herdson though that this issue is not yet a election winning one for Labour.

As of now,the Tories don`t have an idea as to how to deal with this issue.They were well prepared with the argument `Don`t let the driver who crashed the car drive it again` on the economy and are finding that the debate has changed and are yet to come up with an alternative.Cameron and Osborne try to bring it back to the economy but increasingly the media want to focus on the `cost of living` and are not listening.

The killer stat is that earnings have fallen in 39 of the 40 months that Cameron has been PM and till he can show some progress on this issue,he is going to be on the backfoot.Tories know that they can`t let Miliband have a free run on the `cost of living` and will eventually go for tax-cuts which `increase the disposable income` but that leaves their deficit reduction plan on the backburner.

david_herdson

Mick_Pork said:

Only if things stay almost exactly as they are from now until 2015 and the total votes cast fall in precisely the right proportion to cause a hung parliament. Something which as we already know is very unlikely. It's nothing to do with how things look right now or party allegiance and everything to do with the reason hung parliaments are so rare under FPTP. It's just a fact that FPTP is not conducive to hung parliaments. Sure, because we just had one it may superficially look more likely but that just isn't the case over a longer time period.

If the election looks ever more like a straight battle between the tories and labour then that will inevitably squeeze all the other parties. We may not have had that many huge swings in VI this parliament yet but they can and they do happen.

A hung parliament could of course occur again but so could a tory or a labour victory and it is the coalition that is the exceptional occurrence not the usual one like a tory or labour win.

It's true that coalition has been rare historically but a hung parliament is still a strong probability for 2015. For one thing, the near misses disguise how many hung parliaments there've been. Only two elections since 1945 have produced no overall majority but it's quite probable that the 1951 and 1964 parliaments could have ended with no party enjoying an overall majority, had they run their term and once by-elections took their toll. Of course, the Oct 1974 and 1992 elections did end in that position. That's a third of the elections that didn't produce a majority sufficient to last the parliament.

On top of which, there's now a far more substantial block in the middle that has to be traversed to go from Con Maj to Lab Maj (or more relevantly, Con near-maj to Lab maj). In the 1950s, there were only a handful of Liberals and virtually no others. Even if the Lib Dems take a substantial hit in 2015, we can still reasonably expect a minimum of 60 or so MPs not taking the Tory or Labour whip. And if we include small majorities that might not last the term, the hung parliament range becomes even bigger.

It wasn't just FPTP which made hung parliaments unlikely, it was the two-party system which it helped to reinforce but which has slowly declined nonetheless.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Wozniacki won, alas. Bad results from the last 4 tennis tips (2 losses and 2 non-results due to withdrawals).

In unrelated news, this proposal to axe religious oaths in court seems entirely stupid:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24588854

It may well make religious people take the matter more seriously, and atheists already have a non-religious alternative.

Anyway, on-topic, I hope that Miliband loses, but given the way the numbers stack up I'd be somewhat surprised.

Plato

Brilliant http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2013/oct/18/eton-james-bond-bedroom-tax

"Geoffrey Wheatcroft (Plebgate's greatest revelation? 16 October) hopes to expose the opportunism of the Sun's political editor, Tom Newton Dunn, in wearing a T-shirt proclaiming "I am a pleb" by adding "No, you're an old Etonian". Well, he's not. Neither is George Osborne, but that at least is one attribution the Guardian usually gets right. And now that it looks as though revisionist fiction in William Boyd's novel Solo has dispatched Bond to Fettes rather than Eton, we're haemorrhaging putative old boys. Captain Hook at least
remains.

Charles Milne
Tutor for admissions, Eton College

malcolmg

CarlottaVance said:

@Mick_Pork - so rUK energy bills will continue to subsidise Scottish renewables post-independence?

Another promise not within the gift of the SNP......

UK does not subsidise anything in Scotland , we pay in more than we get back , the rest is just Tory bollocks. Who cares if rUK buy Scottish electricity after independence, they will or they won't and we will get on with our lives. The savings from English HS2 , English Trident , MOD , London infrastructure will mean we will not need to give a hoot. Unlike the current Westminster idiots we will live within our means. Whinging Tory apologists just cannot accept that.

CarlottaVance

Mick_Pork said:

@Carlottavance
those approval ratings so positive and have risen 10 points from May while Cammie's coalition are well into the negative?

Dunfermline nailed on!

SouthamObserver

Plato said:

Brilliant http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2013/oct/18/eton-james-bond-bedroom-tax

"Geoffrey Wheatcroft (Plebgate's greatest revelation? 16 October) hopes to expose the opportunism of the Sun's political editor, Tom Newton Dunn, in wearing a T-shirt proclaiming "I am a pleb" by adding "No, you're an old Etonian". Well, he's not. Neither is George Osborne, but that at least is one attribution the Guardian usually gets right. And now that it looks as though revisionist fiction in William Boyd's novel Solo has dispatched Bond to Fettes rather than Eton, we're haemorrhaging putative old boys. Captain Hook at least
remains.

Charles Milne
Tutor for admissions, Eton College

Wasn't Bond thrown out of Eton, which is why he ended up at Fettes?

malcolmg

CarlottaVance said:

Project Fear:

"Scotland’s social security system will be dismantled. Scotland’s public services and universal benefits will be under threat. Scotland’s budget will be cut."

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/scottish-voters-warned-of-consequences-of-no-vote-1.1566102

The bitterness and spite of westminster will wreak havoc on Scotland if the people are stupid enough to vote no and it will be well deserved.

Roger

@Edmund

"Ed Miliband isn't the ideal messenger for that."

It shouldn't be about Ed or even Cameron personally. It should be about bankers and energy companies and 45p tax.

Without even a glimpse of a Bullingdon photo the contrast between a Cenrica MD on £5.000.000 and a freezing pensioner will be enough. The polling already suggests the pensioner will be identified with Ed and Labour and the Centrica MD with Dave and the Tories.

It's just needs more coherence and subtlety

DavidL

I think it is a good idea to focus on what "the economy" really means.

In the last week we have seen the increase in total employment pass 1m. On current trends that figure may well be pushing 2m by the election. Many of these jobs go to foreigners. Some are pretty notional "self employment". Many will be zero hours contracts which don't make the holders feel much better off. But there will be a lot of people in employment or with the prospects of better employment than there was in 2010. This is driving the economic optimism figures and they are driving the tory recovery.

Despite that fairly remarkable increase in employment public sector employment will have fallen by nearly 1m. Many of those might be resentful of course. But there will be fewer motivated to protect their public sector privileges because there will be fewer of them.

By the middle of next year real wages will be growing again. Indeed as the government pointed out for lower paid they already have thanks to the changes in tax and the increase in the average number of hours worked. It probably will not feel like that. Most people are not very good at measuring small changes in their net earnings against prices and underestimate their progress. But the stats then available will take the sting out of Ed's charge and focus attention on whether he has any realistic plans to make it any better.

None of this means that the tories are going to win. The movement of left supporting Lib Dems to Labour makes this a real challenge. I agree with those who say Cameron is going to have to win more votes than he did in 2010 and there are not many precedents for that. But the sort of economy Osborne will have delivered by May 2015 will give the tories a chance. And that is really the best they could have hoped for.

malcolmg

RobD said:

Mick_Pork said:

@CarlottaVance

Misconstrue and misrepresent it however you wish. Reserved matters will clearly no longer be reserved in an independent scotland. You should have paid more attention to Mr Herdson because if any other party picks up this idea and tries to run with it now it's going to be very amusing indeed.

Saying social security will end if people vote no is a tad alarmist, IMO.

They are making a good go of it without independence and given their past they will exact a heavy price for our temerity of having a referendum.

Sean_F

SouthamObserver said:

Plato said:

Brilliant http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2013/oct/18/eton-james-bond-bedroom-tax

"Geoffrey Wheatcroft (Plebgate's greatest revelation? 16 October) hopes to expose the opportunism of the Sun's political editor, Tom Newton Dunn, in wearing a T-shirt proclaiming "I am a pleb" by adding "No, you're an old Etonian". Well, he's not. Neither is George Osborne, but that at least is one attribution the Guardian usually gets right. And now that it looks as though revisionist fiction in William Boyd's novel Solo has dispatched Bond to Fettes rather than Eton, we're haemorrhaging putative old boys. Captain Hook at least
remains.

Charles Milne
Tutor for admissions, Eton College

Wasn't Bond thrown out of Eton, which is why he ended up at Fettes?

Bond got thrown out for having sex with a maid. No one would have batted an eyelid if he'd had sex with a master.

malcolmg

DavidL said:

I think it is a good idea to focus on what "the economy" really means.

In the last week we have seen the increase in total employment pass 1m. On current trends that figure may well be pushing 2m by the election. Many of these jobs go to foreigners. Some are pretty notional "self employment". Many will be zero hours contracts which don't make the holders feel much better off. But there will be a lot of people in employment or with the prospects of better employment than there was in 2010. This is driving the economic optimism figures and they are driving the tory recovery.

Despite that fairly remarkable increase in employment public sector employment will have fallen by nearly 1m. Many of those might be resentful of course. But there will be fewer motivated to protect their public sector privileges because there will be fewer of them.

By the middle of next year real wages will be growing again. Indeed as the government pointed out for lower paid they already have thanks to the changes in tax and the increase in the average number of hours worked. It probably will not feel like that. Most people are not very good at measuring small changes in their net earnings against prices and underestimate their progress. But the stats then available will take the sting out of Ed's charge and focus attention on whether he has any realistic plans to make it any better.

None of this means that the tories are going to win. The movement of left supporting Lib Dems to Labour makes this a real challenge. I agree with those who say Cameron is going to have to win more votes than he did in 2010 and there are not many precedents for that. But the sort of economy Osborne will have delivered by May 2015 will give the tories a chance. And that is really the best they could have hoped for.

The biggest growth in the UK is food banks, people cannot even feed themselves, they will be unable to heat themselves in the coming winter , yes everything looking rosy, huzzah for the Tories.

Theuniondivvie

CarlottaVance said:

Back to Dunfermline then.

If the Lib Dems can hold Eastleigh after their MP resigns in scandal, and are part of (as you never tire of reminding us) a deeply unpopular government, surely the SNP, (as you never tire of reminding us) a very popular government can hold Dunfermline?

If the SNP were working with a 7% GE lead as opposed to a 2% one in Dunfermline, they might be in with a shout. In fact I may be willing to take a bet on Labour winning by less than 7 points (their candidate is a bit crap).
Perhaps one of the resident psephologists can tell us the last time an incumbent government party held a by-election seat on the back of 2 point GE lead.

Sean_F

DavidL said:

I think it is a good idea to focus on what "the economy" really means.

In the last week we have seen the increase in total employment pass 1m. On current trends that figure may well be pushing 2m by the election. Many of these jobs go to foreigners. Some are pretty notional "self employment". Many will be zero hours contracts which don't make the holders feel much better off. But there will be a lot of people in employment or with the prospects of better employment than there was in 2010. This is driving the economic optimism figures and they are driving the tory recovery.

Despite that fairly remarkable increase in employment public sector employment will have fallen by nearly 1m. Many of those might be resentful of course. But there will be fewer motivated to protect their public sector privileges because there will be fewer of them.

By the middle of next year real wages will be growing again. Indeed as the government pointed out for lower paid they already have thanks to the changes in tax and the increase in the average number of hours worked. It probably will not feel like that. Most people are not very good at measuring small changes in their net earnings against prices and underestimate their progress. But the stats then available will take the sting out of Ed's charge and focus attention on whether he has any realistic plans to make it any better.

None of this means that the tories are going to win. The movement of left supporting Lib Dems to Labour makes this a real challenge. I agree with those who say Cameron is going to have to win more votes than he did in 2010 and there are not many precedents for that. But the sort of economy Osborne will have delivered by May 2015 will give the tories a chance. And that is really the best they could have hoped for.

If the Lib Dems really do poll 10% or so in 2015, it's almost inevitable that the Conservatives will win more votes than in 2010. I don't think the party will do as badly as that. But that means in turn, they'll regain some of their switchers to Labour.

Overall, a Labour lead of 4% or so, at this stage of the Parliament, suggests they'll struggle to emerge as the largest party in 2015.

MonikerDiCanio

malcolmg said:

RobD said:

Mick_Pork said:

@CarlottaVance

Misconstrue and misrepresent it however you wish. Reserved matters will clearly no longer be reserved in an independent scotland. You should have paid more attention to Mr Herdson because if any other party picks up this idea and tries to run with it now it's going to be very amusing indeed.

Saying social security will end if people vote no is a tad alarmist, IMO.

They are making a good go of it without independence and given their past they will exact a heavy price for our temerity of having a referendum.

You've got a short memory , Malcolm.
If it had been for the lavish generosity of the English taxpayer in bailing out RBS and BoS , Scotland would be broker than Greece.

DavidL

tim said:

@DavidL

Cameron needs to win back UKIP voters but has managed to be more unpopular among them than Miliband is.
How did that happen?

Tim you know fine well the answer to that. Every tory leader is in their eyes a hypocrite and a betrayer who isn't even trying to deliver whatever fantasy they are focussed on at the time. Ed, on the other hand is simply consistent in wanting to crawl to foreigners and inviting them all to live here. Someone, even notionally, of the left really should not told about the bitterness of internecine hatreds and rivalries.

Whatever they think of Cameron, and it is not much, many will ultimately vote tory to stop the party they blame for excessive immigration. They will be squeezed in the same way the Lib Dems are being squeezed to the left. I think we may see an increase in the share of votes for the largest two parties next time reversing some of the trends David has mentioned.

Those that say nothing is certain about 2015 yet are clearly right but the probability is that it will be close. Very close.

CarlottaVance

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

Project Fear:

"Scotland’s social security system will be dismantled. Scotland’s public services and universal benefits will be under threat. Scotland’s budget will be cut."

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/scottish-voters-warned-of-consequences-of-no-vote-1.1566102

The bitterness and spite of westminster will wreak havoc on Scotland if the people are stupid enough to vote no and it will be well deserved.

So "Project Fear" is indeed SNP, not Unionist!

Do you genuinely believe a "no" vote will lead to the end of or reduction in devolution?

You're not even using all the powers you've got!

taffys

'It just needs more coherence and subtlety.

I think labour's attempt to get with the public on energy prices will not succeed. In their heart of hearts many folk know that energy companies don't make bigger profits than many other private companies, and it's the politicians who are guilty.

By talking about this ed opens himself up to all sorts of cross examination about why he decided there are only certain types of electricity the British public can use - which is a much bigger factor in driving prices up than energy company profiteering.

If the energy companies have any sense they will be hiring people like roger even now to drive this point home.

Mick_Pork

@david_herdson

I'm not denying a hung parliament possible but I do find it hard to believe anyone can say this far out that one in 2015 is probable.

Indeed two party politics have taken a hit which is no doubt one of the main causes for 2010 as well as the electoral math falling just right. (after all Clegg secured less seats than Kennedy managed) Is that electoral math far more forgiving than it was because of the size of the block in the middle? Yes it is but it is still a target that has to be hit.

You could also add that the increasing merging of all three of the main westminster parties into something of an undifferentiated Blairite mass means that voter polarisation is far more unlikely. Yet that could also mean a bigger and far more fluid pool of floating voters prepared to swing to either party should they latch onto one for whatever reason.

What will be interesting is just how this coalition affects the chances of another one since it is by no means certain that all those who voted with a coalition in mind got the type of coalition they wanted. Some other voters may have been persuaded of it's merits too.

What seems to be shaping strategic thinking on coalitions for the parties is the simple fact that we have one right now as well as the seemingly static (or at least very gradual) nature of shifts in VI for the moment.

That is by no means guaranteed to continue. Big and fairly quick shifts in VI can and do happen. They not only happened several times before 2010 but the omnishambles budget was proof they can happen this parliament too. That goes for any party. Though admittedly it would appear to require some sort of act of god to shift the lib dems radically and quickly from where they are in VI and have basically been for several years now.

Sean_F

It tends to be overlooked that, in terms of "best party on the economy" Labour and the Conservatives were almost at level-pegging in 2010. Now, the Conservatives have a big lead. There'll be people who voted Labour in 2010 out of concern for the economy, who are now reassured.

taffys

The biggest growth in the UK is food banks, people cannot even feed themselves,

Is that why we have an obesity epidemic, especially amongst the worst off?

saddened

Roger said:

Labour's strategy should be based around the theme that Cameron's Tories are a party for the privileged. It's widely believed and simple to develop. The only thing that trumps a sense of unfairness is self interest and as an opposition there's not much they can do about that.
It's time they brought in some outside talent to make the theme coherent.

Does the fact that what you state, is demonstrably, untrue not concern you?

Sean_F

tim said:

@DavidL

Cameron needs to win back UKIP voters but has managed to be more unpopular among them than Miliband is.
How did that happen?

I wouldn't piss on Cameron if he was on fire. I'll still likely vote Conservative in Luton South. Lots of kippers will go for the lesser evil.

DavidL

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

I think it is a good idea to focus on what "the economy" really means.

Despite that fairly remarkable increase in employment public sector employment will have fallen by nearly 1m. Many of those might be resentful of course. But there will be fewer motivated to protect their public sector privileges because there will be fewer of them.

By the middle of next year real wages will be growing again. Indeed as the government pointed out for lower paid they already have thanks to the changes in tax and the increase in the average number of hours worked. It probably will not feel like that. Most people are not very good at measuring small changes in their net earnings against prices and underestimate their progress. But the stats then available will take the sting out of Ed's charge and focus attention on whether he has any realistic plans to make it any better.

None of this means that the tories are going to win. The movement of left supporting Lib Dems to Labour makes this a real challenge. I agree with those who say Cameron is going to have to win more votes than he did in 2010 and there are not many precedents for that. But the sort of economy Osborne will have delivered by May 2015 will give the tories a chance. And that is really the best they could have hoped for.

If the Lib Dems really do poll 10% or so in 2015, it's almost inevitable that the Conservatives will win more votes than in 2010. I don't think the party will do as badly as that. But that means in turn, they'll regain some of their switchers to Labour.

Overall, a Labour lead of 4% or so, at this stage of the Parliament, suggests they'll struggle to emerge as the largest party in 2015.

I agree up to a point Sean. The Lib Dems will recover from their current terrible position but I think they will still end up well down on 2010. Labour, on the other hand is likely to end up well up from 2010.

More votes for both the major parties would be my guess but how much more and how they are distributed will be very much up for grabs. Until recently I thought the electoral advantages favoured Labour to such an extent that they were likely to be the largest party. Now I think that is more uncertain. Makes it interesting though!

Plato

Mark Fox @MarkFoxNews
19 Oct 1922 @Conservatives MPs meeting at Carlton Club vote to break off Coalition Government with David Lloyd George's Liberal Party.

RationalPlan

While we find it entertaining, there is no reason to read the Runes and Entrails of the US political scene for any comparison to the UK. We don't do this with Canada or Oz never mind mainland Europe.

We have class issues through our politics, while religion/culture issues seems to dominate the US.

Cameron can be characterised as a shiny faced posho, but Romney was the ultimate greed is good plutocrat burning 100 dollar bills.

Cameron has not changed much over his political life, he's well off upper middle class Tory who has a bit of Metropolitan Sheen added. Seen as nice enough but not truly understanding us ordinary wage slaves.

Romney on the other journey has been warped by the rise of the Tea Party and headlong rightward rush to the political extreme. At least the Tory schism over Europe is over something the majority of the people have sympathy over if not actually share the same level of commitment.

The Republicans on the other hand, have transformed themselves from a stuffy party of business and national security into a mental break over the modern world and transformed it into one long scream.

Poor Mitt once a moderate in the NE with his own version of Obamacare, had to Salco flip into a cultural conserative to win amongst the RINO hunting activists and then translate that back towards a tack to the centre. It was not something that can be done and look like you have any real political beliefs at all.

It's a problem that the Republicans have dug themselves into.They have pandered to their base so long that they have vacated the centre. No future candidate can be seen as true moderate under the current party composition.

The culture war now poisons everything. The democrats have a rich seam to mine with the 'war against women' meme. When republicans find it difficult to criticise their craziest members who argue a womens body will not get pregnant from genuine rape. Or laws in some states that require forced vaginal ultrasound before Termination, where a doctor has to describe every part of the fetus before termination and has often been described as feeling like a medical rape.


Maybe the US does have a lesson after all, mobilizing your base vote may work for a while but drift to far from the centre and you can become trapped, unable to get back. Though to be honest why anyone needs to look across the Atlantic to find that lesson, when they just need to look over the past 30 years of British political history.

TGOHF

taffys said:

The biggest growth in the UK is food banks, people cannot even feed themselves,

Is that why we have an obesity epidemic, especially amongst the worst off?

87% of Uk adults have a mobile phone yet they are all starving and freezing to death.

Mick_Pork

Sean_F said:

tim said:

@DavidL

Cameron needs to win back UKIP voters but has managed to be more unpopular among them than Miliband is.
How did that happen?

I wouldn't piss on Cameron if he was on fire.

For god's sake man! Have you no shame? That fire is his latest wheeze for keeping warm after jumpergate. ;^ )