Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If LAB in its key targets can hang onto most the 2010 LDs w

SystemSystem Posts: 12,058
edited April 2013 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If LAB in its key targets can hang onto most the 2010 LDs who have switched then Ed Miliband becomes PM

The next general election is actually very simple. It all comes down to whether LAB can hang on to the GE2010 LD voters who for two and a half years have been telling pollsters that they’ve switched.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • carlcarl Posts: 750
    Well, quite. It's so obvious it makes you wonder what the heck the Tories are thinking with their recent positioning, the nasty stuff on welfare, the excessive Thatcher worship and all the rest of it.

    It almost looks like a defensive strategy, like Labour 2010 when they knew the election was lost. Shore up the core vote, claw back some UKIP votes, avoid a total wipeout in 2015.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    "... many of the measures and rhetoric designed to keep potential Ukipers on the blue boat are likely to alienate the yellows who now say red."

    The "vetogasm" is the only time this parliament where the Conservatives got significant Lab>Con switchers.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    UKIP seem to be targeting Labour voters recently. It'll be interesting to see what Labour do if UKIP attract much former Labour support on May 2nd.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    One nation 35% strategy. Even Dr Reid shaking his head...
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    And how long did that last?

    In any case the key element as I am arguing is what it does to the LD>LAB switchers. It's what drives them that matter.

    "... many of the measures and rhetoric designed to keep potential Ukipers on the blue boat are likely to alienate the yellows who now say red."

    The "vetogasm" is the only time this parliament where the Conservatives got significant Lab>Con switchers.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary

  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    And how long did that last?

    In any case the key element as I am arguing is what it does to the LD>LAB switchers. It's what drives them that matter.


    "... many of the measures and rhetoric designed to keep potential Ukipers on the blue boat are likely to alienate the yellows who now say red."

    The "vetogasm" is the only time this parliament where the Conservatives got significant Lab>Con switchers.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary

    What matters is getting over 40%. It doesn't matter who the extra voters supported in 2010.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    While there are more "small c" conservatives in the Conservatives, there are more than a few in Labour too - and UKIP are by a wide margin the most "conservative" party out there - so ignoring their impact on Labour is wishful thinking too.

    The Grauniad has a YouGov Multi country poll on attitude to the role of the state in people's lives - the UK is much closer to Europe than the US:

    Britons favour state responsibilities over individualism, finds survey
    YouGov-Cambridge poll finds people in UK more likely to sympathise with poor than Americans, French and Germans

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/apr/14/britons-sympathetic-unemployed-france-germany

    Fertile ground for rEd....
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,557
    Hmm. What if Red Ed led his party all the way to the left (opposing every cut in a rather Hollande fashion) and then Scotland votes for independence? If he got a majority, but only with Scotland's MPs that would be something of a constitutional crisis, because the notional British PM campaigning for British interests would be reliant upon 'foreign' politicians for his Commons majority. Plus, if Scotland did vote Yes, I suspect this would mean springtime for the SNP in the 2015 election and give a lesser but still notable bonus to the Conservatives (after all, in a negotiation with Scotland you could hardly accuse the blues of being swayed by the large numbers of MPs they got elected there).

    A more probable issue would be if E. Miliband became PM having promised leftyness and then realised it would lead to a Hollande-type situation where everything gets worse. Right now that seems like the single most likely outcome of the next election.

    And for those into F1, the early discussion for Bahrain is now up. All comments and thoughts welcome: http://politicalbetting.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/bahrain-early-discussion.html
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704

    And how long did that last?

    In any case the key element as I am arguing is what it does to the LD>LAB switchers. It's what drives them that matter.


    "... many of the measures and rhetoric designed to keep potential Ukipers on the blue boat are likely to alienate the yellows who now say red."

    The "vetogasm" is the only time this parliament where the Conservatives got significant Lab>Con switchers.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary

    Well, looking to the future, one day in May 2015 is all that is needed for longevity of any bounce, trend or political fad. The vetogasm lasted a couple of weeks.

    The question is therefore can it (or other 'gasm(s)) be repeated to climax on the right day?
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    There are another swathe of voters to consider. Those in the centre who reluctantly supported the incumbent - Brown/Darling - for fear of supporting the unknown opposition - Cameron/Osborne.

    Now that Cameron/Osborne are the incumbents there is the potential for winning some of those voters over. This is why the issue of competence is so important.

    I do not know whether terminal damage has been done to the perception of competence of Cameron/Osborne by budget 2012, the squeeze on living standards, the lack of growth, etc, but there is certainly a great deal of work to be done.

    There is also the potential to craft a positive story for the election campaign, which I think the electorate might be particularly keen on, given the past five miserable years.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,674
    Morning all :)

    As I'm sure Seth will remind us daily for the next two and a bit years, the key is the economy or rather three aspects to it - a) the perception of the individual voter as to their own economic prospects, b) the perception of the individual voter as to the country's economic propsects and c) whether the individual voter thinks Labour will materially affect either a) or b) to their benefit.

    From a personal perspective, despite all the rather frantic talking-up and plethora of (we are told) positive economic data, I don't feel any better off. My salary is behind inflation and when my Travelcard goes up 6% per year, that's just rubbing salt into the economic wound.

    I've never demurred on either the need to bring the public finances back under control or the responsibility Labour has to accept for their disastrous state but the problem, for me, is as much about getting money in to the coffers as spending. The problems really started when income collapsed and some of the tax receipt numbers are still far from encouraging.

    That said, it may also come down to a simple case of "better the Devil you know". It's never good to pattern-match elections - no two are ever the same. The Coalition parties have to "hope" that somehow there will be a perception of improvement by early 2015 but I suspect, to paraphrase another former and controversial Prime Minister who got a State funeral - it will be "a damn close-run thing".
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    The ST YouGov Poll:

    2010 LD Voters VI: (Ignoring DK 18% and WNV 5%) Con10; LAB37; LD40; UKIP6; Gn 4. Nats 2.

    LDs only for the following.:

    Approve HMG record: Yes 32; No 46; DK 22:

    NC Doing Well/Badly: Well 60; Badly 34; DK 7.

    Coalition Well/Badly: Well 55; Badly 41; DK 4

    HMG Good for You: Good 42; Bad 46; No Diff. 17

    Coalition Managing the Economy: Well 40; Badly 46; DK 14.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    The 2015 GE will be determined by the following major factors :

    1. The extent of the Ukip down trend.
    2. The extent of the Labour mid-term poll lead collapse.
    3. The strength of LibDem incumbancy.
    4. The economy stupid.
    5. Labour trust on the economy.
    6. Will the voters stick with the devil they know a la 1992.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,402
    Mike is right. EdM should be bracing himself for a vicious attack, similar to the one orchestrated against Kinnock in 1992. Doubt it will come directly fron no10, but from the Tory outriders who can be effective.
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795



    There is also the potential to craft a positive story for the election campaign, which I think the electorate might be particularly keen on, given the past five miserable years.

    2009-10 wasn't that miserable. Unemployment was falling quickly and there was reasonable economic growth (2.2pc).

    The new ConDem incumbents killed that stone dead.

    Tories should not win any plaudits for their handling of the economy at all.

  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,242
    "Thatcher did kill British manufacturing - as a major employer."

    Manufacturing employment in Britain peaked in Britain in the mid 1960s at over 9 million.

    By the time Thatcher became prime minister over 2 million manufacturing jobs had already gone.

    This was inevitable as new technology replaced workers and cheaper foreign competition devasted industries with high employment but low added value such as textiles.

    Revealing though how some people are so outraged over manufacturing job losses in the 1980s but are completely indifferent to the nearly four million lost manufacturing jobs which happened during Labour governments.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,402
    JackW said:

    The 2015 GE will be determined by the following major factors :

    1. The extent of the Ukip down trend.
    2. The extent of the Labour mid-term poll lead collapse.
    3. The strength of LibDem incumbancy.
    4. The economy stupid.
    5. Labour trust on the economy.
    6. Will the voters stick with the devil they know a la 1992.

    Do you think Clegg will still be there? If he is, I suspect he will be a factor. Every time he makes a pledge, the press will ask if this time he actually means it. Heaven forbid he actually signs something.
  • The migration of the LibDem soft left vote is Clegg's problem, not Cameron's. The challenge for the LibDems is to defend enough seats to escape being the Parliamentary Mini-BusParty once more. The Conservative Party's challenge is to find a Conservative Leader.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    edited April 2013
    JackW said:

    The 2015 GE will be determined by the following major factors :


    6. Will the voters stick with the devil they know a la 1992.

    As they nearly did in 2010.

    It amazes me how the message of Cameron / Osborne lost it is never rebutted with: in part, but the electorate went 'for the devil you know'.
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    @another_richard

    The argument is whether you resuscitate or turn off the life support.

    We know what decision Thatcher took. And it's costing us dear today. Last year's trade deficit in goods of 6.9pc of GDP is testament to Thatcher failure.

    And she never unleashed anything close to an entrepreneurial revolution. For all the Tory talk, their ideology has failed.

    In totality.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    philiph said:

    JackW said:

    The 2015 GE will be determined by the following major factors :


    6. Will the voters stick with the devil they know a la 1992.

    As they nearly did in 2010.

    It amazes me how the message of Cameron / Osborne lost it is never rebutted with: in part, but the electorate went 'for the devil you know'.
    Labour got 29% of the vote in 2010.

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    @Jonathan

    Yes. I think Clegg will see through the 2015 campaign.

    Will he be more handicapped than other politicians caught with their pledge pants round their ankles? - not sure. Of course the difference in 2015 will be that LibDems and Clegg will be able to point to five years of government experience - good and bad.

    Presently my range for the LibDems is 40-45 seats.
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    Astute piece.

    The question is how many people currently saying they will vote Ukip and Labour are just protesting and how many will be dissatisfied enough with Con/LD or satisfied enough with Lab/Ukip for the polling to turn into actual votes at the general election.

    In the 2005 parliament there was a big temporary move of Lib Dem voters, with the Conservatives borrowing a lot as the main opposition (and Brown getting a few in his short honeymoon). But most of them returned to the yellows in 2010. The only permanent change was Labour losing votes to both Con and LDs.
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    Off Topic
    Does anyone have a Kindle Paperwhite, and how does it comapre to the Nook Glowlight?
    Each costs $119 over here, so any input would be much appreciated.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,674
    Millsy said:

    Astute piece.

    The question is how many people currently saying they will vote Ukip and Labour are just protesting and how many will be dissatisfied enough with Con/LD or satisfied enough with Lab/Ukip for the polling to turn into actual votes at the general election.

    In the 2005 parliament there was a big temporary move of Lib Dem voters, with the Conservatives borrowing a lot as the main opposition (and Brown getting a few in his short honeymoon). But most of them returned to the yellows in 2010. The only permanent change was Labour losing votes to both Con and LDs.

    Traditionally, the LD vote has always been the softest and the most difficult to motivate. That's why the ground organisation in LD seats has to be as strong and efficient as it is in order to keep the vote and get it out when needed. It seems much easier for voters in other areas to vote Tory or Labour out of instinct or reflex.

    As far as 2010 is concerned, I missed more than two weeks of the campaign while in Las Vegas. I remember an ICM poll on the day before I left (the Monday before the infamous first debate) which showed 39-31-18. Given the final result, I would agree that heightened exposure to the LDs in general, rather than the debates per se, contributed to the small advance at the almost equal expense of the other two parties.

    The problem for the Conservatives now, as we all know, is that a close election in terms of votes won't be a close election in terms of seats.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    @philiph

    For me the 2010 was a curious mix of time for a change/stick with nurse. One of the more peculiar responses was the perceived disappointment of some Conservatives. However Cameron gained almost 100 seats and the 36% of the vote he achieved would have put Labour back in office with a comfortable majority.

    Funny old thing FPTP.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    "Just as the Tories look to a future without Thatcher, described as the "elephant in the room for successive Conservative leaders", they believe the baton of an interfering former prime minister has been passed on. "Tony Blair has been pretty constrained until now," one Tory said of the former prime minister who made an unhelpful intervention for Ed Miliband last week. "With David Miliband out of the way Blair is not going to queer his chances. He'll see himself as the Labour party's Thatcher."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/14/margaret-thatcher-legacy-david-cameron
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Jonathan said:

    Mike is right. EdM should be bracing himself for a vicious attack, similar to the one orchestrated against Kinnock in 1992. Doubt it will come directly fron no10, but from the Tory outriders who can be effective.

    It will come from patriots who fear another appalling Labour regime.

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    The migration of the LibDem soft left vote is Clegg's problem, not Cameron's. The challenge for the LibDems is to defend enough seats to escape being the Parliamentary Mini-BusParty once more. The Conservative Party's challenge is to find a Conservative Leader.

    Er...No ! It is Cameron's problem too ! In many seats such migrations tips the Labour vote above the Tories -as Mike pointed out in his summary at the top.

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    JackW said:

    @philiph

    For me the 2010 was a curious mix of time for a change/stick with nurse. One of the more peculiar responses was the perceived disappointment of some Conservatives. However Cameron gained almost 100 seats and the 36% of the vote he achieved would have put Labour back in office with a comfortable majority.

    Funny old thing FPTP.

    And, it is the Tories who support FPTP !!!

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    surbiton said:

    JackW said:

    @philiph

    For me the 2010 was a curious mix of time for a change/stick with nurse. One of the more peculiar responses was the perceived disappointment of some Conservatives. However Cameron gained almost 100 seats and the 36% of the vote he achieved would have put Labour back in office with a comfortable majority.

    Funny old thing FPTP.

    And, it is the Tories who support FPTP !!!

    And the electorate who voted for it. Funny old thing, the electorate!

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549


    The problem for the Conservatives now, as we all know, is that a close election in terms of votes won't be a close election in terms of seats.
    Unless something of seismic proportions take place, it is either a Labour majority or a Lib-Lab coalition.

    FPTP will see to that. Also, no boundary changes under the new rules.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited April 2013
    <blockquote class="Quote" rel="CarlottaVance"><blockquote class="Quote" rel="surbiton"><blockquote class="Quote" rel="JackW">@philiph

    For me the 2010 was a curious mix of time for a change/stick with nurse. One of the more peculiar responses was the perceived disappointment of some Conservatives. However Cameron gained almost 100 seats and the 36% of the vote he achieved would have put Labour back in office with a comfortable majority.

    Funny old thing FPTP.

    </blockquote>

    And, it is the Tories who support FPTP !!!

    </blockquote>

    And the electorate who voted for it. Funny old thing, the electorate!

    </blockquote>

    The electorate might want it because they are used to it. Why the Tories want it, only God knows ! Regardless of boundaries, FPTP will hand Labour 15-20 extra seats. Simply because Labour does not waste too many votes.

    For example, Labour does not get 500,000 votes in Scotland for 1 MP. 450000 votes in the North East for 2 MPs.

    Tories have chosen and funded FPTP. Good luck to them !!
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    surbiton said:

    JackW said:

    @philiph

    For me the 2010 was a curious mix of time for a change/stick with nurse. One of the more peculiar responses was the perceived disappointment of some Conservatives. However Cameron gained almost 100 seats and the 36% of the vote he achieved would have put Labour back in office with a comfortable majority.

    Funny old thing FPTP.

    And, it is the Tories who support FPTP !!!

    There are many Labour supporters of FPTP too. People who like the idea of majority Labour government on just 36% of the vote.

    Many of the Labour supporters of electoral reform are tribal anti-Tories who believe that they have a right to Lib Dem second preferences and coalition support, rather than having to campaign for it. I suspect they would be very disappointed by the political realities after any electoral reform, just as they were outraged that the Lib Dems formed a coalition with Cameron in 2010.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    JackW said:

    @philiph

    For me the 2010 was a curious mix of time for a change/stick with nurse. One of the more peculiar responses was the perceived disappointment of some Conservatives. However Cameron gained almost 100 seats and the 36% of the vote he achieved would have put Labour back in office with a comfortable majority.

    Funny old thing FPTP.

    And, it is the Tories who support FPTP !!!

    And the electorate who voted for it. Funny old thing, the electorate!

    The electorate might want it because they are used to it. Why the Tories want it, only God knows ! Regardless of boundaries, FPTP will hand Labour 15-20 extra seats. Simply because Labour does not waste too many votes.

    For example, Labour does not get 500,000 votes in Scotland for 1 MP. 450000 votes in the North East for 2 MPs.

    Tories have chosen and funded FPTP. Good luck to them !!
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    JackW said:

    @philiph

    For me the 2010 was a curious mix of time for a change/stick with nurse. One of the more peculiar responses was the perceived disappointment of some Conservatives. However Cameron gained almost 100 seats and the 36% of the vote he achieved would have put Labour back in office with a comfortable majority.

    Funny old thing FPTP.

    And, it is the Tories who support FPTP !!!

    And the electorate who voted for it. Funny old thing, the electorate!

    The electorate might want it because they are used to it. Why the Tories want it, only God knows ! Regardless of boundaries, FPTP will hand Labour 15-20 extra seats. Simply because Labour does not waste too many votes.

    For example, Labour does not get 500,000 votes in Scotland for 1 MP. 450000 votes in the North East for 2 MPs.

    Tories have chosen and funded FPTP. Good luck to them !!
    A PR system would mean the existing parties would fragment. With FPTP coalitions are formed before the election, under one banner.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited April 2013
    <blockquote class="Quote" rel="OblitusSumMe"><blockquote class="Quote" rel="surbiton"><blockquote class="Quote" rel="JackW">@philiph

    For me the 2010 was a curious mix of time for a change/stick with nurse. One of the more peculiar responses was the perceived disappointment of some Conservatives. However Cameron gained almost 100 seats and the 36% of the vote he achieved would have put Labour back in office with a comfortable majority.

    Funny old thing FPTP.

    </blockquote>

    And, it is the Tories who support FPTP !!!

    </blockquote>There are many Labour supporters of FPTP too. People who like the idea of majority Labour government on just 36% of the vote.

    Many of the Labour supporters of electoral reform are tribal anti-Tories who believe that they have a right to Lib Dem second preferences and coalition support, rather than having to campaign for it. I suspect they would be very disappointed by the political realities after any electoral reform, just as they were outraged that the Lib Dems formed a coalition with Cameron in 2010.</blockquote>

    I am aware of all this and still voted for AV. One, it maintains the constituency link and, two, it does mitigate somewhat this disproportionality of seats to votes.

    Ironically, the biggest beneficiary of AV amongst the mainstream 3 would be the Tories. Any leakage to UKIP will not matter. Because those Tories who are defecting, in the second round, will have voted for theTories.

    Actually, it is LD which would get squeezed !
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    Like the foreigners or tax exiles who own most of our press?
    TGOHF said:

    Jonathan said:

    Mike is right. EdM should be bracing himself for a vicious attack, similar to the one orchestrated against Kinnock in 1992. Doubt it will come directly fron no10, but from the Tory outriders who can be effective.

    It will come from patriots who fear another appalling Labour regime.

  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    @another_richard

    Output may have increased as remaining factories got more productive (mainly by sweating assets they had) but here we see the paradox of productivity. The steep job losses in manufacturing between 1979 and 1981 just were not replaced by jobs of equal worth and geographical distribution.

    Perhaps had the decline been managed properly (after all manufacturing employment is in constant decline throughout the world) with proper government intervention and less emphasis on demonising the victims of the shift to services based economy, we might view Thatcher in a better light.

    But it wasn't - whole communities were devastated - so we don't.
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    AGW denial fail:

    @SkyNews 13s
    Antarctic Ice-Melt Is 'Worst In 1,000 Years' http://news.sky.com/story/1078276/antarctic-ice-melt-is-worst-in-1000-years
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    When is this Queen Margaret charade going to end ? Is she going to be buried or embalmed ?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,481
    edited April 2013
    BenM said:

    AGW denial fail:

    @SkyNews 13s
    Antarctic Ice-Melt Is 'Worst In 1,000 Years' http://news.sky.com/story/1078276/antarctic-ice-melt-is-worst-in-1000-years

    http://www.paddypower.com/bet?action=go_search&sClass=-1&sCriteria=arctic They'd better be right, in for a fiver anyway. Go go AGW.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    surbiton said:

    When is this Queen Margaret charade going to end ? Is she going to be buried or embalmed ?

    Thatcher's funeral is this Wednesday (17th). The first estimate of Q1 GDP is released by the ONS on the Wednesday after (24th), which will tell us whether the UK has entered a triple-dip recession, or growth has resumed.

    Present-day concerns and arguments will firmly take centre stage.

    It is interesting how Thatcher's death has pushed the benefit changes down the news agenda. There were questions on the bedroom tax, etc, at last Friday's Any Questions that weren't taken because the panel spent so long arguing about her legacy.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    surbiton said:

    When is this Queen Margaret charade going to end ? Is she going to be buried or embalmed ?

    Cremated, since you ask...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,380
    I distinctly remember posting the same point as this thread leader yesterday. As. I said then the key to tory success is actually a recovery by the Lib Dems.
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    For once The Sun comes up with a poll worth dissecting on the local elections.Thresher and Rallings,respected for longevity and accuracy.If I were an odds-compiler,this information would be my baseline.This poll is just Rallings.Of course it does not take account of activity on the ground.If Ukip has an organisation on the territory,it may do much better locally and Farrage's party remain a wild card.
    The Ukip vote gain,according to one pollster,is at the value of 4 Tories,to 2 Lds and 1 Lab..They are bound,therefore,to do much better where there is a higher concentration of Tory voters ie the shire counties coming up for election.
    Shame,though, the important things that local councils ought to be discussing,clean air,clean water.rivers and seas, sewerage etc are all put to one side due to blanket media coverage of the Iron Lady's funeral.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    BenM said:


    ...manufacturing employment is in constant decline throughout the world

    Not true.

    It's driven from high cost countries, to low cost countries. If it was cheaper to manufacture in the UK than it is in China, there would be more manufacturing in the UK than China.

  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited April 2013
    Good morning all. I shall be at DD's on friday.

    Lot's of talk about the destruction of the old british major industries and who is to blame.
    The main blame can be laid at the doors of the trades unions on the one hand and feeble, stupid management on the other.

    First the Unions:
    Even in the darkest days of WW2 the unions kept on striking and using their peculiar and soul destroying demarcation disputes to halt production and down tools at the slightest provocation. Shop Stewards could and would make a shop down tools at his slightest whim. For instance a platemaker or layer couldn't also punch in the rivets in a shipyard even if this was the most cost saving way to make a ship, he had to wait for the riveter to be on hand to punch in the rivets; if he was off sick, well, to bad, that part of production had to stop.

    Indeed, it was so crazy that it became a national joke: on "What's my line" a 1950's panel game, The most talked about of these demarkation jobs became famous when a 'Saggarmakers Bottom Knocker' was introduced. While Britain laughed, it was also going down the pan.
    This sort of thing carried on until Thatcher put a stop to most, but not all of it.
    http://www.thepotteries.org/bottle_kiln/saggar.htm
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUA7DzMEcHs

    Secondly British management:
    Instead of trying to fight these arcane union practices, the management feebly acquiesced to these working conditions where workers were forced to join a union, or else there would be trouble. Some managers who tried to fight this sort of thing were actually sacked by upper management, so as not to rock the boat.

    See books by Correlli Barnett:
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Audit-War-Illusion-Reality/dp/033034790X
    http://www.amazon.com/The-Lost-Victory-Realities-1945-1950/dp/0330346393

    Lastly Government:
    Governments, Labour or Tory presided complacently over the whole sorry mess.

  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    I shall also try to be at DD's on Friday, my first time and a very rare visit to the Capital. I think the last time I was there was about 6 - 7 years ago!

    On topic, I've been thinking about how all those tactical labour voters felt after the last election. Will they really give the LD's their vote when it could lead to another Con/LD coalition?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269
    I am sorry to be missing this Friday's gathering. I am taking the family to see Les Miserables at the theatre. It is humungously expensive but I hope will be worth it, for them at least. Musicals are not really my thing.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Like the foreigners or tax exiles who own most of our press?

    TGOHF said:

    Jonathan said:

    Mike is right. EdM should be bracing himself for a vicious attack, similar to the one orchestrated against Kinnock in 1992. Doubt it will come directly fron no10, but from the Tory outriders who can be effective.

    It will come from patriots who fear another appalling Labour regime.

    Anyone who cares about the nation and who doesn't want to follow down the road of France.
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    There were some rumblings about Chuka Umunna from our delightfully gullible PB Tory friends on here last week as their mentor and guide Paul Staines sought to "get" the shadow business secretary.

    The silence now is deafening.

    Another inglorious fail.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    tim said:

    @surbiton

    It's all getting a bit strange.



    GRIEF-STRICKEN Tories are pressing for Big Ben to be silenced while Margaret Thatcher’s coffin leaves Westminster on the way to her funeral.


    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/tories-call-big-ben-silenced-1833060?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

    They should put it forward by a few hours so we can be done with it. It has cost the Tories a few votes though !
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591
    On topic - I think the Lib Dems have lost a significant number of voters to Labour who will not return to the LDs. Most of these voters saw the LDs as a left-wing alternative to new Labour - they were particularly opposed to Iraq and university tuition fees. These people will remain with Labour at the next election. In my (Labour-held) constituency the signs are that LD activity on the ground, which in the past has been quite strong, has collapsed. We used to get regular leaflets and surveys, but since 2010 there has been nothing. This must also be true in other areas and this lack of activity will also depress the LD vote next time.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    For our friends in the North - following the Sunday Herald article:

    "if we are to talk about a country 'paying her way', we need to bring into account spending as well as revenues. Public spending per capita has averaged more than ten per cent (10.86%) higher in Scotland than in the UK since 1990/91, while tax receipts (including a geographic share of oil revenues) have averaged less than ten per cent (9.67%) higher in Scotland than in the UK since 1990/91."

    http://www.scottisheconomywatch.com/brian-ashcrofts-scottish/2013/04/scottish-tax-and-spend.html
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,531
    Millwall fans display their credentials as defenders of the Maggie (though I don't think Sir *** **** was ever accused of hoovering up the ole Peruvian marching powder in front of kids).

    "FA Cup - Paper Round: Millwall fans 'took cocaine in front of kids'"

    http://tinyurl.com/cl8fr5n

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    The Britain of the Nineties was much less divided than the Britain of the Seventies.

    I do wonder at the age of some who profess to know so much about the seventies - as Andrew Marr observed yesterday, Liverpool Council had a plan to bury Liverpool's dead at sea, such was the build up of corpses....

    http://fullfact.org/sites/fullfact.org/files/strike 4.png
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    edited April 2013
    Apart from the LibDems, all other main parties (UKIP included) have some MEPs selection process quite easy to stitch up before membership gets a say.
    Labour candidates are selected by the regional board.
    Tory candidates by an electoral college of regional party officials and constituency chairmen.
    I don't know what method will UKIP use this time, but in 2009 they had a selection panel to shortlist candidates.

    The problem is that the media focus on MEPs do that they can send there basically everybody and no-one will notice even if they are useless bonkers (maybe as a payback for having been blocked in some Westminster selection)

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269
    @RichardNabavi: The idea that selfishness started in 1979 is utter drivel.

    Unions were being pretty selfish striking for more pay regardless of the consequences for others e.g. the poor and pensioners who were hammered by the resulting high inflation, those who had to sit in the dark and cold etc. Even junior doctors went on strike and operations were postponed as a result. That caused suffering and in one case, that of my father, death.

    There always has been and always will be selfishness. There always has been and always will be decency. To say that these attributes belong exclusively to one political side or another is infantile nonsense and offensive, too, to those on all sides who go into public service for decent and worthwhile reasons, whatever disagreements there are about how to achieve broadly similar aims.

    Thatcher's biggest failing is that the spirit of entrepreneurism and achievement she unleashed was not accompanied by an equally strong emphasis on the obligations of those who are fortunate and lucky and better off to do something for those who aren't. Ironically I think Cameron does understand this but his attempt at doing so - the Big Society - has been utterly hopeless. The left's mistake is to think that obligations to others can only be fulfilled by the state, rather than by a mix of collective/individual/voluntary provision.

    But I would hope that we would put to bed the idea that the 1960's and 1970's were some golden age ruined by Thatcher or, equally, that hers was some golden age where nothing ever went wrong.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    tim said:

    Oh good another piece on Chinese state ownership being a victory for Thatcherism.

    Oh good - another who thinks its Chinese state corporations driving China's growth....

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,465
    Mike's analysis is good - I guess he could have added that Lynton can go after people who voted Labour last time, but that requires persuading them that Gordon was a relatively good chap after all, whereas that Ed...! Challenging.

    The Lib->Lab switchers tend to be particularly determined in my experience, more so than the traditional Labour core vote. The perception of betrayal is very powerful, and I think the LibDems will only get most of them back if they make a solid rejection of the Coalition. They don't need to apologise or say it was wrong to try, but at some point they'll need to say it was an experiment that's failed and will not be repeated in 2015. Alternatively, they can keep their options open, kiss goodbye for now to the lost voters, and hope to still hold the balance of power with a diminished number of seats..
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    As the Lib Dems have lost their old SDP element and become just Liberal again, they beome more attractive to left wing Conservatives. Even more so since the Lib Dems have gone into coalition with the Cons because this shows how they can work with Cons.

    So Conservative strategists should be worried that although Lib Dems have lost left wingers to Labour, they will be gaining some ex-Conservatives.

    Switching from Con to Lib Dem will be slower than the instant switching from Lib Dem to Labour on the formation of the coalition. But if Con and Lib Dem again form a coalition after the next election, it may be that more and more left wing Conservatives feel comfortable switching to the Lib Dems.

    Will we ever see a Conservative government again without needing a coaltion with a centre party?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Cyclefree said:

    Thatcher's biggest failing is that the spirit of entrepreneurism and achievement she unleashed was not accompanied by an equally strong emphasis on the obligations of those who are fortunate and lucky and better off to do something for those who aren't.

    Frank Field said she recognised that herself - when asked what had been her greatest failing she said it was in cutting taxes, but not developing a giving culture from the better off like in the US....

  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    On topic: Whilst I don't disagree with Mike's main point, I think it is a mistake to think that the only floating voters who can be won over by either of the two big parties are 2010 LibDem voters. We shouldn't forget Lab to/from Con switchers, who have been crucial in all modern elections where the governing party has changed. The Conservatives would do very well to consider how they can get people who voted for Brown in 2010 to vote Conservative in 2015, and Labour strategists - if they are wise - won't rely just on 2010 LibDem switchers but will also be trying to appeal to 2010 Conservative voters.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,481
    edited April 2013
    Looking at http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/year_spending_2000UKbn_12bc1n#ukgs302 there is one budget which stands out like a sore thumb as I click through the years.

    Pensions. I know we are getting older as a populace, but really £65.7 B to £114.6 B from 2000 to 2010, and heading up to £149.5 B in 2015. Did the number of old people really triple ? Gov'ts really should have stuck the pensionable age up to 75 or even 80 already.

    In contrast welfare has bobbed around a bit, but doesn't look to have had the meteoric increases of pensions and health..
  • JonCJonC Posts: 67
    In 1992 the main reason Labour didn't win was because of Neil kinnock. Tories best chance is to go for Ed (or Eds?), although he is less crap than he was...

    Seemingly good reasons to avoid voting for them such as Labour's demonstration of similar competence with money as that Pools winner from the 1960s who vowed to "spend spend spend" butter depressingly few parsnips with the electorate.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746



    So Conservative strategists should be worried that although Lib Dems have lost left wingers to Labour, they will be gaining some ex-Conservatives.

    Tosh.

    Look at the chart at the top of the page. The LDs lost their soft Labour support, then flatlined.

    2010 Conservative voters have been lost to Labour, UKIP, and the sofa. Not the LDs.
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019

    As the Lib Dems have lost their old SDP element and become just Liberal again, they beome more attractive to left wing Conservatives. Even more so since the Lib Dems have gone into coalition with the Cons because this shows how they can work with Cons.

    So Conservative strategists should be worried that although Lib Dems have lost left wingers to Labour, they will be gaining some ex-Conservatives.

    Switching from Con to Lib Dem will be slower than the instant switching from Lib Dem to Labour on the formation of the coalition. But if Con and Lib Dem again form a coalition after the next election, it may be that more and more left wing Conservatives feel comfortable switching to the Lib Dems.

    Will we ever see a Conservative government again without needing a coaltion with a centre party?

    But the LD's are not a centre party! In some cases they are more left wing than the current labour party.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    I'd suggest that the toughest market for the Tories to crack are those who vote LAB at GE2010.

    The Conservatives would do very well to consider how they can get people who voted for Brown in 2010 to vote Conservative in 2015, and Labour strategists - if they are wise - won't rely just on 2010 LibDem switchers but will also be trying to appeal to 2010 Conservative voters.

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    So that will be the end of your Viagra on the NHS Sean. You'll probably find that hard.
    SeanT said:



    lol. Of course we WANT to keep our lovely Welfare State - who doesn't like free money? It's just that we can't afford it anymore, cause There Is No Money Left.

    Therefore, the Welfare State is finished.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,481
    The Brownite core vote. I'm not sure much would get through to these people Mike.

    I'd suggest that the toughest market for the Tories to crack are those who vote LAB at GE2010.

    The Conservatives would do very well to consider how they can get people who voted for Brown in 2010 to vote Conservative in 2015, and Labour strategists - if they are wise - won't rely just on 2010 LibDem switchers but will also be trying to appeal to 2010 Conservative voters.

  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591



    Will we ever see a Conservative government again without needing a coaltion with a centre party?

    An interesting question. Could Thatcher have done for the Tories what Lloyd George did for the Liberals? Both were towering personalities who came from non-traditional backgrounds, and both refused to go quietly into retirement and devoted their time to the promotion of myths about their time in office which greatly undermined their successors. Both were almost worshiped by a core of fanatical supporters long after their wider appeal had faded. LG left behind a broken Liberal Party that was never again able to win a majority. At the moment there's quite a lot of evidence that suggests the post-Thatcher Tories are going the same way.
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019

    So that will be the end of your Viagra on the NHS Sean. You'll probably find that hard.

    SeanT said:



    lol. Of course we WANT to keep our lovely Welfare State - who doesn't like free money? It's just that we can't afford it anymore, cause There Is No Money Left.

    Therefore, the Welfare State is finished.

    Or not as the case may be :-)
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,451
    The Tories have really suffered since 1992 because so many people have just stopped voting. Their best hope in 2015 may be to concentrate on actually increasing the overall turnout. If the turnout is around the same as it has been, the anti-Tory Party is likely to remain the strongest and most motivated grouping, with Labour well-placed to harvest most of its tactical votes.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    edited April 2013
    Pulpstar said:

    Gov'ts really should have stuck the pensionable age up to 75 or even 80 already.

    State pension expenditure is forecast to increase from 5.6% of GDP to 8.3% of GDP by 2061-62. Though 0.6% of that is the triple lock which probably wont survive long term. And that forecast doesnt take into account the cuts to State Pensions that the Coalition is planning to bring in. Obviously pensions expenditure will be a challenge as the population matures but it's not insurmountable.


  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    The Tories have really suffered since 1992 because so many people have just stopped voting. Their best hope in 2015 may be to concentrate on actually increasing the overall turnout. If the turnout is around the same as it has been, the anti-Tory Party is likely to remain the strongest and most motivated grouping, with Labour well-placed to harvest most of its tactical votes.

    UKIP claim that a significant part of their support comes from the sofa-vote. (I've not seen any numbers).

    The decline in voter participation since 1992 is remarkable.

    http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    Business still not siding with the nihilistic anti-EU crowd:

    @Jude_KD
    New BCC poll shows 60% of firms say full withdrawal from EU would have a negative business & economic impact. Only 18% say positive
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,481
    Neil said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Gov'ts really should have stuck the pensionable age up to 75 or even 80 already.

    State pension expenditure is forecast to increase from 5.6% of GDP to 8.3% of GDP by 2061-62. Though 0.6% of that is the triple lock which probably wont survive long term. And that forecast doesnt take into account the cuts to State Pensions that the Coalition is planning to bring in. Obviously pensions expenditure will be a challenge as the population matures but it's not insurmountable.



    When I retire the pension age will be 68. Thats far too low still, should be heading up into the 70s.
  • If Lynton Crosby can get a Tory elected as Mayor in a Labour city such as London, especially at the time it was in the aftermath of the 2012 budget and UK entering a double dip recession, then who knows what he may achieve in 2015.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591

    The Tories have really suffered since 1992 because so many people have just stopped voting. Their best hope in 2015 may be to concentrate on actually increasing the overall turnout. If the turnout is around the same as it has been, the anti-Tory Party is likely to remain the strongest and most motivated grouping, with Labour well-placed to harvest most of its tactical votes.

    UKIP claim that a significant part of their support comes from the sofa-vote. (I've not seen any numbers).

    The decline in voter participation since 1992 is remarkable.

    http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm
    The most significant drop in turnout came after 1997, not 1992 and I've not seen any evidence that this has disproportionately affected the Tories. On the contrary - the .lowest turnouts are always in Labour inner city areas. I would not give much credence to UKIP's claims about sofa votes - it's very unlikely they have any hard data on previous voting behaviour of their supporters.

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Pulpstar said:


    When I retire the pension age will be 68. Thats far too low still, should be heading up into the 70s.

    I really doubt it will be 68 by the time you get there. What's your criteria for setting State Pension Age?
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    When you talk about pension age in UK, what are you really talking about?

    You are talking about when the state pension is given regardless of when the worker retire through its employment scheme...or are you suggesting about people working until 75/80?

    Because I dread to think about the productivity of some workers (depending on the job, obviously)...and the death rates at Stafford Hospital with 75 year old nurses.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    The Tories have really suffered since 1992 because so many people have just stopped voting. Their best hope in 2015 may be to concentrate on actually increasing the overall turnout. If the turnout is around the same as it has been, the anti-Tory Party is likely to remain the strongest and most motivated grouping, with Labour well-placed to harvest most of its tactical votes.

    UKIP claim that a significant part of their support comes from the sofa-vote. (I've not seen any numbers).

    The decline in voter participation since 1992 is remarkable.

    http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm
    The most significant drop in turnout came after 1997, not 1992 and I've not seen any evidence that this has disproportionately affected the Tories. On the contrary - the .lowest turnouts are always in Labour inner city areas. I would not give much credence to UKIP's claims about sofa votes - it's very unlikely they have any hard data on previous voting behaviour of their supporters.

    Fraser Nelson touched on this the other day:

    "Voting technology now persuades Westminster parties that they can target the swing voters in the swing seats: the golden 4 per cent that can decide British elections. They think they know the names, addresses and concerns of this group – so the system almost obliges Westminster parties to shape their whole politics around this tiny sliver of the electorate. This leaves a great many people feeling, correctly, that they have been abandoned. "

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/04/is-ukip-posing-as-the-new-party-of-the-british-working-class/
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    @anothernick

    Asquithian splitter.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited April 2013
    "AN independent new poll commissioned by the Press and Journal has revealed there is still all to play for in the independence battle – but the Nationalists have the biggest fight on their hands.
    The survey conducted across the north and north-east showed half of voters want to stay in the UK – an increase of 5.3% since a similar poll carried out at the beginning of last year
    And compared to the results of the January 2102 (sic - or its even worse news for the SNP) survey, support for Scotland going it alone slipped by 1.2%."

    http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/3199363
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    @Andrea

    In this context it is just the age that State Pension becomes payable. While officially that has nothing to do with retirement as time goes on I think we'll find that many people need to wait until State Pension Age to be able to afford to retire.

    @anotherDave

    That's IOS and his algorithms! (Though presumably he wouldnt acknowledge that the Tories might be able to identify the vital 4%!)
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,758
    tim said:

    @Pulpstar

    Makes more sense for people to phase in their pension and wind down work rather than continually ramping up the age forty years down the line.
    Preferably while releasing the ludicrous amount of capital wrapped up in house price inflation over the last forty years.

    If that is possible. It would require a huge mindset change in employers.

    For some jobs it's more than reasonable. For example being an accountant, its not very taxing physically, and jobs can be set up that the work load is broken down so it can be flexible.

    But for physical jobs there's a limit, and there's a limit in how productive you can maintain people which are winding down.

    But of course, keeping people on older then just makes problems for younger people trying to get in, especially in creative full time roles when employers have to cater for older winding down people....
  • I'm guest editing Tues-Thurs, if Mike doesn't do a thread on this, then I'll do a thread on this.

    Tory backbenchers probably thought that when they ganged together to thwart attempts to make the Lords mostly elected last year, they had got rid of what they saw as a “constitutional threat” for the foreseeable future.

    But conversations I have had in recent days with senior Liberal Democrats suggest there is a scenario under which the plans could be resurrected.

    Officials close to Nick Clegg have told me that if there was a hung parliament at the next election and a deal with the Conservatives was the most likely outcome, this would give them an opening to insist that the plans were put back on the table.

    http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2013/04/lib-dems-plot-to-force-through-lords-reform/
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795



    "Voting technology now persuades Westminster parties that they can target the swing voters in the swing seats: the golden 4 per cent that can decide British elections. They think they know the names, addresses and concerns of this group – so the system almost obliges Westminster parties to shape their whole politics around this tiny sliver of the electorate. This leaves a great many people feeling, correctly, that they have been abandoned. "

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/04/is-ukip-posing-as-the-new-party-of-the-british-working-class/

    Ah - democracy under FPTP!
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 41,545
    @BenM

    (Repeated from the last thread, as BenM apparently did not see it):

    "Thatcher did kill British manufacturing - as a major employer."

    Which is very different from the usual claim that 'Thatcher killed off manufacturing' which was made countless times on the radio and TV last week. It is also so politically biased as to be ridiculous.

    Some questions:
    1. What were the trends in manufacturing employment in other industrialised nations during that period? Was what happened a result of the government's policies, or somethign that was common to all developed countries?
    2. What would you have done to keep those industries going, not only as economic concerns, but also as major employers?
    3. What do you class as manufacturing? Where do I come in, as an engineer developing consumer products, or Mrs J, who designs computer chips? Are we service industries or manufacturing?
    Over the years, the boundary between services and manufacturing have become increasingly blurred. Rolls Royce (aero) is seen as a traditional manufacturing business, but they actually have a massive services sector as well that is worth a goodly proportion of their turnover.

    It is a trend that continued massively under New Labour (see figure 32 of (1), although also note the caveats). If Thatcher killed it, then Labour danced on its grave.

    Like it or loathe it, the world has changed. Manufacturing has changed with it.

    (1): http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/BISCore/business-sectors/docs/m/10-1334-manufacturing-in-the-UK-supplementary-analysis.pdf
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,189
    BenM said:



    "Voting technology now persuades Westminster parties that they can target the swing voters in the swing seats: the golden 4 per cent that can decide British elections. They think they know the names, addresses and concerns of this group – so the system almost obliges Westminster parties to shape their whole politics around this tiny sliver of the electorate. This leaves a great many people feeling, correctly, that they have been abandoned. "

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/04/is-ukip-posing-as-the-new-party-of-the-british-working-class/

    Ah - democracy under FPTP!
    Labour had 13 years to introduce PR - why didn't they?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,189

    If Lynton Crosby can get a Tory elected as Mayor in a Labour city such as London, especially at the time it was in the aftermath of the 2012 budget and UK entering a double dip recession, then who knows what he may achieve in 2015.

    Calling London a "Labour City" is an insult to those parts of the capital that voted Tory!
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983


    Labour had 13 years to introduce PR - why didn't they?

    Why would they?!
  • Looks like we may get PMQs on Wednesday after all.

    George Galloway hopes to disrupt Margaret Thatcher funeral plans

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/392069/George-Galloway-hopes-to-disrupt-Margaret-Thatcher-funeral-plans
This discussion has been closed.