politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Exactly 18 months to go before GE2015 a look at whether incumbent governments ALWAYS recover
As can be seen the first opposition leader to break the rule was Mrs. Thatcher in 1979. Jim Callaghan’s government performed worse on election day than the polls 18 months beforehand – but then, of course, there was the “winter of discontent”.
Mike - I don't know if it's possible, but what would be really interesting is to see whether there is a precedent for any other party just kicked resoundingly out of office to recover as quickly in the polls as Labour did in 2010. From what I can work out the party has been above 35% in just about every poll conducted by every pollster since around July/August 2010. Given the scale of the defeat just a few months earlier, that is pretty extraordinary. I could be barking up completely the wrong tree, but it seems to me that this is not getting as much attention as it should. But maybe it's just more of a common occurrence than I am imagining.
I agree there is nothing automatic about swingback. To the contrary, I think (without checking the data) that 1992 was the last time I can recall when an election campaign really made a significant difference to the result.
All of this suggests to me that if the tories are going to recover to an even potentially winning position it is important that they make progress fairly quickly. Another 40% day for Labour in Yougov suggests not only stability but a recovery from the radio silence period of the summer.
The tories need an omnishambles in reverse and the pressure on Osborne to deliver that next month is quite acute.
That`s very interesting Mike.What would also be very interesting is the percentage opposition parties lose in the 18 months to the election.I remember the Tories leading by 20 points in 2008 and they seemed to have lost some of it to the Lib Dems rather than Labour.
Apart from the 1992 election with a new PM (didn't work for Brown), this chart highlights a Govt is re-relected if a 4-year electoral term but loses power with a 5-yr one
Coalition trying to break recent pattern therefore..
I agree there is nothing automatic about swingback. To the contrary, I think (without checking the data) that 1992 was the last time I can recall when an election campaign really made a significant difference to the result.
All of this suggests to me that if the tories are going to recover to an even potentially winning position it is important that they make progress fairly quickly. Another 40% day for Labour in Yougov suggests not only stability but a recovery from the radio silence period of the summer.
The tories need an omnishambles in reverse and the pressure on Osborne to deliver that next month is quite acute.
The Tories need Labour well below 35%. The LD to Labour vote is probably a lost cause, so they need direct switchers. In other words, they need people who voted for Gordon Brown in 2010. They won't get them in Scotland or Wales, so that leaves England. I would suggest that London, too, is not viable; so realistically that leaves the Midlands and the North, given that the South is already sewn up. Is Tory messaging on issues such as the cost of living, the trade unions, the NHS and education really going to win over voters in key constituencies who stayed loyal to Labour in 2010? Is there anyone in Tory high command who has any idea about what traditional Labour voters are interested in and how to articulate that?
"The tories need an omnishambles in reverse and the pressure on Osborne to deliver that next month is quite acute."
The Tories need a change at the top, at minimum one of the posh lads has to go, they simply cannot conect with the voters they need to. If Osborne had any self awareness he'd stand aside as he should have done before the last election, and after the Omnishambles.
To be fair, if you are actually right on this I'd suggest Osborne may well be happier to move pre May 2015 and whilst the economy is going 'gangbusters' when his stock is therefore at its highest, you can't beat economic cycles and whilst he can enjoy the ride for a good while yet, it might make sense for him to have a change in 2014...... but all depends. If the Blues are ahead this time next year, then no need to rock the boat either.
I agree there is nothing automatic about swingback. To the contrary, I think (without checking the data) that 1992 was the last time I can recall when an election campaign really made a significant difference to the result.
All of this suggests to me that if the tories are going to recover to an even potentially winning position it is important that they make progress fairly quickly. Another 40% day for Labour in Yougov suggests not only stability but a recovery from the radio silence period of the summer.
The tories need an omnishambles in reverse and the pressure on Osborne to deliver that next month is quite acute.
Another great post from the Tories' intelligent wing
I agree there is nothing automatic about swingback. To the contrary, I think (without checking the data) that 1992 was the last time I can recall when an election campaign really made a significant difference to the result.
All of this suggests to me that if the tories are going to recover to an even potentially winning position it is important that they make progress fairly quickly. Another 40% day for Labour in Yougov suggests not only stability but a recovery from the radio silence period of the summer.
The tories need an omnishambles in reverse and the pressure on Osborne to deliver that next month is quite acute.
The Tories need Labour well below 35%. The LD to Labour vote is probably a lost cause, so they need direct switchers. In other words, they need people who voted for Gordon Brown in 2010. They won't get them in Scotland or Wales, so that leaves England. I would suggest that London, too, is not viable; so realistically that leaves the Midlands and the North, given that the South is already sewn up. Is Tory messaging on issues such as the cost of living, the trade unions, the NHS and education really going to win over voters in key constituencies who stayed loyal to Labour in 2010? Is there anyone in Tory high command who has any idea about what traditional Labour voters are interested in and how to articulate that?
I agree with most of that. The tories need to target those who were successfully scared into voting Labour by Mandy in 2010, old fashioned floating voters of no strong political allegiance.
The economy should help with such voters as should the evidence that the consequences of a tory government on public spending, for example, were grossly overstated. But I agree that the message needs to be more targetted too. To misuse one of the worst election campaigns ever "are the government thinking what they are thinking?"
Interesting numbers, I think only the Labour governments of 1974 and 1997 are the odd ones out.
Not sure it's instructive to take Major's first month of polls, presumably he got a bounce?
But the Tories will certainly need more than the 1.2/1.3 that Blair and Brown managed to put on - which is pretty good after Iraq and so long in government. So still hope for the blues...
I agree there is nothing automatic about swingback. To the contrary, I think (without checking the data) that 1992 was the last time I can recall when an election campaign really made a significant difference to the result.
All of this suggests to me that if the tories are going to recover to an even potentially winning position it is important that they make progress fairly quickly. Another 40% day for Labour in Yougov suggests not only stability but a recovery from the radio silence period of the summer.
The tories need an omnishambles in reverse and the pressure on Osborne to deliver that next month is quite acute.
The Tories need Labour well below 35%. The LD to Labour vote is probably a lost cause, so they need direct switchers. In other words, they need people who voted for Gordon Brown in 2010. They won't get them in Scotland or Wales, so that leaves England. I would suggest that London, too, is not viable; so realistically that leaves the Midlands and the North, given that the South is already sewn up. Is Tory messaging on issues such as the cost of living, the trade unions, the NHS and education really going to win over voters in key constituencies who stayed loyal to Labour in 2010? Is there anyone in Tory high command who has any idea about what traditional Labour voters are interested in and how to articulate that?
I agree with most of that. The tories need to target those who were successfully scared into voting Labour by Mandy in 2010, old fashioned floating voters of no strong political allegiance.
The economy should help with such voters as should the evidence that the consequences of a tory government on public spending, for example, were grossly overstated. But I agree that the message needs to be more targetted too. To misuse one of the worst election campaigns ever "are the government thinking what they are thinking?"
I think you overplay the Mandy effect somewhat. Labour got its second worst result since WW2. At local level, in all kinds of ways, there is ample evidence of spending cuts - some of them pretty brutal. Overall spending may not have gone down, but that is abstract.
All of this suggests to me that if the tories are going to recover to an even potentially winning position it is important that they make progress fairly quickly. Another 40% day for Labour in Yougov suggests not only stability but a recovery from the radio silence period of the summer.
The tories need an omnishambles in reverse and the pressure on Osborne to deliver that next month is quite acute.
The Tories need Labour well below 35%. The LD to Labour vote is probably a lost cause, so they need direct switchers. In other words, they need people who voted for Gordon Brown in 2010. They won't get them in Scotland or Wales, so that leaves England. I would suggest that London, too, is not viable; so realistically that leaves the Midlands and the North, given that the South is already sewn up. Is Tory messaging on issues such as the cost of living, the trade unions, the NHS and education really going to win over voters in key constituencies who stayed loyal to Labour in 2010? Is there anyone in Tory high command who has any idea about what traditional Labour voters are interested in and how to articulate that?
I agree with most of that. The tories need to target those who were successfully scared into voting Labour by Mandy in 2010, old fashioned floating voters of no strong political allegiance.
The economy should help with such voters as should the evidence that the consequences of a tory government on public spending, for example, were grossly overstated. But I agree that the message needs to be more targetted too. To misuse one of the worst election campaigns ever "are the government thinking what they are thinking?"
Again, a good post. The Tories don't have any narrative. The sort of What Are the Tories For? stuff. The odious Crosby will choose to bang on about immigrants and welfare for 18 months, which may capture some Kippers but will alienate the centrists the Tories need to win. That's the key strategic problem the party has.
The problem here is that the Government is two parties. The overall Coalition share remaining the same could mean the Lib Dems being obliterated and a Conservative majority of three figures, or the Conservatives being annihilated and a Lib Dem led (perhaps with an outright majority) government.
F1: I'd heard muttering on Twitter about this, but it seems there's a serious possibility Perez will get tossed overboard and replaced with Magnussen next season: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula-one/24844304
That wouldbe an enormous blow for the Mexican, not least because he hasn't, reportedly, been talking to any other teams. So, he might be out next year.
Mike - I don't know if it's possible, but what would be really interesting is to see whether there is a precedent for any other party just kicked resoundingly out of office to recover as quickly in the polls as Labour did in 2010. From what I can work out the party has been above 35% in just about every poll conducted by every pollster since around July/August 2010. Given the scale of the defeat just a few months earlier, that is pretty extraordinary. I could be barking up completely the wrong tree, but it seems to me that this is not getting as much attention as it should. But maybe it's just more of a common occurrence than I am imagining.
Er, it's because Labour were, uniquely, faced by a Coalition of Tories and Libs so they became the solitary Opposition party, thereby reaping all the voters hacked off with the other two parties.
This isn't rocket science. It's not even science. It's bleeding obvious. Duh.
Hacked off with the government before it did anything and while the Tories were still ahead in the polls? But you may be right. That still makes it unprecedented. Just as everything else about this Parliament is unprecedented from a polling perspective.
Mike - I don't know if it's possible, but what would be really interesting is to see whether there is a precedent for any other party just kicked resoundingly out of office to recover as quickly in the polls as Labour did in 2010. From what I can work out the party has been above 35% in just about every poll conducted by every pollster since around July/August 2010. Given the scale of the defeat just a few months earlier, that is pretty extraordinary. I could be barking up completely the wrong tree, but it seems to me that this is not getting as much attention as it should. But maybe it's just more of a common occurrence than I am imagining.
Er, it's because Labour were, uniquely, faced by a Coalition of Tories and Libs so they became the solitary Opposition party, thereby reaping all the voters hacked off with the other two parties.
This isn't rocket science. It's not even science. It's bleeding obvious. Duh.
Hacked off with the government before it did anything and while the Tories were still ahead in the polls? But you may be right. That still makes it unprecedented. Just as everything else about this Parliament is unprecedented from a polling perspective.
Oh FFS. It's because loads of Libs were offended by the very idea of a Coalition with babyroasting Tories, and immediately jumped ship to Labour. Hence Labour's very speedy bounceback.
Are you feeling OK?
Well, exactly. Their immediate response to what the LDs did was to shift to Labour. That suggests to me that they are not going back - unless, perhaps, they think that doing so will hurt the Tories.
Again, a good post. The Tories don't have any narrative. The sort of What Are the Tories For? stuff. The odious Crosby will choose to bang on about immigrants and welfare for 18 months, which may capture some Kippers but will alienate the centrists the Tories need to win. That's the key strategic problem the party has.
It's quite obvious what the Tory campaign narrative will be: The Economy is Finally Recovering (if not booming), Don't Let Labour Crash it Again.
Simple as. They won't need to say anything more.
I suggest this will be a LOT more appealing to centrists, right across the country, than you allow. It may not win the election, but it will be a v powerful message.
It might have been, were wages keeping up with prices. They are not, so the country is getting poorer and the public know it. Not denying that will be the line, but it's a much harder well than you might think.
Can you post raw vote shares? That way we can test to see whether the Fisher model is becoming, more or less accurate over time, or remaining constant in error
The more I think about Lynton Crosby, the more I think there could be an opportunity there. His dog whistle stuff alienates the cosmo soft right in London and younger people everywhere. Labour should keep pointing out what a nasty piece of work he is.
The Tories don't have any narrative. The sort of What Are the Tories For? stuff.
And Labour do? What are Labour for?
Until Ed B tells Ed M - how are we to know?
"Instead, Ed Miliband opted for a commitment on energy that that he knows carries greater risks of defining Labour as an anti-business throwback to the 1970s but that is resolutely outside of Ed Balls’ ambit.
The paradox of the policy is that a move which has been reported as demonstrating the leader’s strength – and in fairness, courage is required to take a chance on a totally new approach – has been driven, in part, by his weakness in defining Labour’s fiscal policy.
This is the realpolitik behind Labour’s energy price freeze."
The Tories have a monumental task if they want to win a majority. I suspect Miliband's support is flakier than 40% and that some Lib Dems will return from Labour, but the Tories still have 100 marginals to fight (where they are hardly universally popular) and UKIP eating into their right wing.
A lucid message on the economy is super-important. Something simple, something sharp and which the voters will understand. I think middle ground voters will be willing to give the Tories a hearing on the economics, if they get the message right.
I remember the 2005 election campaign when Michael Howard started gaining some traction. Then Gordon Brown, Tony Blair et al took to a stage one day, pulled out a load of computerised bar charts and showed the "hole in the Tories' spending plans". They told BBC News and Sky News and ITV News, whilst live on air, that the Tories in power would lead to starving children and all middle-class families would have to give up one child for use as a chimney sweep. And it was so compelling that the public believed it and the election was over.
It was crude, untrue and unprovable, but it absolutely worked. Crosby needs to come up with something similarly striking.
Mike - I don't know if it's possible, but what would be really interesting is to see whether there is a precedent for any other party just kicked resoundingly out of office to recover as quickly in the polls as Labour did in 2010. From what I can work out the party has been above 35% in just about every poll conducted by every pollster since around July/August 2010. Given the scale of the defeat just a few months earlier, that is pretty extraordinary. I could be barking up completely the wrong tree, but it seems to me that this is not getting as much attention as it should. But maybe it's just more of a common occurrence than I am imagining.
Er, it's because Labour were, uniquely, faced by a Coalition of Tories and Libs so they became the solitary Opposition party, thereby reaping all the voters hacked off with the other two parties.
This isn't rocket science. It's not even science. It's bleeding obvious. Duh.
Hacked off with the government before it did anything and while the Tories were still ahead in the polls? But you may be right. That still makes it unprecedented. Just as everything else about this Parliament is unprecedented from a polling perspective.
Oh FFS. It's because loads of Libs were offended by the very idea of a Coalition with babyroasting Tories, and immediately jumped ship to Labour. Hence Labour's very speedy bounceback.
Are you feeling OK?
Well, exactly. Their immediate response to what the LDs did was to shift to Labour. That suggests to me that they are not going back - unless, perhaps, they think that doing so will hurt the Tories.
If this is so "exactly" obvious, why did you make your halfwitted remark in the first place?
I shall presume it was an early start, and you were lacking caffeine.
Cameron's betrayal of Portsmouth proving to be more than a little unpopular in the Telegraph and Mail.
Now lets see, no money for power stations and warships but unlimited money for Toff Rail and overseas aid.
And some cheerleaders still think that UKIP will be below 5% in 2015. Let me explain, the UKIP vote is driven by disgruntlement with the establishment.
I suggest having a look at what the UKIP odds are in Eastleigh, they're in second place now with a big Conservative vote to squeeze.
The graph shows that Tory governments recover, Labour ones don't.
There is no precedent to interpret. Whatever happens, cast iron rules of modern British electoral politics will be broken. To win outright the Tories have to increase their vote share. A government party has not done that since 1974. To win outright Labour has to do what no opposition has done since the same year and regain power after only one term out of power. And if neither happens, we are left with the second hung Parliament in a row - and I cannot remember the last time that happened.
The Tories don't have any narrative. The sort of What Are the Tories For? stuff.
And Labour do? What are Labour for?
Until Ed B tells Ed M - how are we to know?
"Instead, Ed Miliband opted for a commitment on energy that that he knows carries greater risks of defining Labour as an anti-business throwback to the 1970s but that is resolutely outside of Ed Balls’ ambit.
The paradox of the policy is that a move which has been reported as demonstrating the leader’s strength – and in fairness, courage is required to take a chance on a totally new approach – has been driven, in part, by his weakness in defining Labour’s fiscal policy.
This is the realpolitik behind Labour’s energy price freeze."
Apart from the 1992 election with a new PM (didn't work for Brown), this chart highlights a Govt is re-relected if a 4-year electoral term but loses power with a 5-yr one
Coalition trying to break recent pattern therefore..
Yes, with fixed-term parliaments now the "cut-and-run" option is no longer available.
The Tories don't have any narrative. The sort of What Are the Tories For? stuff.
And Labour do? What are Labour for?
Until Ed B tells Ed M - how are we to know?
"Instead, Ed Miliband opted for a commitment on energy that that he knows carries greater risks of defining Labour as an anti-business throwback to the 1970s but that is resolutely outside of Ed Balls’ ambit.
The paradox of the policy is that a move which has been reported as demonstrating the leader’s strength – and in fairness, courage is required to take a chance on a totally new approach – has been driven, in part, by his weakness in defining Labour’s fiscal policy.
This is the realpolitik behind Labour’s energy price freeze."
The Tories don't have any narrative. The sort of What Are the Tories For? stuff.
And Labour do? What are Labour for?
Until Ed B tells Ed M - how are we to know?
"Instead, Ed Miliband opted for a commitment on energy that that he knows carries greater risks of defining Labour as an anti-business throwback to the 1970s but that is resolutely outside of Ed Balls’ ambit.
The paradox of the policy is that a move which has been reported as demonstrating the leader’s strength – and in fairness, courage is required to take a chance on a totally new approach – has been driven, in part, by his weakness in defining Labour’s fiscal policy.
This is the realpolitik behind Labour’s energy price freeze."
Labour are for being on the side of the working man.
I guess that's why they've opposed things like the benefits cap? Of course the party of the abolition of the 10p tax band is "on the side of the working man"!
Oh FFS. It's because loads of Libs were offended by the very idea of a Coalition with babyroasting Tories, and immediately jumped ship to Labour. Hence Labour's very speedy bounceback.
There was nothing to "get". You asked a ridiculous question, got the obvious answer, you then asked another embarrassingly absurd question, and got another obvious answer, and then you pretended you knew this all along.
The Tories don't have any narrative. The sort of What Are the Tories For? stuff.
And Labour do? What are Labour for?
Until Ed B tells Ed M - how are we to know?
"Instead, Ed Miliband opted for a commitment on energy that that he knows carries greater risks of defining Labour as an anti-business throwback to the 1970s but that is resolutely outside of Ed Balls’ ambit.
The paradox of the policy is that a move which has been reported as demonstrating the leader’s strength – and in fairness, courage is required to take a chance on a totally new approach – has been driven, in part, by his weakness in defining Labour’s fiscal policy.
This is the realpolitik behind Labour’s energy price freeze."
Labour are for being on the side of the working man.
I guess that's why they've opposed things like the benefits cap? Of course the party of the abolition of the 10p tax band is "on the side of the working man"!
Also the party that created the 10p tax band, of course.
So, top Mercedes teams are Mercedes and McLaren (until 2015 when McLaren goes for Honda engine), Renault has Red Bull and Lotus, and Ferrari has Ferrari and... Sauber, I think would be the next best team.
Given that, a Ferrari engine being best would seem to make a Ferrari Constructors' win a dead cert. Renault could be the tightest, as Vettel's great, but I suspect both Grosjean and Hulkenberg (if he happily gets the seat) are better than Ricciardo. For Mercedes, I think the Rosberg-Hamilton partnership is very strong, certainly better than Button and Perez/Magnussen.
Ditto new shops on the high street, an air of optimism, house price rises, etc.
That only works if it happens nationwide.
You're looking at things from a London perspective.
And if its only London, especially posh London, which continues to prosper then the Conservatives are highly vulnerable to attacks from both Labour and UKIP that they only care about their 'rich chums'.
Err... the chart would have been a lot more informative if the compiler hadn't... err... "tweeked" (ahem) 1992.
What figure would you have used ?
Exactly 18 months to go before GE1992. After all, this article explicitly purports to be about "incumbent governments". Nowhere does the writer purport to be testing a theory of swingback to "incumbent prime ministers".
Again, a good post. The Tories don't have any narrative. The sort of What Are the Tories For? stuff. The odious Crosby will choose to bang on about immigrants and welfare for 18 months, which may capture some Kippers but will alienate the centrists the Tories need to win. That's the key strategic problem the party has.
It's quite obvious what the Tory campaign narrative will be: The Economy is Finally Recovering (if not booming), Don't Let Labour Crash it Again. uote>
It might have been, were wages keeping up with prices. They are not, so the country is getting poorer and the public know it. Not denying that will be the line, but it's a much harder well than you might think.
For sure. Living standards are a problem for Tories, and they definitely need a riposte to Ed's populism on energy prices, living wages, etc.
But it should not be beyond them. They just need to time it right (it is arguable Ed has gone off too early with his excellent energy wheeze). Also, there are other ways people measure their prosperity beyond raw income and spending: if unemployment is going down (which it will be, possibly quite speedily, by 2015) then people feel good as they see friends and relatives getting jobs.
Ditto new shops on the high street, an air of optimism, house price rises, etc.
There are many ways of generating a feelgood factor and you can be sure the Tories will do their damnedest to engineer one. The Osborne boomlet. Then they will point the finger and say Do you really want Labour to come in and run the same shop they burned down?
As I say it possibly - probably - won't be enough to win the election, but I reckon it will be much much tighter than present polls suggest, as voters look at Miliband and Balls, and read the Tory narrative, and think: Hmmm...
The trouble with house price stuff is it's largely a London thing. London is unique politically because it's the one region where high earners (and thus owner occupiers) vote Labour in great numbers. People who are deemed "rich" by the bumpkiny Carlottas and Watchers on here are left-wing. It will be hard for the Tories to beat Labour in a Labour city, house price boom or not.
The Tories don't have any narrative. The sort of What Are the Tories For? stuff.
And Labour do? What are Labour for?
Until Ed B tells Ed M - how are we to know?
"Instead, Ed Miliband opted for a commitment on energy that that he knows carries greater risks of defining Labour as an anti-business throwback to the 1970s but that is resolutely outside of Ed Balls’ ambit.
The paradox of the policy is that a move which has been reported as demonstrating the leader’s strength – and in fairness, courage is required to take a chance on a totally new approach – has been driven, in part, by his weakness in defining Labour’s fiscal policy.
This is the realpolitik behind Labour’s energy price freeze."
Labour are for being on the side of the working man. You may not like the narrative but it is clear what it is.
The working man - as long as he works in the public sector.
This is one of the reasons that the Tories so dismally fail to connect with so many Labour inclined voters. Seeing the public sector as the enemy really appeals to dyed in the wool Tories, it is less of a calling card for those the Tories want to win over.
Cameron's betrayal of Portsmouth proving to be more than a little unpopular in the Telegraph and Mail.
Now lets see, no money for power stations and warships but unlimited money for Toff Rail and overseas aid.
And some cheerleaders still think that UKIP will be below 5% in 2015. Let me explain, the UKIP vote is driven by disgruntlement with the establishment.
I suggest having a look at what the UKIP odds are in Eastleigh, they're in second place now with a big Conservative vote to squeeze.
So you would have closed one of the Clyde yards instead? Again, I'll ask the question: when was the last time Portsmouth built and commissioned a large ship? Given the answer, do you think that it was realistic, everything else being equal? (*)
Overseas aid money is not unlimited.
HS2 money is not unlimited.
And I dread to think what you mean by 'no money for power stations'.
UKIP pretend to be 'better' than the other parties. Their supporters could at least start by telling the truth instead of chest-thumping.
(*) We really have to ask ourselves why BAE sells other weaponry very effectively around the world, but its shipbuilding has been a relative failure, export-wise. Personally, I think we've been building the wrong sort of vessels for the export markets - too expensive to build, to expensive to run, and over-capable.
Another factor to throw into the pot of course is Clegg. Has anyone tried polling the post 2010 LD > Lab switchers to see what they'd do if, say, Farron or Carmichael became leader? The former got a bit of a roasting in C-i-F the other day, admittedly, but I'm not entirely sure how representative, or truthful about past voting patterns, some posting there are! We expect some of the switchers to come back in Con/LD marginals of course; how many more would with a different leader.
Again, a good post. The Tories don't have any narrative. The sort of What Are the Tories For? stuff. The odious Crosby will choose to bang on about immigrants and welfare for 18 months, which may capture some Kippers but will alienate the centrists the Tories need to win. That's the key strategic problem the party has.
It's quite obvious what the Tory campaign narrative will be: The Economy is Finally Recovering (if not booming), Don't Let Labour Crash it Again.
Simple as. They won't need to say anything more.
I suggest this will be a LOT more appealing to centrists, right across the country, than you allow. It may not win the election, but it will be a v powerful message.
It might have been, were wages keeping up with prices. They are not, so the country is getting poorer and the public know it. Not denying that will be the line, but it's a much harder well than you might think.
For sure. Living standards are a problem for Tories, and they definitely need a riposte to Ed's populism on energy prices, living wages, etc.
But it should not be beyond them. They just need to time it right (it is arguable Ed has gone off too early with his excellent energy wheeze). Also, there are other ways people measure their prosperity beyond raw income and spending: if unemployment is going down (which it will be, possibly quite speedily, by 2015) then people feel good as they see friends and relatives getting jobs.
Ditto new shops on the high street, an air of optimism, house price rises, etc.
There are many ways of generating a feelgood factor and you can be sure the Tories will do their damnedest to engineer one. The Osborne boomlet. Then they will point the finger and say Do you really want Labour to come in and run the same shop they burned down?
As I say it possibly - probably - won't be enough to win the election, but I reckon it will be much much tighter than present polls suggest, as voters look at Miliband and Balls, and read the Tory narrative, and think: Hmmm...
Yes all those charity , poundshops , bookmakers and pawnbrokers are really making people feel good.
It might be better to compare the polling 18 months out to the polling right before the election so we can separate the trend from polling failure. IIUC the polls in Labour's first term tended to overstate Labour, although to a lesser and lesser extent until they marginally understated them in 2010. That may be covering up the swingback.
The other way to do this is to use Rod Crosby's by-election swing method, which has a consistent way of getting data and doesn't get blown around by methodology changes. That shows a fairly consistent swing back to the government from by-election results, and also points to a closer race than the current polls are showing.
"After a sweeping victory fueled by lofty ideological promises and happy family portraits, Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio woke up on Wednesday to a crueler reality: a $2 billion hole in the next city budget, a dysfunctional state legislature skeptical about his tax plan, a police department frozen by a federal lawsuit and municipal unions clamoring for raises.
But Mr. de Blasio, put simply, needs the governor’s help. His campaign platform includes a long list of proposals, big and small, that cannot happen without approval in Albany, from issuing driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants to classifying “subway grinding” as a felony.
Then there is Mr. de Blasio’s centerpiece plan, which crystallized his campaign’s Robin Hood message: raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for prekindergarten classes. Mr. Cuomo, who is up for re-election next year, has made it clear that reducing taxes, not raising them, is his priority for 2014."
It might be better to compare the polling 18 months out to the polling right before the election so we can separate the trend from polling failure. IIUC the polls in Labour's first term tended to overstate Labour, although to a lesser and lesser extent until they marginally understated them in 2010. That may be covering up the swingback.
The other way to do this is to use Rod Crosby's by-election swing method, which has a consistent way of getting data and doesn't get blown around by methodology changes. That shows a fairly consistent swing back to the government from by-election results, and also points to a closer race than the current polls are showing.
Does anyone seriously believe that Labour is going to win a comfortable majority in 2015? I'd be very surprised.
Given EdM's continued poor - though slightly improving - ratings and an economy on the up, 2015 is an election the Tories *should* win outright. If they don't (and right now it looks like they won't) they will only have themselves to blame.
Re Sean T's post, as quoted by MacolmG "Yes all those charity , poundshops , bookmakers and pawnbrokers are really making people feel good."
The "Portas town" I know best doesn't seem to have a "feelgood factor". Slow decline as before. Big refit for the main pub, but that's about it, and the pub hasn't re-opened yet to make anyone feel good about it!
I'd like to say how much pleasure, as a Spurs fan, I am taking in our major role in helping Arsenal in their success thus far in both the Champions League and Premier League this season.
The Tories don't have any narrative. The sort of What Are the Tories For? stuff.
And Labour do? What are Labour for?
Until Ed B tells Ed M - how are we to know?
"Instead, Ed Miliband opted for a commitment on energy that that he knows carries greater risks of defining Labour as an anti-business throwback to the 1970s but that is resolutely outside of Ed Balls’ ambit.
The paradox of the policy is that a move which has been reported as demonstrating the leader’s strength – and in fairness, courage is required to take a chance on a totally new approach – has been driven, in part, by his weakness in defining Labour’s fiscal policy.
This is the realpolitik behind Labour’s energy price freeze."
Labour are for being on the side of the working man.
I guess that's why they've opposed things like the benefits cap? Of course the party of the abolition of the 10p tax band is "on the side of the working man"!
Also the party that created the 10p tax band, of course.
More tinkering! Surely the coalition policy of lifting people out of tax altogether is helping reduce inequality, as John Rentoul pointed out yesterday...,.
"So incomes will be more equal under this government than they were under Labour 1997-2010, but also than under late Thatcher and John Major.
Mr. Observer, what's 'comfortable'? 40 or so is eminently achievable for Labour.
A lot depends on how the eurozone goes, and how the referendum turns out. I've long believed that a Yes vote would really help both the SNP and the Conservatives.
Mr. Dickson, surely that's an entirely reasonable position (regarding ship-building) to hold?
If it's a choice between giving people are foreigners or people who are British jobs, surely the British Government will opt for buying British?
Leaving aside whether or not the post-independence government in London could still be called "British"; from a purely pragmatic point of view, do you think that Better Together explicitly threatening the Scottish electorate is:
Cameron's betrayal of Portsmouth proving to be more than a little unpopular in the Telegraph and Mail.
Now lets see, no money for power stations and warships but unlimited money for Toff Rail and overseas aid.
And some cheerleaders still think that UKIP will be below 5% in 2015. Let me explain, the UKIP vote is driven by disgruntlement with the establishment.
I suggest having a look at what the UKIP odds are in Eastleigh, they're in second place now with a big Conservative vote to squeeze.
So you would have closed one of the Clyde yards instead? Again, I'll ask the question: when was the last time Portsmouth built and commissioned a large ship? Given the answer, do you think that it was realistic, everything else being equal? (*)
Overseas aid money is not unlimited.
HS2 money is not unlimited.
And I dread to think what you mean by 'no money for power stations'.
UKIP pretend to be 'better' than the other parties. Their supporters could at least start by telling the truth instead of chest-thumping.
(*) We really have to ask ourselves why BAE sells other weaponry very effectively around the world, but its shipbuilding has been a relative failure, export-wise. Personally, I think we've been building the wrong sort of vessels for the export markets - too expensive to build, to expensive to run, and over-capable.
So you're accusing me of being a UKIP supporter now.
Well its an improvement on you accusing me of being a Labour supporter.
For all your frothing you have predictably missed the underlying political effect.
Namely that people want someone to blame for their misfortunes.
And this government is giving plenty of scope for them to blame it.
'Coalition uses Clyde yards’ survival as argument for union'
But, instead of depicting Wednesday’s announcement as an unavoidable decision by BAE, ministers chose to use it to make political capital against those campaigning for Scottish independence.
... there is unease within the coalition at the aggressive rhetoric. One person close to the government’s role in the decision said: “This was absolutely a commercial decision, not a political one. It was a little bit dangerous for the prime minister to make it sound like we interfered with it politically – he was trying to have his cake and eat it.”
John Curtice, professor of politics at Strathclyde University, added: “Superficially, this looks like a win for the union, but actually it has underlined that shipbuilding is a shrinking industry, and that Scotland will have to learn to rely less on Westminster spending in the future, whatever happens.”
The rhetoric has also had the added effect of alienating MPs in seats close to Portsmouth. John Denham, the Labour MP for Southampton Itchen, said: “Many in southern England feel they have been sold down the river today by a government whose attention has been elsewhere.”
Mr. Dickson, surely that's an entirely reasonable position (regarding ship-building) to hold?
If it's a choice between giving people are foreigners or people who are British jobs, surely the British Government will opt for buying British?
Leaving aside whether or not the post-independence government in London could still be called "British"; from a purely pragmatic point of view, do you think that Better Together explicitly threatening the Scottish electorate is:
a) wise? b) unwise?
The post-independence government in London will call itself what it darn well likes - and you don't get a say.
Do you think telling the Scottish electorate the potential consequences of an independence vote:
Mr. Dickson, surely that's an entirely reasonable position (regarding ship-building) to hold?
If it's a choice between giving people are foreigners or people who are British jobs, surely the British Government will opt for buying British?
Morris , will be well compensated for by all the jobs we take back from England. Think of all those government jobs currently done exclusively in England and even Wales. There will be a jobs boom just bringing back those and they will be able to be done much cheaper and will benefit the Scottish economy. Massive win coming up on jobs front.
Given EdM's continued poor - though slightly improving - ratings and an economy on the up, 2015 is an election the Tories *should* win outright. If they don't (and right now it looks like they won't) they will only have themselves to blame.
Disagree, partly for the reason you and seanT give upthread. There are big structural things standing between the Tories and an overall majority, and they're only partly the Tories' fault.
Where I think the Tories are cocking things up is: 1) They don't even seem to have a strategy which, if a bunch of lucky things happened, would get them a majority, eg hoping the UKIPpers come home and working on expanding their appeal in the centre. 2) For a party that looks unlikely to win a majority but with a reasonable hope of a Hung Parliament, they seem to have made it quite difficult to create a new coalition.
Having noted the apparent Falkirk effect in the Scottish subsamples for a couple of days it's fair to note that it's vanished today - Labour-SNP 41-21 in Scotland. Chasing subsamples is a mug's game really.
I agree there is nothing automatic about swingback. To the contrary, I think (without checking the data) that 1992 was the last time I can recall when an election campaign really made a significant difference to the result.
All of this suggests to me that if the tories are going to recover to an even potentially winning position it is important that they make progress fairly quickly. Another 40% day for Labour in Yougov suggests not only stability but a recovery from the radio silence period of the summer.
The tories need an omnishambles in reverse and the pressure on Osborne to deliver that next month is quite acute.
You're right that the election campaign itself rarely makes a difference, except marginally on differential turnout. Politics for non-anoraks is seen as a non-issue most of the time with occasional salient events that draw special attention, and minds get made up before the election. The Tory recovery potential is now down to two autumn statements, two Budgets, and black swans.
EdM should IMO be getting credit for good strategic timing. The radio silence period was painful for Labour people but it's now clear that it didn't do us lasting harm. He's put Labour's themes on the front page ever since the conference - first energy, then cost of living generally, then the living wage, now potentially the NHS. I think a point or two of the 40 is coming from that and could subside again but we're in good shape to get 38. Can the Tories top 40?
Mr. Dickson, it isn't threatening the Scottish electorate, anymore than the SNP are 'threatening' to take away Britain's oil.
Not a threat huh? The Financial Times (a fierce opponent of Scottish independence remember) does not agree with you:
- A coalition official made the point more clearly later. Asked if an independent Scotland could build the next generation of navy frigates, the person said: “Since the second world war, we have not built warships outside the UK. That remains the case.” The implicit threat is clear.
Mr. Dickson, surely that's an entirely reasonable position (regarding ship-building) to hold?
If it's a choice between giving people are foreigners or people who are British jobs, surely the British Government will opt for buying British?
Morris , will be well compensated for by all the jobs we take back from England. Think of all those government jobs currently done exclusively in England and even Wales. There will be a jobs boom just bringing back those....
Malcolm, hate to break it to you, but government jobs don't create wealth......looks like the Ashcroft polling showing Scots thinking spending going up, but services not improving was well founded....
The Tories don't have any narrative. The sort of What Are the Tories For? stuff.
And Labour do? What are Labour for?
Until Ed B tells Ed M - how are we to know?
"Instead, Ed Miliband opted for a commitment on energy that that he knows carries greater risks of defining Labour as an anti-business throwback to the 1970s but that is resolutely outside of Ed Balls’ ambit.
The paradox of the policy is that a move which has been reported as demonstrating the leader’s strength – and in fairness, courage is required to take a chance on a totally new approach – has been driven, in part, by his weakness in defining Labour’s fiscal policy.
This is the realpolitik behind Labour’s energy price freeze."
Labour are for being on the side of the working man.
I guess that's why they've opposed things like the benefits cap? Of course the party of the abolition of the 10p tax band is "on the side of the working man"!
Also the party that created the 10p tax band, of course.
More tinkering! Surely the coalition policy of lifting people out of tax altogether is helping reduce inequality, as John Rentoul pointed out yesterday...,.
"So incomes will be more equal under this government than they were under Labour 1997-2010, but also than under late Thatcher and John Major.
All that tells us is that most people's incomes are either falling or stagnating. But income is not the same as wealth - as any London homeowner can tell you.
The Tories don't have any narrative. The sort of What Are the Tories For? stuff.
And Labour do? What are Labour for?
Until Ed B tells Ed M - how are we to know?
"Instead, Ed Miliband opted for a commitment on energy that that he knows carries greater risks of defining Labour as an anti-business throwback to the 1970s but that is resolutely outside of Ed Balls’ ambit.
The paradox of the policy is that a move which has been reported as demonstrating the leader’s strength – and in fairness, courage is required to take a chance on a totally new approach – has been driven, in part, by his weakness in defining Labour’s fiscal policy.
This is the realpolitik behind Labour’s energy price freeze."
Labour are for being on the side of the working man.
I guess that's why they've opposed things like the benefits cap? Of course the party of the abolition of the 10p tax band is "on the side of the working man"!
Also the party that created the 10p tax band, of course.
More tinkering! Surely the coalition policy of lifting people out of tax altogether is helping reduce inequality, as John Rentoul pointed out yesterday...,.
"So incomes will be more equal under this government than they were under Labour 1997-2010, but also than under late Thatcher and John Major.
All that tells us is that most people's incomes are either falling or stagnating. But income is not the same as wealth - as any London homeowner can tell you.
Disposable income Inequality lower under this government than under Labour - suck it up...
Cameron's betrayal of Portsmouth proving to be more than a little unpopular in the Telegraph and Mail.
Now lets see, no money for power stations and warships but unlimited money for Toff Rail and overseas aid.
And some cheerleaders still think that UKIP will be below 5% in 2015. Let me explain, the UKIP vote is driven by disgruntlement with the establishment.
I suggest having a look at what the UKIP odds are in Eastleigh, they're in second place now with a big Conservative vote to squeeze.
So you would have closed one of the Clyde yards instead? Again, I'll ask the question: when was the last time Portsmouth built and commissioned a large ship? Given the answer, do you think that it was realistic, everything else being equal? (*)
Overseas aid money is not unlimited.
HS2 money is not unlimited.
And I dread to think what you mean by 'no money for power stations'.
UKIP pretend to be 'better' than the other parties. Their supporters could at least start by telling the truth instead of chest-thumping.
(*) We really have to ask ourselves why BAE sells other weaponry very effectively around the world, but its shipbuilding has been a relative failure, export-wise. Personally, I think we've been building the wrong sort of vessels for the export markets - too expensive to build, to expensive to run, and over-capable.
So you're accusing me of being a UKIP supporter now.
Well its an improvement on you accusing me of being a Labour supporter.
For all your frothing you have predictably missed the underlying political effect.
Namely that people want someone to blame for their misfortunes.
And this government is giving plenty of scope for them to blame it.
No frothing. Just pointing out your factual inaccuracies.
Mr. Dickson, it's an invalid perspective to assert the right to leave the UK whilst at the same time seeking to claim the advantages (whether it's ship-building or currency) of being part of it.
There may well end up being, should independence occur, a quid pro quo regarding Faslane (if not and the Scottish Government forces its closure then the costs to the British taxpayer would be enormous and it would begin the bilateral relationship between the two nations on a very bad note), but there's no automatic right for Scots to enjoy jobs historically given to Britons if they have chosen to stop being Britons.
Given EdM's continued poor - though slightly improving - ratings and an economy on the up, 2015 is an election the Tories *should* win outright. If they don't (and right now it looks like they won't) they will only have themselves to blame.
Disagree, partly for the reason you and seanT give upthread. There are big structural things standing between the Tories and an overall majority, and they're only partly the Tories' fault.
Where I think the Tories are cocking things up is: 1) They don't even seem to have a strategy which, if a bunch of lucky things happened, would get them a majority, eg hoping the UKIPpers come home and working on expanding their appeal in the centre. 2) For a party that looks unlikely to win a majority but with a reasonable hope of a Hung Parliament, they seem to have made it quite difficult to create a new coalition.
Their biggest structural challenge is the voting system, which they support; and the constituency boundaries, which they could have seen altered if they had not messed the LDs about so much. There is also the toxicity issue, which the LD move to Labour strongly implies. I know the Tories like to blame the BBC and everyone else for the latter, but it may pay them at some stage to look to themselves a little more.
Mr. Dickson, surely that's an entirely reasonable position (regarding ship-building) to hold?
If it's a choice between giving people are foreigners or people who are British jobs, surely the British Government will opt for buying British?
Morris , will be well compensated for by all the jobs we take back from England. Think of all those government jobs currently done exclusively in England and even Wales. There will be a jobs boom just bringing back those....
Malcolm, hate to break it to you, but government jobs don't create wealth......looks like the Ashcroft polling showing Scots thinking spending going up, but services not improving was well founded....
Why don't you get a train down to Portsmouth today and knock on the doors of a few BAE employees, and tell them to their face that "government jobs don't create wealth."
But just check that your private health insurance is up to date first, cos you are going to need it.
The Tories don't have any narrative. The sort of What Are the Tories For? stuff.
And Labour do? What are Labour for?
Until Ed B tells Ed M - how are we to know?
"Instead, Ed Miliband opted for a commitment on energy that that he knows carries greater risks of defining Labour as an anti-business throwback to the 1970s but that is resolutely outside of Ed Balls’ ambit.
The paradox of the policy is that a move which has been reported as demonstrating the leader’s strength – and in fairness, courage is required to take a chance on a totally new approach – has been driven, in part, by his weakness in defining Labour’s fiscal policy.
This is the realpolitik behind Labour’s energy price freeze."
Labour are for being on the side of the working man.
I guess that's why they've opposed things like the benefits cap? Of course the party of the abolition of the 10p tax band is "on the side of the working man"!
Also the party that created the 10p tax band, of course.
More tinkering! Surely the coalition policy of lifting people out of tax altogether is helping reduce inequality, as John Rentoul pointed out yesterday...,.
"So incomes will be more equal under this government than they were under Labour 1997-2010, but also than under late Thatcher and John Major.
All that tells us is that most people's incomes are either falling or stagnating. But income is not the same as wealth - as any London homeowner can tell you.
Disposable income Inequality lower under this government than under Labour - suck it up...
These so called structural problems are overblown, primarily an excuse. The electoral position of the Tories is stronger than Blair faced in opposition. We forget that in 1992 the popular wisdom was that Labour could not win under FPTP.
The Tory strategy is odd. They're spending far too much time talking to themselves and their right flank. The Tory tent is smaller, not larger than 2010.
Mr. Dickson, it's an invalid perspective to assert the right to leave the UK whilst at the same time seeking to claim the advantages (whether it's ship-building or currency) of being part of it.
There may well end up being, should independence occur, a quid pro quo regarding Faslane (if not and the Scottish Government forces its closure then the costs to the British taxpayer would be enormous and it would begin the bilateral relationship between the two nations on a very bad note), but there's no automatic right for Scots to enjoy jobs historically given to Britons if they have chosen to stop being Britons.
I note that you have not actually answered the question:
- From a purely pragmatic point of view, do you think that Better Together explicitly threatening the Scottish electorate is:
and the constituency boundaries, which they could have seen altered
This is the part that they could have done something about, but it only solves a small part of their problem, and messes with their incumbency advantage, too.
Morris, regarding Faslane, the Scots served their initial intentions regarding the future of Faslane way back in the 1960s. Since then it has become increasingly clear that Faslane is going to get kicked out. So, please do not claim that you have not been given fair notice. You have had nearly 50 years to prepare for an English replacement site for Faslane, and have not even now begun to seriously look for one.
I can understand why you don't want to locate a Faslane-like facility at any English port, but that does not excuse keeping such a facility only 30 miles from the centre of the largest urban conurbation in Scotland.
Mr. Dickson, it isn't threatening the Scottish electorate, anymore than the SNP are 'threatening' to take away Britain's oil.
Not a threat huh? The Financial Times (a fierce opponent of Scottish independence remember) does not agree with you:
- A coalition official made the point more clearly later. Asked if an independent Scotland could build the next generation of navy frigates, the person said: “Since the second world war, we have not built warships outside the UK. That remains the case.” The implicit threat is clear.
Their biggest structural challenge is the voting system, which they support; and the constituency boundaries, which they could have seen altered if they had not messed the LDs about so much.
Indeed. IMHO the failure of the Tories to ensure they got the boundary changes is the most baffling of all their strategic errors. These changes were fundamental to their chances of winning a majority - nothing could be more important, but they threw it all away purely in order to stick two fingers up at the Lib Dem HoL reform proposals! Unbelievable!
Mr. Observer, inflation outpacing rises in wages occurred for years before the recession.
I know. And the gap between the richest and poorest was falling before the current government took over. That this has continued is because benefits paid to the poorest were maintained at inflation-linked levels by the current government. But that has now been stopped, so we will see what happens over the coming years.
Mr. Dickson, given independence only became possible (realistically) a few years ago it's disingenuous to claim the British should've spent the last 50 years planning on a Faslane closure.
Besides which, the failure to do so may help an independent Scotland a great deal. An agreement over currency in exchange for the temporary continuation of the Faslane base could be made, whereas if there were another site in the UK that could do the job you wouldn't have nearly such a large bargaining chip.
and the constituency boundaries, which they could have seen altered
This is the part that they could have done something about, but it only solves a small part of their problem, and messes with their incumbency advantage, too.
Not a majority, but a better chance of staying in power. If they had supported AV, for example, a Tory-led coalition would be the overwhelming odds on favourite at the next election, I'd hazard.
Mr. Dickson, given independence only became possible (realistically) a few years ago it's disingenuous to claim the British should've spent the last 50 years planning on a Faslane closure.
Besides which, the failure to do so may help an independent Scotland a great deal. An agreement over currency in exchange for the temporary continuation of the Faslane base could be made, whereas if there were another site in the UK that could do the job you wouldn't have nearly such a large bargaining chip.
50 years or 5 years, you've still had time to get started shortlisting and selecting an English port to replace Faslane. To have done absolutely diddly squat is either incompetent or stupid. Or both.
But fairy nuff, I agree with your "bargaining chip" point. The English government has succeeded in throwing away some of their best chips.
The Tory party were effectively dead between 1997 and 2007. Remember the Sun newspaper headline, the 'dead parrot party'. They were an awful opposition party and therefore Labour were easily ahead.
It was only really in Autumn 2007, when the financial collapse started to happen, that the Tories came back to life again. Although Brown was previously seen as a decent chancellor, people did not see him as PM. They therefore started to listen to the Tories. Cameron and Osborne really only got the Tories into a position of looking like an alternative government, when they started to oppose the government. I cannot remember Cameron/Osborne actually stating any substantive alternative policies to those of Brown/Darling, but their general opposition was enough to boost Tory polling. As the Tories did not have a convincing economic plan, they did not win a majority in 2010.
In 2015 because of cost of living increases and peoples incomes not compensating for this, I doubt the Tories will benefit from an improving economy. Whether people see Labours policies as being any better remains to be seen. If they don't, then we will be in for another hung parliament, with probably Labour having most seats.
Another Welsh Labour economics failure - who would trust them with the ability to vary income tax?
A wind turbine that cost the Welsh government £48,000 to buy has been generating an average of just £5 worth of electricity per month.
The turbine was put its Aberystwyth office, rated excellent for sustainability, in 2009.
The Welsh government said the turbine had had mechanical problems.
But before it was installed, the turbine makers warned Welsh government contractors it would not be exposed to enough wind where it was to be placed.
The turbine's output has been monitored officially since January last year and figures suggest it could take hundreds of years for it to offset the cost of its purchase and installation.
The Welsh government confirmed in a response to a Freedom Of Information request that between January 2012 and July this year the turbine generated 585 kilowatt hours of energy (kWh) - an average of 33 kWh per month.
Taking 16p as an estimate for the current price of electricity per kWh in the consumer market, it works out at a value of £5.28 per month.
Mr. Dickson, given independence only became possible (realistically) a few years ago it's disingenuous to claim the British should've spent the last 50 years planning on a Faslane closure.
Besides which, the failure to do so may help an independent Scotland a great deal. An agreement over currency in exchange for the temporary continuation of the Faslane base could be made, whereas if there were another site in the UK that could do the job you wouldn't have nearly such a large bargaining chip.
50 years or 5 years, you've still had time to get started shortlisting and selecting an English port to replace Faslane. To have done absolutely diddly squat is either incompetent or stupid. Or both.
But fairy nuff, I agree with your "bargaining chip" point. The English government has succeeded in throwing away some of their best chips.
And if they had been constructing an English port away from Faslane, no doubt you would have been the first to attack them for taking jobs away from Scotland.
It's always Heads I win, Tails you lose with the Nats isn't it.
So you would have closed one of the Clyde yards instead? Again, I'll ask the question: when was the last time Portsmouth built and commissioned a large ship? Given the answer, do you think that it was realistic, everything else being equal? (*)
Overseas aid money is not unlimited.
HS2 money is not unlimited.
And I dread to think what you mean by 'no money for power stations'.
UKIP pretend to be 'better' than the other parties. Their supporters could at least start by telling the truth instead of chest-thumping.
(*) We really have to ask ourselves why BAE sells other weaponry very effectively around the world, but its shipbuilding has been a relative failure, export-wise. Personally, I think we've been building the wrong sort of vessels for the export markets - too expensive to build, to expensive to run, and over-capable.
So you're accusing me of being a UKIP supporter now.
Well its an improvement on you accusing me of being a Labour supporter.
For all your frothing you have predictably missed the underlying political effect.
Namely that people want someone to blame for their misfortunes.
And this government is giving plenty of scope for them to blame it.
No frothing. Just pointing out your factual inaccuracies.
I was giving an example of the hyperbole people use when they're disgruntled.
There will be plenty of people in Portsmouth doing likewise today - "All that money for foreign aid and that posh railway but nothing for us. They bailed out the bankers but put us on the dole".
This is the problem the government is creating for itself.
It gives the impression that its priorities are:
1) London 2) Scotland 3) Rest of the world
But elections aren't won in these places but in medium sized towns and its these places which feel ignored, indeed looked down upon, by the government.
Comments
I agree there is nothing automatic about swingback. To the contrary, I think (without checking the data) that 1992 was the last time I can recall when an election campaign really made a significant difference to the result.
All of this suggests to me that if the tories are going to recover to an even potentially winning position it is important that they make progress fairly quickly. Another 40% day for Labour in Yougov suggests not only stability but a recovery from the radio silence period of the summer.
The tories need an omnishambles in reverse and the pressure on Osborne to deliver that next month is quite acute.
Latest YouGov / The Sun results 6th November - Con 33%, Lab 40%, LD 9%, UKIP 12%; APP -25
Just 65% of Labour VI and 57% of Labour 2010 says that EdM would make best PM.
Take a repeat of that one therefore...
Black monday followed soon after but the Tories were back safely by then....
Coalition trying to break recent pattern therefore..
The economy should help with such voters as should the evidence that the consequences of a tory government on public spending, for example, were grossly overstated. But I agree that the message needs to be more targetted too. To misuse one of the worst election campaigns ever "are the government thinking what they are thinking?"
Not sure it's instructive to take Major's first month of polls, presumably he got a bounce?
But the Tories will certainly need more than the 1.2/1.3 that Blair and Brown managed to put on - which is pretty good after Iraq and so long in government. So still hope for the blues...
The problem here is that the Government is two parties. The overall Coalition share remaining the same could mean the Lib Dems being obliterated and a Conservative majority of three figures, or the Conservatives being annihilated and a Lib Dem led (perhaps with an outright majority) government.
F1: I'd heard muttering on Twitter about this, but it seems there's a serious possibility Perez will get tossed overboard and replaced with Magnussen next season:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula-one/24844304
That wouldbe an enormous blow for the Mexican, not least because he hasn't, reportedly, been talking to any other teams. So, he might be out next year.
Lord Nelson visits Portsmouth - it's today's Matt: pic.twitter.com/bQYFK8WqaT
Sorry link not working but Matt strikes again.
Can you post raw vote shares? That way we can test to see whether the Fisher model is becoming, more or less accurate over time, or remaining constant in error
Until Ed B tells Ed M - how are we to know?
"Instead, Ed Miliband opted for a commitment on energy that that he knows carries greater risks of defining Labour as an anti-business throwback to the 1970s but that is resolutely outside of Ed Balls’ ambit.
The paradox of the policy is that a move which has been reported as demonstrating the leader’s strength – and in fairness, courage is required to take a chance on a totally new approach – has been driven, in part, by his weakness in defining Labour’s fiscal policy.
This is the realpolitik behind Labour’s energy price freeze."
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2013/10/29/the-realpolitik-behind-labours-energy-price-freeze/
The big swings against were in Labour govts.
But all elections are unique, and the next one will be especially so.
Also there has only been one single term govt since the war.
interpreting precedent will not be easy.
The Tories have a monumental task if they want to win a majority. I suspect Miliband's support is flakier than 40% and that some Lib Dems will return from Labour, but the Tories still have 100 marginals to fight (where they are hardly universally popular) and UKIP eating into their right wing.
A lucid message on the economy is super-important. Something simple, something sharp and which the voters will understand. I think middle ground voters will be willing to give the Tories a hearing on the economics, if they get the message right.
I remember the 2005 election campaign when Michael Howard started gaining some traction. Then Gordon Brown, Tony Blair et al took to a stage one day, pulled out a load of computerised bar charts and showed the "hole in the Tories' spending plans". They told BBC News and Sky News and ITV News, whilst live on air, that the Tories in power would lead to starving children and all middle-class families would have to give up one child for use as a chimney sweep. And it was so compelling that the public believed it and the election was over.
It was crude, untrue and unprovable, but it absolutely worked. Crosby needs to come up with something similarly striking.
Now lets see, no money for power stations and warships but unlimited money for Toff Rail and overseas aid.
And some cheerleaders still think that UKIP will be below 5% in 2015. Let me explain, the UKIP vote is driven by disgruntlement with the establishment.
I suggest having a look at what the UKIP odds are in Eastleigh, they're in second place now with a big Conservative vote to squeeze.
Currently the word is as much misused as 'world class' is about English footballers.
But suffice to say there will be no 'Osborne boom' in 2015.
http://www.thegwpf.org/john-howard-religion/
Well worth a long perusal.
There was nothing to "get". You asked a ridiculous question, got the obvious answer, you then asked another embarrassingly absurd question, and got another obvious answer, and then you pretended you knew this all along.
Go to work.
Bad flight home? Get some kip.
http://www.espn.co.uk/redbull/motorsport/story/134131.html
So, top Mercedes teams are Mercedes and McLaren (until 2015 when McLaren goes for Honda engine), Renault has Red Bull and Lotus, and Ferrari has Ferrari and... Sauber, I think would be the next best team.
Given that, a Ferrari engine being best would seem to make a Ferrari Constructors' win a dead cert. Renault could be the tightest, as Vettel's great, but I suspect both Grosjean and Hulkenberg (if he happily gets the seat) are better than Ricciardo. For Mercedes, I think the Rosberg-Hamilton partnership is very strong, certainly better than Button and Perez/Magnussen.
You're looking at things from a London perspective.
And if its only London, especially posh London, which continues to prosper then the Conservatives are highly vulnerable to attacks from both Labour and UKIP that they only care about their 'rich chums'.
Again, a good post. The Tories don't have any narrative. The sort of What Are the Tories For? stuff. The odious Crosby will choose to bang on about immigrants and welfare for 18 months, which may capture some Kippers but will alienate the centrists the Tories need to win. That's the key strategic problem the party has.
It's quite obvious what the Tory campaign narrative will be: The Economy is Finally Recovering (if not booming), Don't Let Labour Crash it Again.
uote>
It might have been, were wages keeping up with prices. They are not, so the country is getting poorer and the public know it. Not denying that will be the line, but it's a much harder well than you might think.
For sure. Living standards are a problem for Tories, and they definitely need a riposte to Ed's populism on energy prices, living wages, etc.
But it should not be beyond them. They just need to time it right (it is arguable Ed has gone off too early with his excellent energy wheeze). Also, there are other ways people measure their prosperity beyond raw income and spending: if unemployment is going down (which it will be, possibly quite speedily, by 2015) then people feel good as they see friends and relatives getting jobs.
Ditto new shops on the high street, an air of optimism, house price rises, etc.
There are many ways of generating a feelgood factor and you can be sure the Tories will do their damnedest to engineer one. The Osborne boomlet. Then they will point the finger and say Do you really want Labour to come in and run the same shop they burned down?
As I say it possibly - probably - won't be enough to win the election, but I reckon it will be much much tighter than present polls suggest, as voters look at Miliband and Balls, and read the Tory narrative, and think: Hmmm...
The trouble with house price stuff is it's largely a London thing. London is unique politically because it's the one region where high earners (and thus owner occupiers) vote Labour in great numbers. People who are deemed "rich" by the bumpkiny Carlottas and Watchers on here are left-wing. It will be hard for the Tories to beat Labour in a Labour city, house price boom or not.
Overseas aid money is not unlimited.
HS2 money is not unlimited.
And I dread to think what you mean by 'no money for power stations'.
UKIP pretend to be 'better' than the other parties. Their supporters could at least start by telling the truth instead of chest-thumping.
(*) We really have to ask ourselves why BAE sells other weaponry very effectively around the world, but its shipbuilding has been a relative failure, export-wise. Personally, I think we've been building the wrong sort of vessels for the export markets - too expensive to build, to expensive to run, and over-capable.
We expect some of the switchers to come back in Con/LD marginals of course; how many more would with a different leader.
The other way to do this is to use Rod Crosby's by-election swing method, which has a consistent way of getting data and doesn't get blown around by methodology changes. That shows a fairly consistent swing back to the government from by-election results, and also points to a closer race than the current polls are showing.
"After a sweeping victory fueled by lofty ideological promises and happy family portraits, Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio woke up on Wednesday to a crueler reality: a $2 billion hole in the next city budget, a dysfunctional state legislature skeptical about his tax plan, a police department frozen by a federal lawsuit and municipal unions clamoring for raises.
But Mr. de Blasio, put simply, needs the governor’s help. His campaign platform includes a long list of proposals, big and small, that cannot happen without approval in Albany, from issuing driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants to classifying “subway grinding” as a felony.
Then there is Mr. de Blasio’s centerpiece plan, which crystallized his campaign’s Robin Hood message: raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for prekindergarten classes. Mr. Cuomo, who is up for re-election next year, has made it clear that reducing taxes, not raising them, is his priority for 2014."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/07/nyregion/challenges-aplenty-await-new-yorks-new-mayor.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20131107&_r=0&pagewanted=all
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10431746/Scotland-will-only-get-warship-orders-if-voters-reject-independence-warn-UK-ministers.html
And then the class bully wonders why he does not feature very highly in the polularity stakes? Good grief.
Given EdM's continued poor - though slightly improving - ratings and an economy on the up, 2015 is an election the Tories *should* win outright. If they don't (and right now it looks like they won't) they will only have themselves to blame.
Re Sean T's post, as quoted by MacolmG "Yes all those charity , poundshops , bookmakers and pawnbrokers are really making people feel good."
The "Portas town" I know best doesn't seem to have a "feelgood factor". Slow decline as before. Big refit for the main pub, but that's about it, and the pub hasn't re-opened yet to make anyone feel good about it!
I'd like to.
"So incomes will be more equal under this government than they were under Labour 1997-2010, but also than under late Thatcher and John Major.
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/11/06/cameron-on-inequality/
If yes, the prospect of PM Milliband is horrendous.
"Where's the PM? There's a crisis? "
"Oh, Ed's in the toilet having a little cry."
That may be modern and metrosexual, but ...
If it's a choice between giving people are foreigners or people who are British jobs, surely the British Government will opt for buying British?
A lot depends on how the eurozone goes, and how the referendum turns out. I've long believed that a Yes vote would really help both the SNP and the Conservatives.
Or do you plan to order them from England?
a) wise?
b) unwise?
Well its an improvement on you accusing me of being a Labour supporter.
For all your frothing you have predictably missed the underlying political effect.
Namely that people want someone to blame for their misfortunes.
And this government is giving plenty of scope for them to blame it.
An extraordinarily silly man that Hammond.
Do you think telling the Scottish electorate the potential consequences of an independence vote:
A) Honest?
Dishonest?
Which is the SNP policy?
Where I think the Tories are cocking things up is:
1) They don't even seem to have a strategy which, if a bunch of lucky things happened, would get them a majority, eg hoping the UKIPpers come home and working on expanding their appeal in the centre.
2) For a party that looks unlikely to win a majority but with a reasonable hope of a Hung Parliament, they seem to have made it quite difficult to create a new coalition.
EdM should IMO be getting credit for good strategic timing. The radio silence period was painful for Labour people but it's now clear that it didn't do us lasting harm. He's put Labour's themes on the front page ever since the conference - first energy, then cost of living generally, then the living wage, now potentially the NHS. I think a point or two of the 40 is coming from that and could subside again but we're in good shape to get 38. Can the Tories top 40?
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/orrin-hatch-chris-christie-susana-martinez-2016-election-99484.html?hp=r8
Politico is sharp. PB is sharper.
- A coalition official made the point more clearly later. Asked if an independent Scotland could build the next generation of navy frigates, the person said: “Since the second world war, we have not built warships outside the UK. That remains the case.” The implicit threat is clear.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e49dfdf0-4703-11e3-bdd2-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2jwnWIwLf
There may well end up being, should independence occur, a quid pro quo regarding Faslane (if not and the Scottish Government forces its closure then the costs to the British taxpayer would be enormous and it would begin the bilateral relationship between the two nations on a very bad note), but there's no automatic right for Scots to enjoy jobs historically given to Britons if they have chosen to stop being Britons.
But just check that your private health insurance is up to date first, cos you are going to need it.
"6 weeks since Lab conf, new Populus data (13,000+ sample) shows Lab +0.12%, Con +0.56% compared with previous 6 weeks"
These so called structural problems are overblown, primarily an excuse. The electoral position of the Tories is stronger than Blair faced in opposition. We forget that in 1992 the popular wisdom was that Labour could not win under FPTP.
The Tory strategy is odd. They're spending far too much time talking to themselves and their right flank. The Tory tent is smaller, not larger than 2010.
- From a purely pragmatic point of view, do you think that Better Together explicitly threatening the Scottish electorate is:
a) wise?
b) unwise?
I can understand why you don't want to locate a Faslane-like facility at any English port, but that does not excuse keeping such a facility only 30 miles from the centre of the largest urban conurbation in Scotland.
Independence has consquences, some good, some bad. The SNP should recognise that.
Their biggest structural challenge is the voting system, which they support; and the constituency boundaries, which they could have seen altered if they had not messed the LDs about so much.
Indeed. IMHO the failure of the Tories to ensure they got the boundary changes is the most baffling of all their strategic errors. These changes were fundamental to their chances of winning a majority - nothing could be more important, but they threw it all away purely in order to stick two fingers up at the Lib Dem HoL reform proposals! Unbelievable!
Besides which, the failure to do so may help an independent Scotland a great deal. An agreement over currency in exchange for the temporary continuation of the Faslane base could be made, whereas if there were another site in the UK that could do the job you wouldn't have nearly such a large bargaining chip.
But fairy nuff, I agree with your "bargaining chip" point. The English government has succeeded in throwing away some of their best chips.
It was only really in Autumn 2007, when the financial collapse started to happen, that the Tories came back to life again. Although Brown was previously seen as a decent chancellor, people did not see him as PM. They therefore started to listen to the Tories. Cameron and Osborne really only got the Tories into a position of looking like an alternative government, when they started to oppose the government. I cannot remember Cameron/Osborne actually stating any substantive alternative policies to those of Brown/Darling, but their general opposition was enough to boost Tory polling. As the Tories did not have a convincing economic plan, they did not win a majority in 2010.
In 2015 because of cost of living increases and peoples incomes not compensating for this, I doubt the Tories will benefit from an improving economy. Whether people see Labours policies as being any better remains to be seen. If they don't, then we will be in for another hung parliament, with probably Labour having most seats.
A wind turbine that cost the Welsh government £48,000 to buy has been generating an average of just £5 worth of electricity per month.
The turbine was put its Aberystwyth office, rated excellent for sustainability, in 2009.
The Welsh government said the turbine had had mechanical problems.
But before it was installed, the turbine makers warned Welsh government contractors it would not be exposed to enough wind where it was to be placed.
The turbine's output has been monitored officially since January last year and figures suggest it could take hundreds of years for it to offset the cost of its purchase and installation.
The Welsh government confirmed in a response to a Freedom Of Information request that between January 2012 and July this year the turbine generated 585 kilowatt hours of energy (kWh) - an average of 33 kWh per month.
Taking 16p as an estimate for the current price of electricity per kWh in the consumer market, it works out at a value of £5.28 per month.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-24844182
It's always Heads I win, Tails you lose with the Nats isn't it.
There will be plenty of people in Portsmouth doing likewise today - "All that money for foreign aid and that posh railway but nothing for us. They bailed out the bankers but put us on the dole".
This is the problem the government is creating for itself.
It gives the impression that its priorities are:
1) London
2) Scotland
3) Rest of the world
But elections aren't won in these places but in medium sized towns and its these places which feel ignored, indeed looked down upon, by the government.