politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » UKIP the least liked party and LAB move to 8pc lead with TN

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » UKIP the least liked party and LAB move to 8pc lead with TNS-BMRB

This is from a survey that looks at views of the parties in different parts of the country which doesn’t produce any startling conclusions – the Tories are less popular in the north while LAB had problems in the South outside London.
These YouGov numbers are very similar to what Ipsos-MORI found in August when they asked about liking and disliking parties.

Read the full story here

Quincel

The poll doesn't say that UKIP are the least liked, merely that they are disliked by the most people. Without knowing how much the remaining people like/are neutral to/tolerate UKIP and the other parties we can't actually say for sure. It may be (and indeed I suspect it is the case) that more of those who would vote UKIP feel strongly about it than the other parties.

EDIT: My wording seems really unclear. I'm saying they may be divisive instead of simply disliked.

MaxPB

It's because leftism is like a religion to some people. They can't stand anyone else being different or having a different viewpoint. Take a look at all of that year zero crap as an example of how the left tries to extinguish opposing views in order to advance their cause. People on the left are the least open minded I have ever come across.

anothernick

More good polling for Lab.

Interesting that all the 4 companies who have reported this week give almost identical VI figures.

Quincel

MaxPB said:

It's because leftism is like a religion to some people. They can't stand anyone else being different or having a different viewpoint. Take a look at all of that year zero crap as an example of how the left tries to extinguish opposing views in order to advance their cause. People on the left are the least open minded I have ever come across.

My right-wing friends are just as evangelical about the all-powerful and perfect free-market as my lefty friends are about the helping hand of the state. I don't think this is the cause of this poll's results.

Neil

MaxPB said:

It's because leftism is like a religion to some people.

It's the voters' fault.

MrJones

ukip (imo) should be aiming at the 20% to the left of the socio-economic median and 30% to the right of it so luckily for them they have 57% to play with.

Quincel

tim said:

This is more worrying for the Toxics

[...]

How much of that is permanent brand damage and how much of it will be solved when the Cameron fop clique is removed is the interesting debate

It's permanent, it's not the end of the world. The Tories are always seen as less understanding of people and their situations, but it hasn't stopped them winning plenty of elections over the years including (well, kinda) 2010.

Sean_F

The Conservatives' problems in the North are specifically, problems in Merseyside, Manchester, Sheffield, and Newcastle. Some of their safest seats are in the North. The parallel with Scotland might work if some other party (Lib Dems, or UKIP?) started winning Conservative votes, but it won't apply so long as it's a Con/Lab battle.

DavidL

The Dean of the Faculty of Advocates (my great leader) Richard Keen QC has just announced that he is to stand down in January and become chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland.
An interesting move and perhaps indicative that someone thinks the tories might get a majority in the next election.

I can loyally and honestly say he has been an excellent Dean. As a debater he is so many levels above the level of public discourse in Scotland as to be absurd. It will be interesting to see what he can do.

RichardNabavi

A priori, and accepting all the usual caveats about reducing politics to a simple left/right axis, you'd expect a party on the left or right end of that axis to get the largest number of people saying they would never vote for it. Therefore the least surprising finding here is that UKIP gets the highest figure on this question. Of course, in itself it doesn't matter anyway - the key figure is how many people will vote for you or might seriously consider voting for you, not how many are never going to vote for you.

Having said that, the most striking figure is the LibDem one. This is a centrist party, so a priori you'd expect a very low number of people saying they'd never vote LibDem. I suspect that a very low figure is exactly what a similar poll anytime in the decade or two leading up to 2010 would have found, yet now it's the second highest of the four.

taffys

Clegg's language on the Roma show how utterly out of touch politicians are.

He hopes the people he has let into Britain against the wishes of a big majority of his own voters aren't nasty to those voters and respect their traditions

I mean I ask you....

I think the polls for the coalition are going to get worse before they get better. Its going to be a bad winter.

Life_ina_market_town

DavidL said:

The Dean of the Faculty of Advocates (my great leader) Richard Keen QC has just announced that he is to stand down in January and become chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland.
An interesting move and perhaps indicative that someone thinks the tories might get a majority in the next election.

I can loyally and honestly say he has been an excellent Dean. As a debater he is so many levels above the level of public discourse in Scotland as to be absurd. It will be interesting to see what he can do.

Isn't that an office which usually functions as a hereditament of the Hope dynasty?

MrJones

taffys said:

Clegg's language on the Roma show how utterly out of touch politicians are.

That's the bit that gets to me. I can never decide for sure if they're really as insulated from reality as they seem or they know full well what they're doing and don't care.

RichardNabavi

tim said:

Do you think the leader after Cameron will support AV if Dave has succeeded in splitting the right so badly it costs him his job?

No.

dr_spyn

Shades of Ankh MorPork - step forward Mrs Palm and Cornwall Council.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-24941336

Is she a 'seamstress'?

Sean_F

RichardNabavi said:

A priori, and accepting all the usual caveats about reducing politics to a simple left/right axis, you'd expect a party on the left or right end of that axis to get the largest number of people saying they would never vote for it. Therefore the least surprising finding here is that UKIP gets the highest figure on this question. Of course, in itself it doesn't matter anyway - the key figure is how many people will vote for you or might seriously consider voting for you, not how many are never going to vote for you.

Having said that, the most striking figure is the LibDem one. This is a centrist party, so a priori you'd expect a very low number of people saying they'd never vote LibDem. I suspect that a very low figure is exactly what a similar poll anytime in the decade or two leading up to 2010 would have found, yet now it's the second highest of the four.

Historically, Labour have usually led on likeability questions, the Conservatives on competence questions.

The 35% saying they'd never vote Lib Dem are probably a mix of bitter leftwingers, and people who think the Lib Dems would be a wasted vote.

Pulpstar

@Peter_the_punter Any place money ?

AndyJS

Yet another poll giving the Other Others a relatively high score.

Sean_F

dr_spyn said:

Shades of Ankh MorPork - step forward Mrs Palm and Cornwall Council.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-24941336

Is she a 'seamstress'?

Does she have five daughters?

Pulpstar

AndyJS said:

Yet another poll giving the Other Others a relatively high score.

SNP up high ?

RichardNabavi

Pulpstar said:

AndyJS said:

Yet another poll giving the Other Others a relatively high score.

SNP up high ?

Especially in England

dr_spyn

@Sean_F Daughters of Negotiable Virtue?

Pulpstar

RichardNabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

AndyJS said:

Yet another poll giving the Other Others a relatively high score.

SNP up high ?

Especially in England

2 SNP voters in the Midlands in the data tables...

Pulpstar

RichardNabavi said:

A priori, and accepting all the usual caveats about reducing politics to a simple left/right axis, you'd expect a party on the left or right end of that axis to get the largest number of people saying they would never vote for it. Therefore the least surprising finding here is that UKIP gets the highest figure on this question. Of course, in itself it doesn't matter anyway - the key figure is how many people will vote for you or might seriously consider voting for you, not how many are never going to vote for you.

Having said that, the most striking figure is the LibDem one. This is a centrist party, so a priori you'd expect a very low number of people saying they'd never vote LibDem. I suspect that a very low figure is exactly what a similar poll anytime in the decade or two leading up to 2010 would have found, yet now it's the second highest of the four.

Lib Dems are centrist at the moment, but I can see a mahoosive lurch to the left once they are out of coailition.

Quincel

Pulpstar said:

RichardNabavi said:

A priori, and accepting all the usual caveats about reducing politics to a simple left/right axis, you'd expect a party on the left or right end of that axis to get the largest number of people saying they would never vote for it. Therefore the least surprising finding here is that UKIP gets the highest figure on this question. Of course, in itself it doesn't matter anyway - the key figure is how many people will vote for you or might seriously consider voting for you, not how many are never going to vote for you.

Having said that, the most striking figure is the LibDem one. This is a centrist party, so a priori you'd expect a very low number of people saying they'd never vote LibDem. I suspect that a very low figure is exactly what a similar poll anytime in the decade or two leading up to 2010 would have found, yet now it's the second highest of the four.

Lib Dems are centrist at the moment, but I can see a mahoosive lurch to the left once they are out of coailition.

Depends on if they replace Clegg as leader. He's to the liberal/right side of the party (plus if he stays they'd have consistency anyway).

edmundintokyo

RichardNabavi said:

Having said that, the most striking figure is the LibDem one. This is a centrist party, so a priori you'd expect a very low number of people saying they'd never vote LibDem.

They're in the middle of the left/right axis but they're at the liberal end of the liberal/authoritarian axis, whereas the median voter leans authoritarian.

FrankBooth

I actually find it hard to say I'd never vote for anyone. Never is a big word after all.

tim said:

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 22m
Latest polls show a remarkable consistency
YouGov LAB lead 8%
TNS-BMRB LAB lead 8%
ICM LAB lead 8%
Populus LAB lead 8%

Equivalent week last month

YouGov Lab lead 1%
TNS-BMRB Lab lead 2%
ICM Lab lead 4%
Populus Lab lead 5%

Martin Kettle has written a pretty bold piece in the Graun saying Cameron might have lost himself the next election in apparently calling for permanent austerity. he's done very little to disassociate himself from the rich. Presumably he thinks by appealing to ordinary people like Chris and Kayleigh with Help to Buy (help to vote one tory backbencher apparently calls it) he doesn't need to.

I was delighted to see this merciless attack on HTB on conhome of all places from Boris biogragher Andrew Gimson.

http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2013/11/help-to-buy-is-immoral-because-it-encourages-ordinary-people-to-risk-ruin.html

Pulpstar

Quincel said:

Pulpstar said:

RichardNabavi said:

A priori, and accepting all the usual caveats about reducing politics to a simple left/right axis, you'd expect a party on the left or right end of that axis to get the largest number of people saying they would never vote for it. Therefore the least surprising finding here is that UKIP gets the highest figure on this question. Of course, in itself it doesn't matter anyway - the key figure is how many people will vote for you or might seriously consider voting for you, not how many are never going to vote for you.

Having said that, the most striking figure is the LibDem one. This is a centrist party, so a priori you'd expect a very low number of people saying they'd never vote LibDem. I suspect that a very low figure is exactly what a similar poll anytime in the decade or two leading up to 2010 would have found, yet now it's the second highest of the four.

Lib Dems are centrist at the moment, but I can see a mahoosive lurch to the left once they are out of coailition.

Depends on if they replace Clegg as leader. He's to the liberal/right side of the party (plus if he stays they'd have consistency anyway).

The only way I can see him staying on is in a continuation of the coalition. That's probably about a ~ 6-1 shot at the moment. Can't see him working with Ed Miliband, or being there if either of the big two scores a majority

Quincel

Pulpstar said:

Quincel said:

Pulpstar said:

RichardNabavi said:

A priori, and accepting all the usual caveats about reducing politics to a simple left/right axis, you'd expect a party on the left or right end of that axis to get the largest number of people saying they would never vote for it. Therefore the least surprising finding here is that UKIP gets the highest figure on this question. Of course, in itself it doesn't matter anyway - the key figure is how many people will vote for you or might seriously consider voting for you, not how many are never going to vote for you.

Having said that, the most striking figure is the LibDem one. This is a centrist party, so a priori you'd expect a very low number of people saying they'd never vote LibDem. I suspect that a very low figure is exactly what a similar poll anytime in the decade or two leading up to 2010 would have found, yet now it's the second highest of the four.

Lib Dems are centrist at the moment, but I can see a mahoosive lurch to the left once they are out of coailition.

Depends on if they replace Clegg as leader. He's to the liberal/right side of the party (plus if he stays they'd have consistency anyway).

The only way I can see him staying on is in a continuation of the coalition. That's probably about a ~ 6-1 shot at the moment. Can't see him working with Ed Miliband, or being there if either of the big two scores a majority

Agree with you about him and Miliband, but if Labour win a majority so that isn't in question I could see him remaining. The party haven't turned on him so far despite everything, you never know.

RichardNabavi

Pulpstar said:

Lib Dems are centrist at the moment, but I can see a mahoosive lurch to the left once they are out of coailition.

Not necessarily, after all Ed Miliband will be cornering the market in populist irresponsibility. If he is in Number 10, there will therefore be an excellent opening for a fiscally sane party of the centre-left, which is a position the LibDems have (somewhat inconsistently) espoused for a while. As the two Eds lead the country back into crisis, the message 'now you see why we joined the coalition to save the economy' could be quite a strong one for the LibDems.

Pulpstar

RichardNabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Lib Dems are centrist at the moment, but I can see a mahoosive lurch to the left once they are out of coailition.

Not necessarily, after all Ed Miliband will be cornering the market in populist irresponsibility. If he is in Number 10, there will therefore be an excellent opening for a fiscally sane party of the centre-left, which is a position the LibDems have (somewhat inconsistently) espoused for a while. As the two Eds lead the country back into crisis, the message 'now you see why we joined the coalition to save the economy' could be quite a strong one for the LibDems.

Hmm good point - If the Lib Dems go to Farron as the leader and attack Miliband from... the left, I can see the conservatives cleaning up in 2020 !

MaxPB

In other news, the economic recovery looks to be more stable than we previously thought, retail sales and retail spending all came in below expectations today. So far this is not a consumer boom like Labour's 2001-2007 boom.

On the other side of the Channel, France contracted over the last quarter, so much for the new model over there. German growth has gone back to anaemic levels and Italy is still in recession. All very precarious. On the other side of the world, India is faltering hard. Inflation is up to 10% and economic growth is bottoming out. Bring on Narendra Modi. India needs strong economic and social reforms. They must look at the Chinese model (planned) and the British model (information/services) while also cutting out corruption. The UPA has absolutely f***** India over in the last few years. I fear for India's future if the UPA pull off a victory on the back of giveaways and the Gandhi/Nerhu dynasty.

Lennon

RichardNabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Lib Dems are centrist at the moment, but I can see a mahoosive lurch to the left once they are out of coailition.

Not necessarily, after all Ed Miliband will be cornering the market in populist irresponsibility. If he is in Number 10, there will therefore be an excellent opening for a fiscally sane party of the centre-left, which is a position the LibDems have (somewhat inconsistently) espoused for a while. As the two Eds lead the country back into crisis, the message 'now you see why we joined the coalition to save the economy' could be quite a strong one for the LibDems.

Also - they have already lost lots of voters (and to a smaller degree members) to the left already - if they lurch left then they might hope to pick some of them up, but will lose (a large proportion of) the ones on the right.

Better a bird in the hand...

edmundintokyo

Pulpstar said:

The only way I can see him staying on is in a continuation of the coalition. That's probably about a ~ 6-1 shot at the moment. Can't see him working with Ed Miliband, or being there if either of the big two scores a majority

I don't see why he shouldn't work with Ed Miliband - he's a professional politician, and he doesn't seem to have any particularly strong, unbending ideological principles that would prevent it.

I agree it's hard to see him keeping his job if the LibDems end up out of government, but that's another reason to think that if the arithmetic allowed for a deal to be cut, he'd be prepared to cut it.

RichardNabavi

tim said:

@FrankBooth

This piece

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/13/david-cameron-permanent-austerity-lose-election-2015

Martin Kettle has lost his marbles. I know he writes for the Guardian, but surely even a Guardian columnist ought to be able to understand, in the abstract at least, the distinction between 'building a leaner, more efficient state' which does 'more for less' (i.e better efficiency in delivery of public services) and 'permanent austerity' (i.e. reducing the services provided).

Maybe I'm wrong. Sometimes the left really give the impression that they think the more money spent, irrespective of outcomes, the better, and that getting better value for the taxpayer is actively a bad thing.

Pulpstar

edmundintokyo said:

Pulpstar said:

The only way I can see him staying on is in a continuation of the coalition. That's probably about a ~ 6-1 shot at the moment. Can't see him working with Ed Miliband, or being there if either of the big two scores a majority

I don't see why he shouldn't work with Ed Miliband - he's a professional politician, and he doesn't seem to have any particularly strong, unbending ideological principles that would prevent it.

I agree it's hard to see him keeping his job if the LibDems end up out of government, but that's another reason to think that if the arithmetic allowed for a deal to be cut, he'd be prepared to cut it.

I think Miliband demands CLegg's head in any deal though...

Gerry_Mander

RichardNabavi said:

Maybe I'm wrong. Sometimes the left really give the impression that they think the more money spent, irrespective of outcomes, the better, and that getting better value for the taxpayer is actively a bad thing.

Surely it is if you're employed by the state.

RichardNabavi

Gerry_Mander said:

RichardNabavi said:

Maybe I'm wrong. Sometimes the left really give the impression that they think the more money spent, irrespective of outcomes, the better, and that getting better value for the taxpayer is actively a bad thing.

Surely it is if you're employed by the state.

True, in the short term at least.

Ishmael_X

FrankBooth said:

I actually find it hard to say I'd never vote for anyone. Never is a big word after all.

tim said:

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 22m
Latest polls show a remarkable consistency
YouGov LAB lead 8%
TNS-BMRB LAB lead 8%
ICM LAB lead 8%
Populus LAB lead 8%

Equivalent week last month

YouGov Lab lead 1%
TNS-BMRB Lab lead 2%
ICM Lab lead 4%
Populus Lab lead 5%

Martin Kettle has written a pretty bold piece in the Graun saying Cameron might have lost himself the next election in apparently calling for permanent austerity. he's done very little to disassociate himself from the rich. Presumably he thinks by appealing to ordinary people like Chris and Kayleigh with Help to Buy (help to vote one tory backbencher apparently calls it) he doesn't need to.

I was delighted to see this merciless attack on HTB on conhome of all places from Boris biogragher Andrew Gimson.

http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2013/11/help-to-buy-is-immoral-because-it-encourages-ordinary-people-to-risk-ruin.html

HTB is win-win for the tories. Either it wins them the election or it leaves an utterly toxic legacy for Labour, because the perception atm is that governments control the housing market (sometimes true in the short term, never in the long). So a crash will = the govt. of the day plunging hardworking families into negative equity.

edmundintokyo

Pulpstar said:

edmundintokyo said:

Pulpstar said:

The only way I can see him staying on is in a continuation of the coalition. That's probably about a ~ 6-1 shot at the moment. Can't see him working with Ed Miliband, or being there if either of the big two scores a majority

I don't see why he shouldn't work with Ed Miliband - he's a professional politician, and he doesn't seem to have any particularly strong, unbending ideological principles that would prevent it.

I agree it's hard to see him keeping his job if the LibDems end up out of government, but that's another reason to think that if the arithmetic allowed for a deal to be cut, he'd be prepared to cut it.

I think Miliband demands CLegg's head in any deal though...

Why on earth would he do that? Clegg is clearly capable of playing a constructive and collegiate role as the junior partner in a coalition, and a more obviously left-wing leader would just take fewer votes off the Tories and more off Labour. And even if he did prefer not to work with Clegg, he'd be better using the leverage on policy concessions or jobs for his own team.

currystar

tim said:

@FrankBooth

This piece

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/13/david-cameron-permanent-austerity-lose-election-2015

Assumes that people take Camerons "philosophies" seriously, he's had so many fake stances on everything now that I can't see why another one will make much difference.

It's incompetence that will do for Cameron, not changing his stance

Tim,

if Cameron and Osborne are such incompetent fops can you explain the performance of the UK economy compared to France. What is Hollande then? You know the chap Miliband said this about

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18966541

Was Ed right to say this?

JosiasJessop

Good to see Guido is behind me.

http://order-order.com/2013/11/14/labour-delete-entire-history-pre-2010-from-website/

I pointed that out on a thread yesterday, when the 'story' first blew. There are some earlier stories, but they appear to be remnants, rather than well-organised data. Some do not even have the right templates, making them seem like forgotten arcana.

The real scandal is that the Labour website does not even have a search engine. If I want to find whatever their latest position is on (say) HS2, I cannot find it without laboriously going through lists. Then again, they may not want me to know which of their three positions they currently favour ...

So we had a manufactured story, told in an exceptionally nasty way (remember the reference to paedophiles), misrepresenting the purpose of the robots,txt file, when the Labour website did not contain the data either.

Terrible journalism on the part of computerweekly. And congratulations to the register for getting it right.

Bobajob

tim said:

@Pulpstar.

What Richard deliberately forgets and the rest of the PB tories don't understand is that on the issues where he sees Miliband as dangerously left wing, planning land grabs, nationalisation of utilities, market interference in utilites etc the public is way to the left of Miliband
Indeed the polling shows that every single measure, every single one, attacked on here as being left wing Marxism has actually commanded the support of Tory voters.

That's quite true. Although by the PB Tory measure pretty much everyone in the country is a Marxist, including Boris Johnson, Peter Hitchens, and many of the Tory cabinet.

Bobajob

Sean_F said:

dr_spyn said:

Shades of Ankh MorPork - step forward Mrs Palm and Cornwall Council.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-24941336

Is she a 'seamstress'?

Does she have five daughters?

A field day for the subeditor. Caption: Mrs Palm has twice come second

Guffaw!

Scrapheap_as_was

Just got in and v concerned that a ctrl-f search of the thread reveals nothing for "IHT" or unbelievably "Falkirk"

Falkirk
Ed
Resignation

thank you.

Bobajob

tim said:

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 22m
Latest polls show a remarkable consistency
YouGov LAB lead 8%
TNS-BMRB LAB lead 8%
ICM LAB lead 8%
Populus LAB lead 8%

Equivalent week last month

YouGov Lab lead 1%
TNS-BMRB Lab lead 2%
ICM Lab lead 4%
Populus Lab lead 5%

Should be 12pts.

Falkirk.

edmundintokyo

JosiasJessop said:

Good to see Guido is behind me.

http://order-order.com/2013/11/14/labour-delete-entire-history-pre-2010-from-website/

I pointed that out on a thread yesterday, when the 'story' first blew. There are some earlier stories, but they appear to be remnants, rather than well-organised data. Some do not even have the right templates, making them seem like forgotten arcana.

The real scandal is that the Labour website does not even have a search engine. If I want to find whatever their latest position is on (say) HS2, I cannot find it without laboriously going through lists. Then again, they may not want me to know which of their three positions they currently favour ...

So we had a manufactured story, told in an exceptionally nasty way (remember the reference to paedophiles), misrepresenting the purpose of the robots,txt file, when the Labour website did not contain the data either.

Terrible journalism on the part of computerweekly. And congratulations to the register for getting it right.

The pedophile thing was twattish, but Guido is full of shit. Not having old stuff on your website is a completely different thing to intentionally blocking it with the robots.txt. And it's hard to believe Guido really doesn't understand how to search a site in Google.

SouthCoastKevin

RichardNabavi said:

...Sometimes the left really give the impression that they think the more money spent, irrespective of outcomes, the better, and that getting better value for the taxpayer is actively a bad thing.

Well, this is the impression the last Labour government gave, isn't it? They were always talking about the increased funds they were 'investing' in education, healthcare and so on, instead of about the quality of the services and the effectiveness of their expenditure.

Pulpstar

JosiasJessop said:

Good to see Guido is behind me.

http://order-order.com/2013/11/14/labour-delete-entire-history-pre-2010-from-website/

I pointed that out on a thread yesterday, when the 'story' first blew. There are some earlier stories, but they appear to be remnants, rather than well-organised data. Some do not even have the right templates, making them seem like forgotten arcana.

The real scandal is that the Labour website does not even have a search engine. If I want to find whatever their latest position is on (say) HS2, I cannot find it without laboriously going through lists. Then again, they may not want me to know which of their three positions they currently favour ...

So we had a manufactured story, told in an exceptionally nasty way (remember the reference to paedophiles), misrepresenting the purpose of the robots,txt file, when the Labour website did not contain the data either.

Terrible journalism on the part of computerweekly. And congratulations to the register for getting it right.

Guido and the register haven't got it right though - the entire story is not even a 'non story'. Unless you are suggesting crap archiving is somehow equivalent to blocking parts of a site via a robots script (Which is itself a non story)

Scrapheap_as_was

tim said:

Bobajob said:

tim said:

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 22m
Latest polls show a remarkable consistency
YouGov LAB lead 8%
TNS-BMRB LAB lead 8%
ICM LAB lead 8%
Populus LAB lead 8%

Equivalent week last month

YouGov Lab lead 1%
TNS-BMRB Lab lead 2%
ICM Lab lead 4%
Populus Lab lead 5%

Should be 12pts.

Falkirk.

Don't say that, as Dan Hodges writes the polls this month are bad news for Ed, a few 12 point leads would be a resigning matter

I like the cut of your jib.

TOPPING

tim said:

@Pulpstar.

What Richard deliberately forgets and the rest of the PB tories don't understand is that on the issues where he sees Miliband as dangerously left wing, planning land grabs, nationalisation of utilities, market interference in utilites etc the public is way to the left of Miliband
Indeed the polling shows that every single measure, every single one, attacked on here as being left wing Marxism has actually commanded the support of Tory voters.

The public aren't to the left of EdM. The public has been through hell these past five years and are more than receptive to someone who tells them it will all be ok. They are at the point whereby in the heat of the moment they aren't going to question Lab policies too closely and are content with a general "they'll sort it out" feeling about them hence the (subdued) popularity in the polls.

But like everything else that seems too good to be true, so will they realise that Labour Party promises and pledges are actually utter bollocks. And, perhaps more in sorrow than anger, come GE2015 they will realise they only have one option which is to vote Cons.

CarlottaVance

edmundintokyo said:

JosiasJessop said:

Good to see Guido is behind me.

http://order-order.com/2013/11/14/labour-delete-entire-history-pre-2010-from-website/

I pointed that out on a thread yesterday, when the 'story' first blew. There are some earlier stories, but they appear to be remnants, rather than well-organised data. Some do not even have the right templates, making them seem like forgotten arcana.

The real scandal is that the Labour website does not even have a search engine. If I want to find whatever their latest position is on (say) HS2, I cannot find it without laboriously going through lists. Then again, they may not want me to know which of their three positions they currently favour ...

So we had a manufactured story, told in an exceptionally nasty way (remember the reference to paedophiles), misrepresenting the purpose of the robots,txt file, when the Labour website did not contain the data either.

Terrible journalism on the part of computerweekly. And congratulations to the register for getting it right.

The pedophile thing was twattish, but Guido is full of shit. Not having old stuff on your website is a completely different thing to intentionally blocking it with the robots.txt. And it's hard to believe Guido really doesn't understand how to search a site in Google.

Why does the Way Back Machine only go as far back as the Brown premiership for Labour?

How do you think that happened?

Pulpstar

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

JosiasJessop said:

Good to see Guido is behind me.

http://order-order.com/2013/11/14/labour-delete-entire-history-pre-2010-from-website/

I pointed that out on a thread yesterday, when the 'story' first blew. There are some earlier stories, but they appear to be remnants, rather than well-organised data. Some do not even have the right templates, making them seem like forgotten arcana.

The real scandal is that the Labour website does not even have a search engine. If I want to find whatever their latest position is on (say) HS2, I cannot find it without laboriously going through lists. Then again, they may not want me to know which of their three positions they currently favour ...

So we had a manufactured story, told in an exceptionally nasty way (remember the reference to paedophiles), misrepresenting the purpose of the robots,txt file, when the Labour website did not contain the data either.

Terrible journalism on the part of computerweekly. And congratulations to the register for getting it right.

The pedophile thing was twattish, but Guido is full of shit. Not having old stuff on your website is a completely different thing to intentionally blocking it with the robots.txt. And it's hard to believe Guido really doesn't understand how to search a site in Google.

Why does the Way Back Machine only go as far back as the Brown premiership for Labour?

How do you think that happened?

I hear Tony enjoyed shredding stuff.

JosiasJessop

edmundintokyo said:

The pedophile thing was twattish, but Guido is full of shit. Not having old stuff on your website is a completely different thing to intentionally blocking it with the robots.txt. And it's hard to believe Guido really doesn't understand how to search a site in Google.

Okay, now you are suggesting that it was 'intentionally blocking'. Evidence, please.

Firstly, as I said yesterday, some CMSs certainly used to alter the robots.txt whenever you deleted directory structures. Secondly, robots.txt does not block anything. It is a request to a web crawler not to go to those places, and they can choose to ignore that request. They can still be accessed by the public.

The fact that some archives choose to delete files kept in areas mentioned in robots.txt is hardly the Conservatives' fault.

I'm not sure what your second point is; the files I found were more likely remnants than purposefully-kept files. Hence the poor templating.

See it this way: since the last election, the Labour Party website has over 800 pages of news stories. You would expect there to have been just as many from before the election. Where are they?

Finally, we have to ask what the purpose of the websites are? Are the Conservatives / Labour / Lib Dem etc websites meant to be places of record, or just marketing websites. I would suggest that they are the latter. Indeed, you would not want to rely on them as being places of record, as they could easily change the content.

A totally manufactured story, and one you fell for.

MaxPB

edmundintokyo said:

The pedophile thing was twattish, but Guido is full of shit. Not having old stuff on your website is a completely different thing to intentionally blocking it with the robots.txt. And it's hard to believe Guido really doesn't understand how to search a site in Google.

I fear for the technical competency of the Tory online team if they really are using a robots.txt to keep stuff hidden. Would have been better to create a backup of the current file and then purge all of the old data, hope no one notices, if they do call it an error and restore the backup.

That's how everyone does it I think!

CarlottaVance

Pulpstar said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

JosiasJessop said:

Good to see Guido is behind me.

http://order-order.com/2013/11/14/labour-delete-entire-history-pre-2010-from-website/

I pointed that out on a thread yesterday, when the 'story' first blew. There are some earlier stories, but they appear to be remnants, rather than well-organised data. Some do not even have the right templates, making them seem like forgotten arcana.

The real scandal is that the Labour website does not even have a search engine. If I want to find whatever their latest position is on (say) HS2, I cannot find it without laboriously going through lists. Then again, they may not want me to know which of their three positions they currently favour ...

So we had a manufactured story, told in an exceptionally nasty way (remember the reference to paedophiles), misrepresenting the purpose of the robots,txt file, when the Labour website did not contain the data either.

Terrible journalism on the part of computerweekly. And congratulations to the register for getting it right.

The pedophile thing was twattish, but Guido is full of shit. Not having old stuff on your website is a completely different thing to intentionally blocking it with the robots.txt. And it's hard to believe Guido really doesn't understand how to search a site in Google.

Why does the Way Back Machine only go as far back as the Brown premiership for Labour?

How do you think that happened?

I hear Tony enjoyed shredding stuff.

Gordon certainly enjoyed shredding Tony's stuff - he 404'd Blair's entire Downing Street archive.....

CarlottaVance

Strip Sri Lanka of Commonwealth chairmanship, Ed Miliband urges
Call comes as David Cameron heads to Colombo for summit overshadowed by host country's alleged human rights abuses

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/14/sri-lanka-president-commonwealth-chairmanship-miliband

Of course the government should have done something when the CHOGM was awarded to Sri Lanka in the first place.

In 2009.......

JosiasJessop

MaxPB said:

edmundintokyo said:

The pedophile thing was twattish, but Guido is full of shit. Not having old stuff on your website is a completely different thing to intentionally blocking it with the robots.txt. And it's hard to believe Guido really doesn't understand how to search a site in Google.

I fear for the technical competency of the Tory online team if they really are using a robots.txt to keep stuff hidden. Would have been better to create a backup of the current file and then purge all of the old data, hope no one notices, if they do call it an error and restore the backup.

That's how everyone does it I think!

Exactly. I'd bet on the robots file being a CMS issue. When you move or delete directories, at least two CMSs I recall add the location to the robots.txt file so that search engines will no longer search for it in the old location. If the search engine doesn't actively delete it from their archives, the links will grow increasingly stale.

Although as I said yesterday, if it is deliberate, then they deserve a good Streisanding. And so do Labour for the same reason ...

But I've now flip-flopped back to it being a totally manufactured story. And one some people were all too willing to fall for ...

CarlottaVance

Another columnist who can't read polls:

Northerners hate David Cameron but love his policies. Ukip will reap the rewards

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timwigmore/100245882/northerners-hate-david-cameron-but-love-his-policies-ukip-will-reap-the-rewards/

Would never vote for this party (North)
Lab: 21
Lib Dem: 38
Con: 39
UKIP: 40

richardDodd

Carlotta..brilliant.. I wonder if the MSM will pick up on that..

john_zims

@Tim

'The toxic Tories are always more disliked than Labour'

And toxic Labour managed 29% at the 2010 GE, they would be lucky to be in double figures now if they had won & for once had to clean their own $hit up.

CarlottaVance

tim said:

David Cameron’s solution to his cost of living crisis cannot be found

Nor can Tony Blair on the Labour website - current (only Miliband) or archived (only Brown).

Odd how a party would wish to erase the thoughts of a three-time election winner......

CarlottaVance

I love OGH spin perspective:

There’s little doubt that if party wants to be liked then it’s better to be in opposition.

So much nicer than "The Lib Dems are more toxic than the Tories"

JosiasJessop

tim said:

MaxPB said:

edmundintokyo said:

The pedophile thing was twattish, but Guido is full of shit. Not having old stuff on your website is a completely different thing to intentionally blocking it with the robots.txt. And it's hard to believe Guido really doesn't understand how to search a site in Google.

I fear for the technical competency of the Tory online team if they really are using a robots.txt to keep stuff hidden. Would have been better to create a backup of the current file and then purge all of the old data, hope no one notices, if they do call it an error and restore the backup.

That's how everyone does it I think!

Shapps is a genius, maybe he thought he was sending the speeches to the dead people he canvasses in by elections.

Good. So we can add the Internet on to the long list of things you do not understand, and yet talk about incessantly.

Like infrastructure, housing, funerals, and apologies, amongst others.

Why don't you just go into a corner of the room and mutter to yourself about the two things you do seem to know about: wine (with or without an 'h') and killing cats.

R0berts

Falkirk.

Bobajob

Is Mori out today?

Morris_Dancer

Good evening, everyone.

F1: Lotus get their thirty-seventh choice driver (Kovalainen):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula-one/24946180

FrankBooth

I feel like being mischievous. The recent ICM poll showed that 39% of 2010 Lib Dem voters now intend to vote Labour at the next election. So let's look at the 2010 GE result from, I don't know, Sheffield Hallam

Liberal Democrat (Nick Clegg) - 27324
Conservative (Nicola Bates) - 12040
Labour (Jack Scott) - 8228

So all else being the same, what happens if 39% of Lib Dem voters switch to Labour? By my maths:

Labour - 18884
Liberal Democrat (Nick Clegg) - 16668
Conservative - 12040

Impossible? The key is surely for Labour to convince their voters that they CAN win. No doubt they wouldn't have been very enthusiastic to go to the polls in 2010 (and they had no chance of winning). Of course Lord Ashcroft believes the Lib Dem vote is holding up best where they are incumbents and fighting Tories. But could Sheffield Hallam be a special case? Would Labour people risk getting a Tory MP to stop Clegg? Given his comments about Miliband it may be worth it.

Labour's GOTV in Sheffield Hallam will be crucial.

FrankBooth

CarlottaVance said:

tim said:

David Cameron’s solution to his cost of living crisis cannot be found

Odd how a party would wish to erase the thoughts of a three-time election winner......

He's become a serious embarrassment to the party and it's difficult to know what to do with him. He's not rehabilitated himself in the court of public opinion and his galivanting around the world earning millions, from shall we say very 'interesting' sources, hardly helps Labour.

Next

FrankBooth said:

...

Impossible? The key is surely for Labour to convince their voters that they CAN win. No doubt they wouldn't have been very enthusiastic to go to the polls in 2010 (and they had no chance of winning). Of course Lord Ashcroft believes the Lib Dem vote is holding up best where they are incumbents and fighting Tories. But could Sheffield Hallam be a special case? Would Labour people risk getting a Tory MP to stop Clegg? Given his comments about Miliband it may be worth it.

"Lord Ashcroft believes the Lib Dem vote is holding up best where they are incumbents and fighting Tories."

This benefits the Tories. A smaller transfer from LibDem to Labour in these constituencies would maximise the chance of a Conservative win - as the opposition vote is split between the other two.

R0berts

Next said:

FrankBooth said:

...

Impossible? The key is surely for Labour to convince their voters that they CAN win. No doubt they wouldn't have been very enthusiastic to go to the polls in 2010 (and they had no chance of winning). Of course Lord Ashcroft believes the Lib Dem vote is holding up best where they are incumbents and fighting Tories. But could Sheffield Hallam be a special case? Would Labour people risk getting a Tory MP to stop Clegg? Given his comments about Miliband it may be worth it.

"Lord Ashcroft believes the Lib Dem vote is holding up best where they are incumbents and fighting Tories."

This benefits the Tories. A smaller transfer from LibDem to Labour in these constituencies would maximise the chance of a Conservative win - as the opposition vote is split between the other two.

eh?

MarkSenior

FrankBooth said:

I feel like being mischievous. The recent ICM poll showed that 39% of 2010 Lib Dem voters now intend to vote Labour at the next election. So let's look at the 2010 GE result from, I don't know, Sheffield Hallam

Liberal Democrat (Nick Clegg) - 27324
Conservative (Nicola Bates) - 12040
Labour (Jack Scott) - 8228

So all else being the same, what happens if 39% of Lib Dem voters switch to Labour? By my maths:

Labour - 18884
Liberal Democrat (Nick Clegg) - 16668
Conservative - 12040

Impossible? The key is surely for Labour to convince their voters that they CAN win. No doubt they wouldn't have been very enthusiastic to go to the polls in 2010 (and they had no chance of winning). Of course Lord Ashcroft believes the Lib Dem vote is holding up best where they are incumbents and fighting Tories. But could Sheffield Hallam be a special case? Would Labour people risk getting a Tory MP to stop Clegg? Given his comments about Miliband it may be worth it.

Labour's GOTV in Sheffield Hallam will be crucial.

The last ICM poll did NOT show 39% of LD 2010 voters moving to Labour . The actual figure was 29% . The 39% figure came after ignoring those who currently say don't know .

CarlottaVance

Another PB Tory:

many Labour insiders, left and right, do say “you can’t trust Ed” and that his office is “a nest of vipers” or something similar. And Ed does need to put that right.

http://www.leftfutures.org/2013/11/tom-watson-on-falkirk-and-a-lesson-for-ed/

Next

R0berts said:

Next said:

FrankBooth said:

...

Impossible? The key is surely for Labour to convince their voters that they CAN win. No doubt they wouldn't have been very enthusiastic to go to the polls in 2010 (and they had no chance of winning). Of course Lord Ashcroft believes the Lib Dem vote is holding up best where they are incumbents and fighting Tories. But could Sheffield Hallam be a special case? Would Labour people risk getting a Tory MP to stop Clegg? Given his comments about Miliband it may be worth it.

"Lord Ashcroft believes the Lib Dem vote is holding up best where they are incumbents and fighting Tories."

This benefits the Tories. A smaller transfer from LibDem to Labour in these constituencies would maximise the chance of a Conservative win - as the opposition vote is split between the other two.

eh?

Yes.

Pulpstar

Next said:

FrankBooth said:

...

Impossible? The key is surely for Labour to convince their voters that they CAN win. No doubt they wouldn't have been very enthusiastic to go to the polls in 2010 (and they had no chance of winning). Of course Lord Ashcroft believes the Lib Dem vote is holding up best where they are incumbents and fighting Tories. But could Sheffield Hallam be a special case? Would Labour people risk getting a Tory MP to stop Clegg? Given his comments about Miliband it may be worth it.

"Lord Ashcroft believes the Lib Dem vote is holding up best where they are incumbents and fighting Tories."

This benefits the Tories. A smaller transfer from LibDem to Labour in these constituencies would maximise the chance of a Conservative win - as the opposition vote is split between the other two.

You're talking utter bollocks.

CarlottaVance

David Cameron has played a blinder on the Scottish referendum

There will now follow a short interval during which I will blog (with only one caveat) enthusiastically in defence of David Cameron. I am aware that this is a somewhat rare event. Accordingly, I will keep it brief and normal service will be resumed in the morning. Sensitive souls and Ukip supporters (always keen to dish out the personal abuse to opponents but not very good at taking the mildest criticism) might care to look away now or go straight to the comments at the bottom of this post.

Hardly anyone has said it, or if they have said it I missed it, but faced with one of the most important challenges of his premiership, Cameron has played a blinder.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100245974/david-cameron-has-played-a-blinder-on-the-scottish-referendum/

FrankBooth

MarkSenior said:

FrankBooth said:

The last ICM poll did NOT show 39% of LD 2010 voters moving to Labour . The actual figure was 30% . The 39% figure came after ignoring those who currently say don't know .

So what about 30%:

Nick Clegg - 19127
Labour - 16425

They'd still be a gap but not insurmountable.

Next

Pulpstar said:

Next said:

FrankBooth said:

...

Impossible? The key is surely for Labour to convince their voters that they CAN win. No doubt they wouldn't have been very enthusiastic to go to the polls in 2010 (and they had no chance of winning). Of course Lord Ashcroft believes the Lib Dem vote is holding up best where they are incumbents and fighting Tories. But could Sheffield Hallam be a special case? Would Labour people risk getting a Tory MP to stop Clegg? Given his comments about Miliband it may be worth it.

"Lord Ashcroft believes the Lib Dem vote is holding up best where they are incumbents and fighting Tories."

This benefits the Tories. A smaller transfer from LibDem to Labour in these constituencies would maximise the chance of a Conservative win - as the opposition vote is split between the other two.

You're talking utter bollocks.

No, I'm not.

Bobajob

@Next

Bollocks. The clue is in the wording - holding up. Hence not drifting off to Labour.

Bobajob

@Roberts

What have you heard?

Pulpstar

Next said:

Pulpstar said:

Next said:

FrankBooth said:

...

Impossible? The key is surely for Labour to convince their voters that they CAN win. No doubt they wouldn't have been very enthusiastic to go to the polls in 2010 (and they had no chance of winning). Of course Lord Ashcroft believes the Lib Dem vote is holding up best where they are incumbents and fighting Tories. But could Sheffield Hallam be a special case? Would Labour people risk getting a Tory MP to stop Clegg? Given his comments about Miliband it may be worth it.

"Lord Ashcroft believes the Lib Dem vote is holding up best where they are incumbents and fighting Tories."

This benefits the Tories. A smaller transfer from LibDem to Labour in these constituencies would maximise the chance of a Conservative win - as the opposition vote is split between the other two.

You're talking utter bollocks.

No, I'm not.

Yes.. yes you are.

CarlottaVance

Kevin Maguire tweets: All policy work in Miliband's office is suspended. He's on Desert Island Discs a week Sunday. Got to get right those records.

There was policy work? I guess it depends on what you call 'policy'....

Next

Bobajob said:

@Next

Bollocks. The clue is in the wording - holding up. Hence not drifting off to Labour.

The phrase was "holding up best". I presume that means some movement, but not as bad as the full 30/39%.

Hence my earlier comment.

Scrapheap_as_was

R0berts said:

Falkirk.

Top marks. On PB, Falkirk is the new fop.

Beverley_C

Max said: "It's because leftism is like a religion to some people. ..... People on the left are the least open minded I have ever come across"

And rules are different for them than for others - Enoch Powell does a "Blood in the streets" speech and is vilified for decades. David Blunkett does a "Blood in streets (Sheffield)" speech and gets support from Nick Clegg.

Hmm.....

CarlottaVance

General Election 2015 tweets: 477 leases between Mps and their political parties netting their respective parties 3.6 million pounds

Maybe that's why they are keeping Falkirk in the news.....

Next

Pulpstar said:

Next said:

Pulpstar said:

Next said:

FrankBooth said:

...

Impossible? The key is surely for Labour to convince their voters that they CAN win. No doubt they wouldn't have been very enthusiastic to go to the polls in 2010 (and they had no chance of winning). Of course Lord Ashcroft believes the Lib Dem vote is holding up best where they are incumbents and fighting Tories. But could Sheffield Hallam be a special case? Would Labour people risk getting a Tory MP to stop Clegg? Given his comments about Miliband it may be worth it.

"Lord Ashcroft believes the Lib Dem vote is holding up best where they are incumbents and fighting Tories."

This benefits the Tories. A smaller transfer from LibDem to Labour in these constituencies would maximise the chance of a Conservative win - as the opposition vote is split between the other two.

You're talking utter bollocks.

No, I'm not.

Yes.. yes you are.

Any explanation why you think I was wrong?

Morris_Dancer

Indeed, Miss C (and welcome back/post more).

Scott_P

Scrapheap_as_was said:

R0berts said:

Falkirk.

Top marks. On PB, Falkirk is the new fop.

Those bloody PB Tories just can't stop banging on about it, eh?

TGOHF

On topic - I'm sure St Margaret would have the odd hater - yet she was the best PM since WW2.

Neil

FrankBooth said:

The recent ICM poll showed that 39% of 2010 Lib Dem voters now intend to vote Labour at the next election. So let's look at the 2010 GE result from, I don't know, Sheffield Hallam

Before backing a Lab gain in Sheffield Hallam with hard cash I would (a) listen to Mark Senior on how to interpret the poll and (b) look at local election results in the constituency since 2010.

Pulpstar

Next said:

Pulpstar said:

Next said:

Pulpstar said:

Next said:

FrankBooth said:

...

Impossible? The key is surely for Labour to convince their voters that they CAN win. No doubt they wouldn't have been very enthusiastic to go to the polls in 2010 (and they had no chance of winning). Of course Lord Ashcroft believes the Lib Dem vote is holding up best where they are incumbents and fighting Tories. But could Sheffield Hallam be a special case? Would Labour people risk getting a Tory MP to stop Clegg? Given his comments about Miliband it may be worth it.

"Lord Ashcroft believes the Lib Dem vote is holding up best where they are incumbents and fighting Tories."

This benefits the Tories. A smaller transfer from LibDem to Labour in these constituencies would maximise the chance of a Conservative win - as the opposition vote is split between the other two.

You're talking utter bollocks.

No, I'm not.

Yes.. yes you are.

Any explanation why you think I was wrong?

Take a typical LD/CON marginal - Torbay for instance. The Lib Dem vote holds up, Adrian Sanders remains in place. The Lib Dems switch to the Labour candidate, Kevin Foster gets in. Your example of the Lib Dem vote holding up rather than heading to Labour would probably only help the Conservatives in say hmm... Argyle and Bute, but that is a 4 way marginal and very atypical. In most CON/LD battlegrounds, Labour are pretty much nowhere and the Conservative's best chance is for the Lib Dem vote to head over to Labour.

Solihull, Hallam, Eastleigh, Torbay, Wells, Westmorland and Lonsdale, Taunton Deane - the list is not a short one...
Your argument may hold for Argyll and Bute but can't think of anywhere else...

Neil

Beverley_C said:

And rules are different for them than for others - Enoch Powell does a "Blood in the streets" speech and is vilified for decades. David Blunkett does a "Blood in streets (Sheffield)" speech and gets support from Nick Clegg.

Hmm.....

The jury is out on whether Blunkett is to the left or right of Powell.

NickPalmer

Pulpstar said:

I think Miliband demands CLegg's head in any deal though...

As a potential small Labour piece of the jigsaw, I don't care who leads the LibDems in a potential coalition - if we need them as partners and they agree reasonable terms on policies, they can have anyone they like to help implement them.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Flashman (deceased), Caesar and (I think) Cao Cao both have strong supporters and opponents. Being hated doesn't make one wrong or incompetent.

Neil

NickPalmer said:

Pulpstar said:

I think Miliband demands CLegg's head in any deal though...

As a potential small Labour piece of the jigsaw, I don't care who leads the LibDems in a potential coalition - if we need them as partners and they agree reasonable terms on policies, they can have anyone they like to help implement them.

You've just won a place on LAbour's team negotiating the next coalition agreement.

Pulpstar

NickPalmer said:

Pulpstar said:

I think Miliband demands CLegg's head in any deal though...

As a potential small Labour piece of the jigsaw, I don't care who leads the LibDems in a potential coalition - if we need them as partners and they agree reasonable terms on policies, they can have anyone they like to help implement them.

Yes - but will Ed Balls work with David Laws in the treasury ?

CarlottaVance

Pulpstar said:

NickPalmer said:

Pulpstar said:

I think Miliband demands CLegg's head in any deal though...

As a potential small Labour piece of the jigsaw, I don't care who leads the LibDems in a potential coalition - if we need them as partners and they agree reasonable terms on policies, they can have anyone they like to help implement them.

Yes - but will Ed Balls work with David Laws in the treasury ?

Ed Balls & Danny Alexander.....

nigel4england

Pulpstar said:

RichardNabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Lib Dems are centrist at the moment, but I can see a mahoosive lurch to the left once they are out of coailition.

Not necessarily, after all Ed Miliband will be cornering the market in populist irresponsibility. If he is in Number 10, there will therefore be an excellent opening for a fiscally sane party of the centre-left, which is a position the LibDems have (somewhat inconsistently) espoused for a while. As the two Eds lead the country back into crisis, the message 'now you see why we joined the coalition to save the economy' could be quite a strong one for the LibDems.

Hmm good point - If the Lib Dems go to Farron as the leader and attack Miliband from... the left, I can see the conservatives cleaning up in 2020 !

UKIP, or some incarnation thereof, will clean up in 2020

Next

Pulpstar said:

Next said:

Pulpstar said:

Next said:

Pulpstar said:

Next said:

FrankBooth said:

...

Impossible? The key is surely for Labour to convince their voters that they CAN win. No doubt they wouldn't have been very enthusiastic to go to the polls in 2010 (and they had no chance of winning). Of course Lord Ashcroft believes the Lib Dem vote is holding up best where they are incumbents and fighting Tories. But could Sheffield Hallam be a special case? Would Labour people risk getting a Tory MP to stop Clegg? Given his comments about Miliband it may be worth it.

"Lord Ashcroft believes the Lib Dem vote is holding up best where they are incumbents and fighting Tories."

This benefits the Tories. A smaller transfer from LibDem to Labour in these constituencies would maximise the chance of a Conservative win - as the opposition vote is split between the other two.

You're talking utter bollocks.

No, I'm not.

Yes.. yes you are.

Any explanation why you think I was wrong?

Take a typical LD/CON marginal - Torbay for instance. The Lib Dem vote holds up, Adrian Sanders remains in place. The Lib Dems switch to the Labour candidate, Kevin Foster gets in. Your example of the Lib Dem vote holding up rather than heading to Labour would probably only help the Conservatives in say hmm... Argyle and Bute, but that is a 4 way marginal and very atypical. In most CON/LD battlegrounds, Labour are pretty much nowhere and the Conservative's best chance is for the Lib Dem vote to head over to Labour.

Solihull, Hallam, Eastleigh, Torbay, Wells, Westmorland and Lonsdale, Taunton Deane - the list is not a short one...
Your argument may hold for Argyll and Bute but can't think of anywhere else...

OK, thanks.