Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson says the next general election could still be
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson says the next general election could still be wide open
The YouGov poll last month which showed that a Boris Johnson-led Conservative Party would be neck-and-neck with Labour in vote share was perhaps not too much of a surprise. After all, Johnson is among the most popular of current politicians and outpolled his party by some 20% in the London elections last year. Whether such hypotheticals would translate into reality were Johnson PM is a d…
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
However, taking it and looking backwards - to the 2010 general election - I don't think it adequately explains why it is that the Cameron-led Conservative party was only able to win 37% of the vote in a popularity contest with Gordon Brown.
What makes the lead vary is the extent to which the Tories recover UKIP votes. That's interesting but it will only produce a Tory win if they solve the basic conundrum: how do they attract people who voted for Gordon and/or ex-LibDems who have hated the coalition from the start? Personally I don't think they can to any significant extent, so I do expect Labour to be the largest party (which requires a minuscule swing from 29%) and to govern, with or without the LibDems depending on the numbers.
But I agree with DH that a Labour victory is far from certain. The Tories will throw everything at EdM and have already shown they are prepared to tell rather big porkies in order to get their points across. With newspapers lined up to repeat them that could be a very powerful weapon come election time, especially when you throw in EdM's lack of charisma, gravitas and normality.
Further Blair only defeated Howard by 2.8 points whereas Cameron defeated Brown by 7.1 points.
There are a couple of known game changers between now and 2015, but a Tory advance is unlikely right now. They have undoubtedly lost support since 2010 and show no sign of recovering it, let alone making progress.
The first is that Labour played a much more effective negative game than the Conservatives did, post Peter Mandelson's return. Labour convinced enough people that the Tories would metaphorically eat their babies to put them off voting blue, even if they didn't go red either.
That was compounded by mistakes in the Conservative campaign, such as the airbrushed poster and policies being released before they'd been fully worked through. These two factors took a lot of the pressure off Labour.
Then there was the leadership debates, where Clegg scored very heavily initially and retained some of that share through to election day. While it's been noted that it didn't do the Lib Dems much good (as the increase came almost entirely in seats they were not contesting hard), it's been less commented upon that it was the Tory vote (or more probably, the swing vote which had previously been with the Tories) that it came from. That 2-3% was critical.
Finally, as I alluded to in the final paragraph, it is possible that no party wins an anti-unpopularity contest. That was the case in February 1974, it was near enough the case in 2010, and it could be so again in 2015.
In terms of vote share, there are four parties (or two, depending on the threshold of choice); in terms of MPs won last time, or likely to be won next, the choice is still between three or two parties, not four. At the moment, the likeliest fourth party by MPs is the SNP, though I think they'll come up short again following a lost referendum, not unlike 1979.
Most worrying for the Tories is that they do seem to be fighting this unresolved campaign. 2010 is unfinished business. But focussing on 2010 issues may just cost the Tories the next GE.
5 more years of coalition.
Frankly David those reasons pale compared to the wet haddock that slaps the tories in the FPTP face. Reverse the 2010 numbers - Lab 36% .. Con 29% and Brown wins a landslide !!
To paraphrase - "It's FPTP Stupid"
What, then, do the Tories (and Lib Dems) have to do? Firstly, convince the great majority of the swing voters that their economic strategy is and was right, and consequently, that Labour's is and was wrong. Secondly, win back those who've moved to UKIP. Thirdly, engage with the 'new UKIP voter', who hasn't voted since 1997. Finally, establish in the public mind that Miliband and Balls are respectively a bit rubbish and a dangerous threat to the country.
The Tories will start winning when they stop blaming others.
The other thing to throw into the equation is the Tory blood-letting should the party lose power after the next GE. Cameron and Osborne would, of course, be busted flushes, but the fight to succeed them could be brutal.
@NickPalmer rightly says "people think we're all pretty rubbish". People are right, as well.
None of the parties have begun to get to grips with a world where Government doesn't have prizes to dish out, and instead it has to administer necessary pain appropriately. That requires a very careful narrative as to why one group is being treated better than another. The public don't trust the Conservatives to make the right choices and they don't trust Labour to make any choices at all.
Labour won big in 1997 because the public was persuaded that the pressing need was to correct the Conservatives' wrong choices. It has yet to be decided whether the balance of the public will see it as more pressing in 2015 to correct the Conservatives' wrong choices or to make choices in the first place.
You're arguing campaigns and policies. I give you the indisputable numbers.
As usual Jack W is utterly, completely and modestly correct.
To my mind, the likely losers will be those that had the most swing voters behind them, and those with the weakest leader stats.
That leaves several other options:
Winning over current Lib Dem voters (this may be possible if the LibDems defenestrate Clegg and go for an overtly left wing new leader, this may both win back the Lib Dems votes from Labour and make orange bookers more likely to vote Tory. Similtaneously harming Labour and getting votes elsewhere would be a double whammy)
Winning over UKIPpers and non voters. UKIP are clearly on a high and have momentum so I cannot see this being easy, and right wing policies may well alienate other centrists. We do need to bear in mind that UKIP policies are right wing, but their votrrs are not nessicarily so.
A third option is to win over the disengaged non voters. It was very noticeable watching how high the turnout was in the 79 election, often 20%+ higher than modern turnouts. It would either take great charisma or grat crisis to motivate these. Mrs T managed it by being very different from the tired Heath/Wilson/Callaghan discredited old guard. I cannot see Dave C doing this.
A further option is to better target potential voters in swing seats, particularly in suburban seats in the Midlands and North. The Conservatives need policies that appeal in places like Broxtowe, not Surrey. Mrs T had these, but Dave does not.
A good piece DH, but I agree with Nick. The maths are such that Miliband should have a majority.
Whilst we all love you, one of the hallmarks of the current Tories compared to Blair or Thatcher is the ease at which they have a good whine and fail to get on with it.
One of encouraging things about Miliband is that he doesn't blame others and digs in.
If you like I'll do a tim and offer you a bet there will be no referendum commitment to change to a form of pr or similar system in the next Labour manifesto if you like...
Apart from the proven anomalies of FPTP one other area to factor in, is what I suspect, will be the very significant differential swing in the marginals.
I expect the swing to be hugely smaller in the marginals - akin and indeed smaller than in 1992.
My current numbers are :
Con 290 .. Lab 280 .. LibDem 40 .. Others 40
But seriously, seriously although Miliband might like to show off his progressive credentials a bit, there is very little incentive to change anything, so they won't. Unless they're in a position they need it to do a deal.
I have a feeling the tories will be quicker to go for electoral reform than Labour will. The ukip problem isn't going to go away.
I guess that your assuming that no party makes a campaign breakthrough,Scotland vote No and that the economy is roughly in the same place.
The Tories just cant do strategy.
Imagine the Olympics. The goal is to win the most gold medals, The Tories put all their effort into winning the first race by a country mile. They celebrate how comfortably they won, and crow about how they are the best. They then spend the rest of the games losing other races to more disciplined opponents. They are left complaining about anomalies.
2010 did see some uptick in turnout but there is a long way to go to get back to the giddy heights of 1992: http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm . That uptick may well have been by a small percentage of the class of 92 realising we simply could not go on like this.
They are a far more likely target audience than anyone who could vote for Brown. If you are committed enough to Labour to vote for that lunatic you are not going to change without serious psychiatric intervention and the NHS does not have adequate resources to deal with this by 2015.
How do you attract those who don't normally bother or are tempted by the simplicities of UKIP? Well fear is the obvious and depressing answer. We shall see a lot of dog whistling and abuse about how we are on the slow road to recovery but Labour would only wreck it again. If Ed Balls remains shadow chancellor this just might work. Not sure whether any of this is going to be good for politics generally.
Indeed, Mr. Herdson. Whilst I think a Labour win the likeliest outcome the General Election is entirely to play for.
F1: P3 starts in 38 minutes. Nyoooooooooom!
OT I've finally finished my Lost marathon and apart from a few annoying bits in the earliest series - I really enjoyed S4-6 a lot bar the peculiar episode with CJ Cregg playing some weird Middle Earth Mother character - she must have been short of work. Thankfully that was a single aberration. And I cried like a baby at some of reunited scenes.
Of all the characters - I have to give the total thumbs up to Hurley, Sawyer, Locke and Ben - totally convincing. I checked out the casting decisions on Wiki and its fascinating who auditioned for what/characters created for specifically for instead. Sun wanted to be Kate, Charlie and Hurley wanted to be Sawyer... Jack was supposed to die in the pilot... and Ben was only expected to last for three episodes but ended up staying ... it feels like SOAP!
"The are no FPTP anomalies, it could not be more straightforward."
Now, you're being a silly billy (copyright Denis Healey)
FPTP is riddled with anomalies :
As noted below Con/Lab seat mismatch @35% and the huge Lib/LibDem seat/% mismatch 1974 through 2010 and a whole raft of other individual, county and regional black marks.
Anyone who doesn't think FPTP is riven with absurdities has clearly had a very enjoyable evening at Dirty Dicks and then some !!
"Jack was supposed to die in the pilot... "
Gulp .... I don't like the sound of that one bit .... dying on the job in an aircraft cabin is doing the mile high club a little too well !!
"It’s not so much that the electorate would swing to a Johnson- or Thatcher-led Conservative Party; it’s more the kind of vote for ‘none of the above’ that is currently producing such historically sky-high polling shares for Others that UKIP have had to be separated out".
I object to this sentence most strongly. UKIP are no longer a ragbag collection individuals but are now a strong political party and certainly do not need separating out. All the pollsters and everyone else now treat UKIP with a bit of respect. Please keep up Dave.
I worry too that helping first time buyers now will lead to more problems for first time buyers in the future but something clearly needs to be done. House prices rose so dramatically (2002-2008ish) that all non-owners in average jobs are basically screwed in the South East.
The facile answer (handed out lazily by a lot of people, including me at times) is "build more affordable housing" but if building affordable housing was that easy surely we'd have been doing it the past 20 years.
I don't know what the answer is. Parents living with their kids until the kids are into their 30s, perhaps? If I live that long I can imagine my kids saying "eat your mushrooms Dad" with a sinister glint in their eyes.
I think I preferred the wall to wall Thatcher.
However, Alonso (or someone else, but I think it was him) reckoned they just screwed up on strategy and should've been competitive at the sharp end last weekend.
I know film makers can be very creative in where they shoot stuff and Hawaii seems have worked out really well for them - this made me laugh...
"Cave scenes in the first season were filmed on a sound stage built at a Xerox parts warehouse, which had been empty since an employee mass shooting took place there in 1999.[52] ... Various urban areas in and around Honolulu are used as stand-ins for locations around the world, including California, New York, Iowa, Miami, South Korea, Iraq, Nigeria, United Kingdom, Paris, Thailand, Berlin, Maldives and Australia. For example, scenes set in a Sydney Airport were filmed at the Hawaii Convention Center, while a World War II-era bunker was used as both an Iraqi Republican Guard installation and a Dharma Initiative research station. Scenes set in Germany during the winter were filmed at the Bernice P. Bishop Museum, with crushed ice scattered everywhere to create snow and Russian storeshop and automobile signs on the street. Several scenes in the Season 3 finale, "Through the Looking Glass," were shot in Los Angeles, including a hospital set borrowed from Grey's Anatomy. Two scenes during season four were filmed in London because Alan Dale who portrays Widmore was at the time performing in the musical Spamalot and was unable to travel to Hawaii... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_(TV_series)#Cast_and_characters
The odds must on a Labour win, with probably the most seats and not a majority. If the Lib Dems hold onto enough seats, they could be back in government, which would be interesting.
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/party-finance/party-finance-analysis/party-finance-analysis-accounts#Lab
A huge hello to everyone who turned up last night. From the chat during the evening it seems it was a very well attended do, better than the normal Thursday night bashes. I'd love to know how the stragglers faired, especially what time DD's kicked you all out
After one comment last night I've had a quick scan through the posts and it's correct the
tim(s) have posted a phenomenal ~1500 times under the new system where the next most prolific, Plato has only posted ~670 times.
One other observation from yesterday, the distaff sex were conspicuous by their absence. Do the ladies ever turn up to these do's?
Actually, putting it that way, it won't cost the LDs a single minutes sleep.
Now that the clown (Grillo) has proved a busted flush, what Italy needs is a new political party based on UKIP principles. That would shake the EU no end.
Anyway: new elections soon?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22227426
"It is understood the couple claim that they went on holiday together simply to ‘discuss the possibility of a future relationship’... the couple? How about the QC representing the celebs at Leveson and one of J Leveson's staff - better known to most of us as "The Woman On The Left"
The celebrities' barrister, the Leveson QC's glamorous No2 and an affair that triggers doubts over the Inquiry's integrity
- David Sherborne, 44, is in a relationship with Carine Patry Hoskins, 40
- Twice-married Sherborne represented phone-hacking victims
- Miss Patry Hoskins was junior counsel for Lord Justice Leveson
- They claim affair did not begin until after Leveson report was published
...During the Inquiry and once the public hearings concluded at the end of July, Miss Patry Hoskins was also heavily involved in drafting important legal correspondence between the Inquiry and individuals and organisations that gave evidence – including newspapers and editors who had been subject to fierce questioning by Mr Sherborne.
She also collated facts for parts of Lord Justice Leveson’s report, published on November 29.
Bar Council guidelines warn barristers it is very unwise to have relationships with counsel involved in the same cases because clients might perceive ‘a danger of breach of confidence or other conspiracy’.
Any relationship was also likely to breach the Council’s code of conduct.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2311879/The-celebrities-barrister-Leveson-QCs-glamorous-No2-affair-triggers-doubts-Inquirys-integrity.html#ixzz2QzRRXGiL
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
"One other observation from yesterday, the distaff sex were conspicuous by their absence. Do the ladies ever turn up to these do's?"
Hi Rog, nice to have met you last night. You are right about the lack of female company at these gatherings. I fully expected Plato to turn up with a video camera and Marf to appear as she sometimes does. But sadly not.
It wasn't too bad, as, with the aid of a bit of lubrication, I had a couple of nice conversations with some ladies waiting to be served at the bar.
"What happens after austerity? "
A very good question as I believe that austerity will still reign past 2020 - that is unless the HMG savagely cuts public spending now which would include child benefits and all tax credits, puts a rent cap on private sector rents and prunes local authority overheads (not services) and limits immigration to those who are able to support themselves and also have required skills. Even then our 2020 debt will still be massive.
Even then the UK will not be globally competitive, will have house prices at twice their true value, have a largely under-educated population and increasing technology will continue to eliminate both white and blue collar clerical/manual jobs. Our energy costs will make our industry largely uncompetitive unless we rapidly exploit the resources we have and that does not mean onshore wind.
So what will we do with all the unemployable - encourage emigration and if so who will want to take them?
Obviously the next election isn't decided yet, there's still some time to go.
But I'm not sure Labour's share is particularly soft. On the contrary, it looks remarkably settled. If Miliband's leadership rating and rest of it is already "priced in" to that share, it might not change much even in the face of the inevitable onslaught from the Tories / press during the campaign.
And let's not forget that Miliband currently outpolls Cameron in the leadership ratings.
I would expect some UKIP votes to "Go home" to the Tories, though.
Perhaps something like Lab 37 Con 34 would be my best guess at this stage. As long as the Lib Dem tactical dynamic doesn't completely evaporate, that should see a Labour majority.
UKIP are not going to politely give up and they don't need to win any seats to wreck the tories chances in plenty of marginals.
But maybe banging on about Europe and immigration will kill the kipper vote, right? Or is it banging on about welfare and Thatcher that's bound to do it? Either way that's definitely the best AAA 'master strategy' to close the gap while keeping in place the toxic incompetent Osbrowne who gifted labour their lead.
FPTP means a hung parliament is extremely unlikely and the lib dems killing boundary changes means even turning all the polling around and getting parity won't be enough.
We'll see in the May local elections just how close the polling is to real votes.
While some such as Mr Herdson post much less frequently, but always worth reading
I don't mind at all what they do in their private lives provided there is no conflict of professional interest - and this one is just stunningly inappropriate given that the subject under public inquiry was the press' ability to report on things like this!
The Mail must be have been popping the champagne when this was handed to them - it couldn't possibly be more ironic or stupid behaviour from these two who knew a great deal better and the stakes that were in play. How did they think this wouldn't get out is beyond me.
I hope they're very happy together whatever else.
Just waiting for my lift to visit a suspended oil refinery which is due to be turned into an oil terminal. Then plane back tomorrow.
Betting PostEarly tip, article to follow: Backed Alonso at 4.5 for pole, hedge set up at evens.
Edited extra bit: his odds are actually lengthening, already 5.3. Irksome, but if the bet comes off I won't complain.
http://www.mzv.cz/washington/en/czech_u_s_relations/news/statement_of_the_ambassador_of_the_czech.html
How many seats will UKIP gain?
Evens Under 50
2/1 50-100
5/2 Over 100
http://bit.ly/105rJvv
Admittedly Shapps is very funny but even tory backbench MPs will find it hard to swallow the spin that any bloodbath in May will somehow have been all his fault.
Cameron has to hold all his seats and win at least 20 more.
After Corby and Eastleigh that looks pretty tricky. Labour, while not perfectly placed, certainly look stronger than 2010 and the Lib Dem meltdown isn't quite the done deal everyone expected.
What would be a surprise is any notion that the next GE won't be dominated by the economy. It will be. Crosby and Cammie trying to make it all about little Ed when the economy will be the backdrop as omnishambles Osbrowne hides from the media again (like he did in the 2010 GE campaign) should be a fun to watch.
Why am I in Bournemouth when that last train was supposed to stop at Hersham?
And my head, my head....groan.
Qualcuno Nessuno: If i was an english man, UKIP could be my party. Go Mr. Farage! A lot of italian people are following your words.
Jasmine Richards: Made another donation and purchased some stuff from your on-line shop yesterday never ever have I donated to any Political Party in my entire life before so you (UKIP) must be pretty fabulous!!
---------------
A pointer on membership and a couple of remarks picked up from Ukip Facebook page.
It seems to be the consensus of PB'ers be they Tory or Labour, that at the GE, many if not most of Ukip voters will return to the major parties, whence these voters came from. I think not. And the reason is that most of the new support for Ukip is coming from those under 40 years of age and are new voters, determined to get rid of the Con/Lab/Lib party, even if it takes another 10 years or so. No doubt some floaters will return to the big boys, but far fewer than than either Mick or Ben or JackW supposes.
There is a new atmosphere inside and outside UKIP, and I heard it at DD's last night, from somebody whom I deeply respect, that he expects UKIP to gain over 70 seats on May 2nd when I thought that 40-50 gains would be respectable.
It was a great pleasure to meet you, and everyone else as well.
It was a great pleasure to meet you, and everyone else as well.
They are also praying that the Independent story earlier this week that Labour will commit at the next general election to spend more than the Tories plan to is true. Indeed, even failing to rule that out would be something the Tories would regard as a vote-winner.
I'm doubtful whether the Conservatives can win over many current Labour supporters. However, I'm also doubtful about the reliability for Labour of many of those current supporters. If a third think that they're not yet ready for prime time, will they nevertheless go out and vote for them at a general election? They might well decide to stay at home instead.
Great to meet you and all the gang and the high turnout was particularly encouraging for the pbTories whose numbers I am pleased to report increased by a third.
It's one thing to bask in the stupidity of Cammie playing to the kippers core vote issues of immigration or Europe. It's quite another for Farage to keep the bandwagon rolling in a dogfight GE campaign that will be dominated by the economy. The kippers have the advantage that neither Osbrowne or Balls are covering themselves in glory on that. Turning that advantage into solid GE votes instead of a disposable protest vote won't be so easy. Farage will also find himself in Crosby's crosshairs just like little Ed.
*chortle*
C/LD = 290 + 40 = bare majority in coalition so very difficult to justify
L/LD = 320 so no majority (excluding SF effect) without any other party
Doesn't think just mean either a continuation of the coalition or, more likely, a Conservative minority government for 6-12 months and then a new election?
Anyone else making a full day of it? I'm doing my card now.
Well it is an Osbrowne master strategy so by definition is bound to go horribly wrong and not work as intended.
Since it looks pretty piecemeal and won't stand up to much scrutiny I also doubt it's going to cause a massive and roaring houseprice boom either to be honest. He could presumably try to stoke it up further in future budgets but by then he will likely have far bigger problems to worry about.
This is the graph of Lib Dem polling with YouGov since 2010. So far as I can see, the Lib Dems never got to 14% in either 2011 or 2012. There are signs that they are creeping up marginally in the polls, and it only takes one outlier...
I have put a bet on no, but recognise this is a very risky bet.