Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson says the next general election could still be

SystemSystem Posts: 12,179
edited April 2013 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.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…

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    The next general election? Still wide open, when it's only a mere two whole years away? No shit, Sherlock. Also wide open are whether the next Pope will be an elderly Catholic or a Catholic over the age of about 60, and where the bears will poo in the forest in two years' time.
  • NoSpaceNameNoSpaceName Posts: 132
    David - I very nearly completely agree with this analysis.

    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 both polls demonstrate is the lack of faith that the public has in any of the three leaders of the main parties ...." Either there are 2 main parties or on vote share UKIP should be included making 4 main parties. The lack of a party leader who's vision resonates with the electorate suggests we are back to a Heath/Wilson standoff, with the LibDems struggling to present themselves as kingmakers. If Labour do get in but fail to get a majority I hope they have the courage to run a minority government, set out a full legislative programme and go back to the country in 6 months. This is what Cameron should have done.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    It's worth noting here that the way the FPTP landscape is laid out, winning the election probably has to mean getting people who voted for Gordon Brown to vote Conservative. This sounds like quite a hard thing to do. A change of leader might do it though, especially if they timed the election to coincide with their new leader bounce.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,541
    Yes and no. The "unpopularity" contest is certainly true - people think we're all pretty rubbish. However, even the hypothetical polls (which are a drastic form of leading question) showed little impact on Labour's share - if Maggie rose to lead the Tories, Labour's share would apparently decline by 1%. There isn't much sign of Labour declining far below 40%.

    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.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,661
    To win outright in 2015 the Tories have to increase their vote share. That looks a tall order to me. Equally, Labour will continue to struggle in the south outside London. So another hung Parliament is probable, with Labour becoming the biggest party. However, an LD revival that sees them hold most of their seats where the Tories are second, and UKIP scoring 5% plus might change that. The Tory dilemma is how they can reassure potential UKIP voters while preventing Labour tactical voters from holding their noses and plumping for the LDs to keep Tory candidates out.

    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.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited April 2013

    David - I very nearly completely agree with this analysis.

    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.

    Only 36%, indeed slightly less, won Blair a very comfortable majority in 2005. Essentially Cameron is not a majority Conservative PM because FPTP considerably handicaps the tories in the mid thirties range.

    Further Blair only defeated Howard by 2.8 points whereas Cameron defeated Brown by 7.1 points.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,685
    The brutal truth is that to win a majority the Tories have to gain seats. After Eastleigh it is hard to see where they are going to come from.

    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.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,756

    David - I very nearly completely agree with this analysis.

    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.

    There are various reasons the Conservatives didn't win more in 2010.

    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.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,756

    "What both polls demonstrate is the lack of faith that the public has in any of the three leaders of the main parties ...." Either there are 2 main parties or on vote share UKIP should be included making 4 main parties. The lack of a party leader who's vision resonates with the electorate suggests we are back to a Heath/Wilson standoff, with the LibDems struggling to present themselves as kingmakers. If Labour do get in but fail to get a majority I hope they have the courage to run a minority government, set out a full legislative programme and go back to the country in 6 months. This is what Cameron should have done.

    We can divide the parties in various ways but in terms of popularity, the clear division is between the Con, Lab and LD leaders on the one hand, and UKIP on the other. I have little doubt that this is directly related to the fact that Con, Lab and LD have all been in government in the last five years on the one hand, and that UKIP doesn't even have an MP on the other.

    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.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,685
    @david_herdson The Tory failure of 2010 goes deeper than a few dodgy posters or Clegg (who took many Labour votes).

    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.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Red = kinnock and can not win over the voters.

    5 more years of coalition.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    @david_herdson

    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"
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,756

    Yes and no. The "unpopularity" contest is certainly true - people think we're all pretty rubbish. However, even the hypothetical polls (which are a drastic form of leading question) showed little impact on Labour's share - if Maggie rose to lead the Tories, Labour's share would apparently decline by 1%. There isn't much sign of Labour declining far below 40%.

    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.

    Labour certainly have a good chance of winning but I'm far from convinced that their vote share will hold up. Miliband's figures are very poor and it's a lot harder improving them in opposition than government. When it comes to a choice between parties at an actual election, rather than in an opinion poll, that makes a difference.

    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.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,685
    JackW said:

    @david_herdson

    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"

    It's not FPTP, it's the Tory inability to plan an effective campaign within a structure that is known to all. They have too narrow a focus.

    The Tories will start winning when they stop blaming others.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,773
    Bloke on the BBC paper review just now. Picked one story from the ft. One from the mirror, and three from the guardian. Classic
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,661
    TGOHF said:

    Red = kinnock and can not win over the voters.

    5 more years of coalition.

    I'd say another formal Tory/LD coalition is about the least likely of the credible outcomes to 2015.

    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.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,661

    Yes and no. The "unpopularity" contest is certainly true - people think we're all pretty rubbish. However, even the hypothetical polls (which are a drastic form of leading question) showed little impact on Labour's share - if Maggie rose to lead the Tories, Labour's share would apparently decline by 1%. There isn't much sign of Labour declining far below 40%.

    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.

    Labour certainly have a good chance of winning but I'm far from convinced that their vote share will hold up. Miliband's figures are very poor and it's a lot harder improving them in opposition than government. When it comes to a choice between parties at an actual election, rather than in an opinion poll, that makes a difference.

    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.

    Labour does not need close to 40% to win though. To be the biggest party 33% or 34% would probably be enough. An overall victory could be secured on 36%. Why the Tories are so in love with FPTP remains one of life's great mysteries.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    This is an excellent article, and I agree with its thrust wholeheartedly.

    @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.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    Bloke on the BBC paper review just now. Picked one story from the ft. One from the mirror, and three from the guardian. Classic

    Just saw that too. Doubtless tomorrow our impartial pay-for-it-or-go-to-jail broadcaster will balance it with a full review drawn entirely from the Times and Telegraph.

  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,773

    Yes and no. The "unpopularity" contest is certainly true - people think we're all pretty rubbish. However, even the hypothetical polls (which are a drastic form of leading question) showed little impact on Labour's share - if Maggie rose to lead the Tories, Labour's share would apparently decline by 1%. There isn't much sign of Labour declining far below 40%.

    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.

    Labour certainly have a good chance of winning but I'm far from convinced that their vote share will hold up. Miliband's figures are very poor and it's a lot harder improving them in opposition than government. When it comes to a choice between parties at an actual election, rather than in an opinion poll, that makes a difference.

    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.

    Labour does not need close to 40% to win though. To be the biggest party 33% or 34% would probably be enough. An overall victory could be secured on 36%. Why the Tories are so in love with FPTP remains one of life's great mysteries.

    Labour love it just as much...
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Jonathan said:

    JackW said:

    @david_herdson

    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"

    It's not FPTP, it's the Tory inability to plan an effective campaign within a structure that is known to all. They have too narrow a focus.

    The Tories will start winning when they stop blaming others.
    Nonsense Jonathan.

    You're arguing campaigns and policies. I give you the indisputable numbers.

    As usual Jack W is utterly, completely and modestly correct.

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,756
    One other known unknown I should have mentioned - and my apologies for banging on about this. It is crucial (1) whether there are leadership debates and (2) whether Farage is in them. If there are and he is, I'd expect UKIP to comfortably poll 10%. The big questions are where that comes from, and what effect it has on the other parties' campaigns.

    To my mind, the likely losers will be those that had the most swing voters behind them, and those with the weakest leader stats.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Yes and no. The "unpopularity" contest is certainly true - people think we're all pretty rubbish. However, even the hypothetical polls (which are a drastic form of leading question) showed little impact on Labour's share - if Maggie rose to lead the Tories, Labour's share would apparently decline by 1%. There isn't much sign of Labour declining far below 40%.

    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.

    I agree that the Tories gaining votes from those who voted Labour in 2010 is implausible. It will be hard to win over those wh have moved from LibDem to Labour because of dislike of the coalition.

    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.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,685
    edited April 2013
    JackW said:

    Jonathan said:

    JackW said:

    @david_herdson

    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"

    It's not FPTP, it's the Tory inability to plan an effective campaign within a structure that is known to all. They have too narrow a focus.

    The Tories will start winning when they stop blaming others.
    Nonsense Jonathan.

    You're arguing campaigns and policies. I give you the indisputable numbers.

    As usual Jack W is utterly, completely and modestly correct.


    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.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,661

    Yes and no. The "unpopularity" contest is certainly true - people think we're all pretty rubbish. However, even the hypothetical polls (which are a drastic form of leading question) showed little impact on Labour's share - if Maggie rose to lead the Tories, Labour's share would apparently decline by 1%. There isn't much sign of Labour declining far below 40%.

    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.

    Labour certainly have a good chance of winning but I'm far from convinced that their vote share will hold up. Miliband's figures are very poor and it's a lot harder improving them in opposition than government. When it comes to a choice between parties at an actual election, rather than in an opinion poll, that makes a difference.

    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.

    Labour does not need close to 40% to win though. To be the biggest party 33% or 34% would probably be enough. An overall victory could be secured on 36%. Why the Tories are so in love with FPTP remains one of life's great mysteries.

    Labour love it just as much...

    Labour's leader campaigned against FPTP in the referendum campaign, as did many other senior party figures. I can't think of one big name Tory who did the same. Was there one?

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,661
    edited April 2013
    antifrank said:

    This is an excellent article, and I agree with its thrust wholeheartedly.

    @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.

    None of the parties and very, very few voters (especially the better off ones) have begun to think about how you sustain - or even justify - a society in which the top 5%-10% get ever more prosperous, the 50% at the bottom see living standards constantly squeezed and the 40% to 45% in the middle stagnate. What happens after austerity?

  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,773

    Yes and no. The "unpopularity" contest is certainly true - people think we're all pretty rubbish. However, even the hypothetical polls (which are a drastic form of leading question) showed little impact on Labour's share - if Maggie rose to lead the Tories, Labour's share would apparently decline by 1%. There isn't much sign of Labour declining far below 40%.

    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.

    Labour certainly have a good chance of winning but I'm far from convinced that their vote share will hold up. Miliband's figures are very poor and it's a lot harder improving them in opposition than government. When it comes to a choice between parties at an actual election, rather than in an opinion poll, that makes a difference.

    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.

    Labour does not need close to 40% to win though. To be the biggest party 33% or 34% would probably be enough. An overall victory could be secured on 36%. Why the Tories are so in love with FPTP remains one of life's great mysteries.

    Labour love it just as much...

    Labour's leader campaigned against FPTP in the referendum campaign, as did many other senior party figures. I can't think of one big name Tory who did the same. Was there one?

    Labour had 13 years in power and did nothing to change the voting system.

    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...
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,661

    Yes and no. The "unpopularity" contest is certainly true - people think we're all pretty rubbish. However, even the hypothetical polls (which are a drastic form of leading question) showed little impact on Labour's share - if Maggie rose to lead the Tories, Labour's share would apparently decline by 1%. There isn't much sign of Labour declining far below 40%.

    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.

    Labour certainly have a good chance of winning but I'm far from convinced that their vote share will hold up. Miliband's figures are very poor and it's a lot harder improving them in opposition than government. When it comes to a choice between parties at an actual election, rather than in an opinion poll, that makes a difference.

    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.

    Labour does not need close to 40% to win though. To be the biggest party 33% or 34% would probably be enough. An overall victory could be secured on 36%. Why the Tories are so in love with FPTP remains one of life's great mysteries.

    Labour love it just as much...

    Labour's leader campaigned against FPTP in the referendum campaign, as did many other senior party figures. I can't think of one big name Tory who did the same. Was there one?

    Labour had 13 years in power and did nothing to change the voting system.

    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...

    You may well be right. But so am I!

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited April 2013
    @Jonathan

    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
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,773

    Yes and no. The "unpopularity" contest is certainly true - people think we're all pretty rubbish. However, even the hypothetical polls (which are a drastic form of leading question) showed little impact on Labour's share - if Maggie rose to lead the Tories, Labour's share would apparently decline by 1%. There isn't much sign of Labour declining far below 40%.

    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.

    Labour certainly have a good chance of winning but I'm far from convinced that their vote share will hold up. Miliband's figures are very poor and it's a lot harder improving them in opposition than government. When it comes to a choice between parties at an actual election, rather than in an opinion poll, that makes a difference.

    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.

    Labour does not need close to 40% to win though. To be the biggest party 33% or 34% would probably be enough. An overall victory could be secured on 36%. Why the Tories are so in love with FPTP remains one of life's great mysteries.

    Labour love it just as much...

    Labour's leader campaigned against FPTP in the referendum campaign, as did many other senior party figures. I can't think of one big name Tory who did the same. Was there one?

    Labour had 13 years in power and did nothing to change the voting system.

    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...

    You may well be right. But so am I!

    Ha, we can both be happy then.

    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.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,685
    JackW said:

    @Jonathan

    Apart from the proven anomolies 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

    I don't think you are far off. That's about the messiest possible outcome. Labour could easily gain another 20 seats.

    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.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,685
    edited April 2013
    The are no FPTP anomalies, it could not be more straightforward. Labours advantage didn't arise by accident, but by careful work over decades. Back in the 1990 s they said Labour could never win under FPTP.

    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.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,661

    Yes and no. The "unpopularity" contest is certainly true - people think we're all pretty rubbish. However, even the hypothetical polls (which are a drastic form of leading question) showed little impact on Labour's share - if Maggie rose to lead the Tories, Labour's share would apparently decline by 1%. There isn't much sign of Labour declining far below 40%.

    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.

    Labour certainly have a good chance of winning but I'm far from convinced that their vote share will hold up. Miliband's figures are very poor and it's a lot harder improving them in opposition than government. When it comes to a choice between parties at an actual election, rather than in an opinion poll, that makes a difference.

    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.

    Labour does not need close to 40% to win though. To be the biggest party 33% or 34% would probably be enough. An overall victory could be secured on 36%. Why the Tories are so in love with FPTP remains one of life's great mysteries.

    Labour love it just as much...

    Labour's leader campaigned against FPTP in the referendum campaign, as did many other senior party figures. I can't think of one big name Tory who did the same. Was there one?

    Labour had 13 years in power and did nothing to change the voting system.

    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...

    You may well be right. But so am I!

    Ha, we can both be happy then.

    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.

    We can but hope. As a long time supporter of electoral reform I don't care how it comes, I just want it to arrive.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,930
    One of the missing factors in this analysis is the very large share of the population who were so underwhelmed by the choice in 2010 that they did not vote. In 1992 John Major got these people to turn out having successfully demonised Kinnock and got 14m votes.

    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.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,838
    Good morning, everyone.

    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!
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Morning - great article Mr Herdson - thanks.

    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!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,838
    Miss Plato, I watched the first 2-3 series of Lost but then gave it up. It felt like the writers were just endlessly teasing, stringing the story along and there was never any real resolution.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    @Jonathan

    "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 !!
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    @Plato

    "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 !!
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited April 2013
    @DavidHerdson
    "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.
  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    George Osborne's plans for first-time buyers won't cost him any votes even if the plans have holes in them. I think people will at least give him credit for trying to provide solutions to a very difficult problem.

    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.
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    '... for neighbourhoods that lived in fear for an ENTIRE DAY...' (police chief or something live on Sky).

    I think I preferred the wall to wall Thatcher.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,685
    JackW said:

    @Jonathan

    "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 !!

    I am not sure I would call it an anomaly. The results are certainly not proportional. But given the simple rules of FPTP, I would say that outcome is entirely predictable and expected. If you are clever you can use strategy to win. As proven by Labour turning FPTP from a disadvantage to an advantage. Certainly no point complaining about it.





  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    MikeK said:

    UKIP are no longer a ragbag collection individuals but are now a strong political party

    That is what is known as a false dichotomy.
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    Fenster said:

    George Osborne's plans for first-time buyers won't cost him any votes even if the plans have holes in them. I think people will at least give him credit for trying to provide solutions to a very difficult problem.

    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 suspect the devil will be in the 'unintended' detail.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,838
    F1: P3 starts in a few minutes. Red Bull are grinding down the new rear wing on Vettel's car. They did something similar to this in China, where they had a poor race.

    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.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited April 2013

    Miss Plato, I watched the first 2-3 series of Lost but then gave it up. It felt like the writers were just endlessly teasing, stringing the story along and there was never any real resolution.

    I felt the same and it was ping-ponging about all over the place - apparently there were lots of complaints from viewers and hence it got its act together after that. If you can find S3.5/4-6 - I'd give it another go. There aren't many series where they recover mid-run, but I think Lost managed it. I really was glued in S5 and wished they'd spun something from it. I think there could have been some good plots re the Dharma Initiative that were wasted.

    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
  • hucks67hucks67 Posts: 758
    I find it very difficult to believe that the Tories have any chance of winning with a majority, as they are not very popular in many areas of the UK. If they had obtained the boundary changes, with their superior spending powers, they may have had a chance. But with the existing boundaries, even if they spend tens of millions more than Labour on campaigning, in many parts of the country it will be a real struggle.

    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.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    hucks67 said:

    the Tories ... with their superior spending powers

    I think Labour have the strongest finances at the moment.

    http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/party-finance/party-finance-analysis/party-finance-analysis-accounts#Lab
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    Uggggg. I didn't really like waking up this morning!

    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?
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    hucks67 said:

    If the Lib Dems hold onto enough seats, they could be back in government, which would be interesting.

    They'll have to completely repudiate everything they've said in government in the preceding five years and disown half a decade of laws they've supported in the voting lobby.

    Actually, putting it that way, it won't cost the LDs a single minutes sleep.

  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    I see from the BBC this morning that the Italian centre-left are going into a civil war mode.
    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
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited April 2013
    I was reminded of the expression "The cleverest of people can be remarkably stupid" when I read this fantastically improbable excuse

    "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
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited April 2013
    @Blue_rog
    "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.
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    MikeK said:

    @BlueRog.
    "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.

    Hi Mike, yes it was great to meet up, we certainly bent the ears of those young lurkers didn't we :)

    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.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    @SouthamObserver
    "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?

  • carlcarl Posts: 750
    Interesting insight into the mindset of The Optimistic Tory, David.

    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.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013
    Even an amusing lightweight like little Ed will be delighted at the kind of massive complacency evident in the facile notion that all the tories need to do is throw a few attack ads at him at the GE and everything will turn out lovely for Cammie.

    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.

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Blue_rog said:

    One other observation from yesterday, the distaff sex were conspicuous by their absence. Do the ladies ever turn up to these do's?

    Does PtP in a frock count as a lady?

  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    tim said:

    What a coincidence that the Lawyer who grilled Dacre at Leveson ends up having his private life splashed all over the Daily Mail

    As remarkable a turn of events that Dacre's colourful private life isn't.

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    MikeK said:

    @Blue_rog
    "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.

    No video camera for me! I've been to a couple of DDicks but TBH, I find it incredibly hot up there and last time was feeling very under the weather too so went home after about an hour or so. Glad you all had a fun time - and sympathies for those with hangovers...
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited April 2013
    OT Another TV question - is Pretty Little Liars any good? It's teen drama but getting a 7.9/10 on IMdb.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Blue_rog said:

    Uggggg. I didn't really like waking up this morning!

    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?

    It is quite easy for tim to lead the board in post numbers. His posts are usually short and repetitive to the point of being boring. Yes tim we do know that you think Osbourne is a liability and that the Tories are not popular with women. You said so already, how about an original thought?

    While some such as Mr Herdson post much less frequently, but always worth reading
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    carl said:

    Obviously the next election isn't decided yet, there's still some time to go.

    Clearly. There was some huge changes in polling pre 2010 with Brown winning at one point while Cammie was some 26 points ahead at another. Yet there is no sign of those kind of big shifts since the omnishambles budget.
    carl said:

    I would expect some UKIP votes to "Go home" to the Tories, though.

    Pretty much everyone does and it will. The question is how much since some tories thought even back in 2010 there was enough votes lost to the kippers at that GE to prevent Cammie from winning a majority. That's debatable but the increase in the kipper vote since then isn't. All the polls show it to a greater or lesser degree and if it doesn't melt away at the May locals then Crosby will have to devote some of his attack strategy to Farage since the tories can never outkip the kippers.

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited April 2013

    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.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    BTW Greetings from Aruba - 5am here, about 27C, rising to 32C, cloudy with chance of rain.

    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.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,838
    edited April 2013
    Betting Post

    Early 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.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,313
    Some on social media apparently confusing Chechnya and teh Czech Republic
    http://www.mzv.cz/washington/en/czech_u_s_relations/news/statement_of_the_ambassador_of_the_czech.html
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,313
    JackW - Well the Tories have only themselves to blame for opposing AV and failing to push through the boundary changes
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Financier said:

    BTW Greetings from Aruba - 5am here, about 27C, rising to 32C, cloudy with chance of rain.

    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.

    Safe trip - you're missing summer here :^) Tomorrow its back to autumn...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,313
    Essentially what Cameron needs to do to win is to reach the 40% Thatcher achieved in that poll last week. Thatcher got it by winning back most of the UKIP vote to the Tories and adding a few Cleggite LDs. The Labour vote was virtually unchanged and in my view will be at 36/36% whatever happens. So 40% to 36/37% is the election result Cameron needs with the LD and UKIP vote both held down!
  • shadsyshadsy Posts: 289
    Got a new market up at Ladbrokes for the local elections.
    How many seats will UKIP gain?
    Evens Under 50
    2/1 50-100
    5/2 Over 100
    http://bit.ly/105rJvv
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013
    tim said:

    And so the briefings to Save George start.
    If the Tories lose badly it looks like Grant Spiv is in the firing line

    "Prime Minister and Tory chairman Grant Shapps in clash over fight to save council seats
    The pair clashed amid fears the party is on course to lose 500 seats
    The PM 'distinctly unimpressed' after Mr Shapps addressed a Tory meeting"

    You would think they might change the briefings a bit more after Warsi yet that looks almost identical to what she got when she was wheeled out to be scapegoat for the incompetents.

    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.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,838
    NB Alonso is 5.5 with Ladbrokes.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,685
    edited April 2013
    HYUFD said:

    Essentially what Cameron needs to do to win is to reach the 40% Thatcher achieved in that poll last week.

    Actually the task is simpler, but much harder.

    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.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,375
    My horse for The Scottish National today is RIVAL DESTRUVAL, you can still get 15/2 on Betfair. Good luck to anyone betting on race today, been sunny last 2 days and so ground has changed significantly against the mudlarks.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    HYUFD said:

    JackW - Well the Tories have only themselves to blame for opposing AV and failing to push through the boundary changes

    Perhaps so. However I'm not too much of a fan of AV and certainly not bloody STV. I broadly favour AMS with a solid degree of proportionality whilst keeping a managable constituency link. Neither does it preclude a majority government as the SNP government proves.

  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    malcolmg said:

    My horse for The Scottish National today is RIVAL DESTRUVAL, you can still get 15/2 on Betfair. Good luck to anyone betting on race today, been sunny last 2 days and so ground has changed significantly against the mudlarks.

    Ahh Malc, but in one of my other conversations last night I found that you're a demon horse tipper, as long as you don't back them yourself. What to do? What to do!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,313
    Tim - Agree, but that Thatcher poll had the LDs down to 11% with her as leader, so if Cameron could squeeze the LD vote that far and win the extra LD seats that would offer him it could squeeze him over the line for a majority were he to hit 40%
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,313
    Jonathon - True, but on a practical basis that means he needs to hit 40%, then he would hold the vast majority of Tory seats won from Labour in 2010 and add a significant number of LD ones he failed to win in 2010!
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013
    Little Ed was always going to be attacked hard at the GE for obvious reasons. He has proved to be less than convincing under fire more than once. At times all the Blairites needed do was make enough grumbling noises and little Ed would cave in and veer off to whatever silly idea they were touting at the time. You add to that the intense scrutiny any new leader would be under at a GE and it's not exactly a surprise that Crosby and Cammie are planning that.

    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.



  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,313
    Of course to be certain of a slim majority Cameron would need to hit the 42% Major and Thatcher achieved, otherwise it will depend on the seats on the ground
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,291
    O/T If that green wretch, Neil, is about, can someone throw rotten eggs at him?

    Why am I in Bournemouth when that last train was supposed to stop at Hersham?

    And my head, my head....groan.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited April 2013
    Highest number of new members of UKIP ever in a single month in April 2013 - and still a third of the month to go! Join us today.

    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.
  • JohnO said:

    O/T If that green wretch, Neil, is about, can someone throw rotten eggs at him?

    Why am I in Bournemouth when that last train was supposed to stop at Hersham?

    And my head, my head....groan.

    Neil is a terrible terrible influence. I can promise to send him pictures of my shoes, as they deeply traumatised him.

    It was a great pleasure to meet you, and everyone else as well.
  • JohnO said:

    O/T If that green wretch, Neil, is about, can someone throw rotten eggs at him?

    Why am I in Bournemouth when that last train was supposed to stop at Hersham?

    And my head, my head....groan.

    Neil is a terrible terrible influence. I can promise to send him pictures of my shoes, as they deeply traumatised him.

    It was a great pleasure to meet you, and everyone else as well.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    @SeanT That is clearly part of the Conservatives' plan.

    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.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,291
    @TSE - Those shoes are indeed a cruel and unusual punishment for the unfortunate souls condemned to gaze on them.

    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.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013
    MikeK said:

    No doubt some floaters will return to the big boys, but far fewer than than either Mick or Ben or JackW supposes.

    I didn't put a figure on it and merely highlighted, much as you just did, that no doubt votes will go back to the big parties. I said the question is how much.

    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.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,313
    Antifrank - Well promising to spend more will motivate Labour's core vote, if it unsettles swing voters in the present climate. MikeK - Well that adds to pressure on UKIP, if it underperforms in the County Elections and fails to top the poll at the Euros next year, Dave will be able to claim it is a busted flush and only the Tories can win the seats to stop Labour
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    tim said:

    they've bet the farm on house price inflation and rising consumer and household debt subsidised by the state.

    And when has that ever gone wrong?

    *chortle*

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Jonathan said:

    JackW said:

    @Jonathan

    Apart from the proven anomolies 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

    I don't think you are far off. That's about the messiest possible outcome. Labour could easily gain another 20 seats.

    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.

    Pretty much my view on seats, but I disagree it's messy. I think it's a pretty clear outcome:

    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?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,375
    Blue_rog said:

    malcolmg said:

    My horse for The Scottish National today is RIVAL DESTRUVAL, you can still get 15/2 on Betfair. Good luck to anyone betting on race today, been sunny last 2 days and so ground has changed significantly against the mudlarks.

    Ahh Malc, but in one of my other conversations last night I found that you're a demon horse tipper, as long as you don't back them yourself. What to do? What to do!
    LOL, Rog very true at times I must admit.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    malcolmg said:

    Blue_rog said:

    malcolmg said:

    My horse for The Scottish National today is RIVAL DESTRUVAL, you can still get 15/2 on Betfair. Good luck to anyone betting on race today, been sunny last 2 days and so ground has changed significantly against the mudlarks.

    Ahh Malc, but in one of my other conversations last night I found that you're a demon horse tipper, as long as you don't back them yourself. What to do? What to do!
    LOL, Rog very true at times I must admit.
    Oh, thanks a million! @malcolmg's tip firmed up my earlier instincts so I finally got my money on. @Blue_rog has just brought the doubts back again! But the bet is down now...

    Anyone else making a full day of it? I'm doing my card now.

  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013
    @tim

    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.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Paddy Power have an interesting bet (for small stakes): will the Lib Dems poll 14% or more with YouGov this year? 1/4 for yes and 5/2 for no.

    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.
  • samsam Posts: 727
    Looks like UKIP have sponsored the IPL match between Kolkotta and Chennai on ITV4
This discussion has been closed.