The “spiral of silence” came from an observation made twenty years’ ago that the more people became shy about saying they were going to vote for party x, the worse that party did in the polls and the less inclined people became in turn to say they supported it.
Comments
I don't hate Labour - just prefer they were kept nicely away from the levers of power.
It makes such a change to be able to share views with other like minds and argue your POV in a fairly civilised way [there are always numpties and bullies]. And to read the views of others who are more moderate or more gungho.
It's really straddled the gap between what I generally thought/felt able to say and feeling bashed over the head by the liberal-left media who were generally pretty anti.
I hope this alternative universe of real people commenting rather than a few dozen talking heads marks a change in how we treat competing political views.
For example in September 2008, ICM gave the Tories a lead of 9%, whereas as Ipsos-Mori in the same month gave the Tories a 28% lead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kübler-Ross_model
Moving on from ICM and Populus, Ipsos MORI do not normally carry out any form of re-allocating their don’t knows (though it is worth noting they did do so for their final pre-election poll in 2005), however, they do try and squeeze a voting intention of them if they don’t offer one. Anyone who says don’t know, or refuses to answer is asked a “squeeze question” of “Which party are you most inclined to support?”. These people are given equal weight to those who give a firm intention to vote.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/faq-dont-knows
I must have been sent it on Twitter about 30x already today. It's been Most Read and Most Commented story virtually all day - now on 177 183 comments 95% of which are saying I Agree With You.
" ...And in this moment of crisis it became clear — as it does — what Mr Miliband is. A personable man (and he is a very pleasant companion), politically he is not a presence at all, he is an absence. He is Oedipal Ed, the negator of the unpopular actions of the fathers; the anti-Blair, the non-Brown. His technique for victory to is follow behind the leader, wait for a slip-up and exploit his or her mistakes. He did it to his brother. He hopes to do it to David Cameron. He is neither hunter nor prey, he is scavenger. He is a political vulture. Mission creep? His mission is all about creeping.
And though you can just about see how in a bad year Ed Miliband could become prime minister, what I cannot any longer pretend, after three years of his leadership, is that he would be a good one. On the contrary. I think he would be a disaster. Strangely, I think both the country and his party already know it." http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/davidaaronovitch/article3860789.ece
As for the "liberal-left" media, 14 of the 22 mainstream newspapers endorsed the Conservatives at the last election (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010). There is undoubted left-wing bias at the BBC but I'd say it is far outweighed by the right-wing populism promoted by three quarters of the press.
By some bizarre oversight, he neglected to mention the other question Panelbase asked - what impact would the expected UK 2015 GE have on referendum voting intentions.
I can't imagine why.
Very/quite : Unlikely/Very unlikely to vote for independence:
Con/Con led govt: 50 : 41
Lab led govt: 47 : 42
That's the massive swing our friends in the north have been fondly predicting......
Is there any survey on membershjp changes spread across types of constituency? Broxtowe Labour membership has nearly doubled since the election, presumably because it's now an ultra-marginal (or maybe they were waiting till I was out of the way?), but my impression is that we're languishing in safe seats. Is the Tory decline more or less marked in safe seats?
It's also worth looking at the "understands the needs of ordinary voters" and variations thereof questions. Labour seems to score much better in that than the Tories do. And Ed even leads Dave!
Was Ed driving on Sheppey today?
Go on - tell us how Ed Miliband is nailed on to be our next Prime Minister. You know you want to...on the record...for posterity.
A bit like Falkirk ?
Where I like social media is that I can be entirely on the same page as someone about say Labour, yet diametrically opposed on badger culling. Or keen on animal adoptions/charities but at odds over greenie energy. Or on education vs gay marriage.
I read much more widely and am exposed to a huge number of views than if I was simply chatting to a handful of friends or neighbours.
The more we hear from IDS and Steve Webb the better !!
It suggests Dave is going to get a lot of what he wants in 2014, not just shooting UKIPs fox, but running over it several times in a range rover to make sure.
It can be accessed via Guido's site.
Bradford council already moaning about population increase(and how they will not be able to cope),just wait until the full facts of mass immigration from Eastern Europe in the last few years hits the fan.
Council outlines major challenges as population set to explode by 44,000
http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/10654782.Council_outlines_major_challenges_as_population_set_to_explode_by_44_000/
I backed him a while back, as he wanted to quit at the last reshuffle as a junior minister, but Dave didn't hear him
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9546485/David-Camerons-farcical-reshuffle-the-Prime-Minister-didnt-hear-minister-attempting-to-quit.html
Strangely you seem to have completely forgotten those 30 absent Labour MP's .... but fear not I'll be at hand to remind you - quite regularly if needs be !!
But hey, smear away.
PP's market is very strangely-worded, though:
Applies to the next person to be confirmed to have left the coalition cabinet by any means other than coalition reshuffle. Reshuffle = more than one minister leaving on one date. Cabinet is as 'List Of Cabinet Ministers' on cabinetoffice.gov.uk . Special: Ministers leaving via reshuffle will be paid out at 1/5 of odds. PP decision final.
Why not dead-heat rules?
"If over half the electorate dislike the Conservative party, you can understand why some Conservative supporters maybe shy of expressing their support, as happened in the 90s, then ICM may well be vindicated again in 2015."
It vindicates in terms of reallocating some 2010 Conservative don't knows back to the Conservatives.
It doesn't vindicate it in terms of reallocating 2010 Lib Dem don't knows back to the Lib Dems in similar proportions, ignoring the defection of a significant chunk of much of the rest of the 2010 Lib Dems to Labour and the thus possibility that some of the Lib Dem don't knows could yet follow them.
"But those MPs who failed to support the Government have to accept that their decision not to act has consequences. It would have meant, if the air strikes do not go ahead, that there is no prospect of deterring Assad from using chemical weapons again.
And Miliband ought to be honest about the consequences of his parliamentary games. Andrew Grice, my esteemed colleague, reports elsewhere in today’s Independent:
The Shadow Cabinet expected Mr Miliband to trumpet the concessions he won from Mr Cameron and support the Government. But after a summer in which the Tories spent attacking him as “weak”, Mr Miliband decided not to risk a messy split in which many Labour MPs would have defied him by voting against military strikes.
Miliband “did not want or expect to defeat the Government”, says Grice. He quotes a Labour insider: “We were relying on the Tory whips to win the vote and the Tories were relying on us to support them.”
This is the most extraordinary and spineless admission. As I say in my article, what Miliband and many of his MPs wanted was for the Government and the Americans – anyone, anyone as long as it wasn’t them – to take responsibility for a military action about which they could not make up their minds.
Deplorable."
Strangely you seem to have completely forgotten those 30 absent Labour MP's .... but fear not I'll be at hand to remind you - quite regularly if needs be !!
Jack W - ah but perhaps Ed M strongly and decisively ordered them to stay away to try and ensure the Opposition didn't defeat the Govt?
'About 10,000 jobs will have to be created by 2021, just to keep the same level of employment as there is now'
Good luck with that one,this is Bradford we are talking about ;-)
If the "dislike" ratings are relevant to shyness in terms of future VI, shouldn't they also be relevant to shyness in terms of past VI? Are the same Conservatives who are too shy to disclose an intention to vote Conservative in 2015 really going to willingly disclose that they voted Conservative in 2010?
That looks like overwhelming opposition in the House, and probably includes a majority of both Republicans and Democrats.
If the Senate (which has primacy in foreign affairs) votes Yes, and the House votes No, will Obama treat that as giving him the green light to attack?
If the Senate (which has primacy in foreign affairs) votes Yes, and the House votes No, will Obama treat that as giving him the green light to attack?
I think if the House vote it down that counts as a no. He's still saying that technically he doesn't need the support of either house, but I don't think he'd go ahead in the face of one or the other voting it down.
It's Nick Palmer I feel sorry for. He supported Labour's stance on the basis it was an honestly and deeply held conviction that we should not go to war on principle.
If the Senate (which has primacy in foreign affairs) votes Yes, and the House votes No, will Obama treat that as giving him the green light to attack?
"the Senate (which has primacy in foreign affairs)" answered your own question I think there.
By all means attack politicians but their spouses are off limits unless they start engaging in politics and she hasn't. After the nastiness of Brown's henchmen trying to smear the wives of Cameron and Osborne, I'd have thought that lesson would be obvious.
MPs voted and those who voted - as well as those who didn't turn up - need to accept the consequences of their actions, regardless of which party they belong to.
Obama's already going to war with the House over issues he really cares about like the debt ceiling and immigration, both of which have him on the popular side of the divide. I can't see him creating a big public pseudo-constitutional-crisis where the other side has the overwhelming support of voters in both parties.
If that's the case why did they vote against the tories?? it was only a vote on principle, after all.
Why don;t you just admit trying to defend labour's conduct on the Syria vote you are defending the indefensible?
There must be some mud you can throw on universal credit, surely.
"MPs voted and those who voted - as well as those who didn't turn up - need to accept the consequences of their actions, regardless of which party they belong to."
Well said.
David Cameron has always had plenty of criticism from Right Leaning commentators such as Iain Martin, Fraser Nelson, Tim Montgomery & Co. Indeed, I used to wonder if David Cameron had once nicked Iain Martin's parking space! But reading Fraser Nelson's reaction to Aronovitch's piece in the Times in the Spectator was amusing, expect some of the Right leaning media to start panicking at the thought that Cameron may yet achieve that Tory majority.
Asked whether action could still be taken if MPs refused to vote in favour, he replied: "I don't think it [the government] would have a mandate in Parliament, I can't state it more clearly than that."
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/08/douglas-alexander-warns-cameron-vote-must-be-held-syria-and-labour-could-oppose-gov
It really is one of the most ludicrous positions he has ever taken on PB, in my view.
It may be fair to say that the tories did not do much to help themselves but the propaganda machine of the early Blair years with Campbell and Mandy was fantastically effective and on any view won the 2001 and 2005 elections despite the government itself being increasingly unpopular.
Cameron tried hard in his early years with his detoxification to change this but with limited success which is the only rational explanation I can find for nearly 30% of our fellow citizens who could be bothered to vote voting for Gordon Brown in 2010. There simply are not enough asylums for any other explanation.
After the omnishambles budget we had a pretty serious reprise of this but it seems to have faded, at least in the media with Ed being the target de jours.
It would be interesting to weigh these subjective perceptions against the polling record.
"The unemployed should be forced to undertake 30 hours per week of either charity or community work, work experience, training or monitored job searching, a new report says today. The TaxPayers’ Alliance, the author of the plan, Work for the Dole, says that people already in work but claiming benefits should be forced to top up their working time to 30 hours per week, in an effort to cut the cost of in-work benefits.
Frank Field, a former Labour welfare minister, is urging his party to take the suggestion seriously. Using data from around the world, the TaxPayers’ Alliance projects that its plan would lead to annual savings of £3.51 billion and help 345,000 people off benefits over time. Not everyone would be obliged to take part, with more leeway being given to people who have paid into the system previously, in a move that would strengthen the contributory concept of out-of-work benefits.
The 30-hour benchmark may be reduced for people with childcare or similar obligations. There would be no requirement at all for parents with young children, pensioners or individuals with a severe disability. >> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3860046.ece
AS far as the press is concerned, Cameron was always going to get 'snubbed' whether it happens or not.
Edit: double post.
1pt per snub (daily Mail adjuticated), 3 pts every time Obama refers to France in a positive way but not Britain , 5pts per the number of seats between Obama and Cameron at the official dinner and a 50pt bonus if Cameron runs after Obama in the kitchen
Of the various reform programs undertaken by the Coalition, whether in schools, hospitals or pensions, this always struck me as the most ambitious and problematic. Our benefits system is an unholy mess of bits stuck on over time and desperately needs sorted but it also has to deal with people with a staggeringly different range of circumstances and needs.
IDS has spoken well on this but he bluntly never seemed the sharpest tool in the box and I fear this has proved beyond him. No disgrace in that but there is a cost and it means that we will go into the next election with a largely unreformed system. Not a big problem if the tories win but a major problem if they don't.
I fear that the smart political move will now be to effectively put this on the back burner. Very unfortunate but there is just not enough time to deal with the inevitable issues before the next election now.
"The seating plan has been changed. Originally Mr Putin and Mr Obama would have been separated only by the King of Saudi Arabia. Now it has been reshuffled according to the alphabet, to put five other leaders including Mr Cameron between the main players"
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/article3861150.ece
All the doomsters were saying that the introduction of the RTI (Real-Time Information) system for PAYE would be an unmitigated disaster and lead to complete chaos. It was certainly a huge change::
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2304199/Fears-chaos-PAYE-faces-reform-70-years.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/9975559/Chaos-over-biggest-employment-tax-shake-up-in-70-years.html
http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/anyanswers/question/warning-rti-will-be-chaotic
Guess what? It went smoothly, and has vanished from the news.
If the Senate (which has primacy in foreign affairs) votes Yes, and the House votes No, will Obama treat that as giving him the green light to attack?
To be cynical, Obama should stress the support of Iran and Hezbollah for the Syrian government, rather than the whole wishy-washy, liberal handwringing over poison gas. That should get some GOP votes.
And just don't mention Al Qaeda...
Enterprising Republicans like Rand Paul are managing to attack him from both directions simultaneously, on the grounds that Obama has a plan to entangle them in a war but no plan to do enough to actually win it.
Late on today, so this may have been posted before.
I’ve thought for some time that Labour would be rejected the next general election. I now think Labour may well not even contest that election. Ed Miliband should be giving the British people a choice in 2015. Instead, there is now a serious danger he will give the voters no choice but to hand a second term to David Cameron.
Labour is not just losing the 2015 election. As was the case in 1983 and 1987, it is losing its licence to govern.
Does anyone know who wrote this?
Plato - Re: American survey of British cities
Yes, "Wales" and "Paris" were pretty incredible picks, but in relative terms surely no worse than one of the BBC2's Eggheads wrongly guessing that Dunstable and Biggleswade are both located in Suffolk.
There's hope for us all!
"...By the way, in case I haven't already mentioned it, Mayor Stubbs is a cat. Fifteen years ago the good people of Talkeetna elected old Stubbsy in a write-in campaign and since then he's proven to be a skilled and popular politician. From the Washington Post:
“We all love him,” said Geoff Pfeiffer, a waiter at the West Rib Pub and Cafe located inside the same building as the general store. The staff there is hanging on to Stubbs’ wine glass, hoping they get to fill it again with water and a catnip garnish, a feline cocktail for a regular who commands attention every time he comes in. “It’s like Elvis has entered the building,” Pfeiffer said.
Stubbs isn't the world's first animal mayor. Bosco, a Labrador-Rottweiler mix, served 13 years as the mayor of Sunol, California and was even invited to address Chinese revolutionaries during the Tiananmen Sqaure protests (I'm not making this up). A family of goats called the Clays have governed Lajitas, Texas since 1986. The current mayor, Henry Clay III, has a taste for beer that has developed into a full blown drink problem – so don't be surprised if we have another Chappaquiddick on our hands.
And in 1998, a Kentucky hamlet elected a German Shepherd called Goofy to put things in order. Goofy beat a human candidate by 8,000 votes – which must've stung his opponent. The town has elected two more canines since then, and the 2013 incumbent – Lucy Lou – has campaigned hard for the right of dogs to hang out in the general store. Sensible policies for a better tomorrow... >> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100234418/cat-mayor-attacked-by-dog-in-alaska-was-this-an-assassination-attempt-by-human-politicians/
I did wonder if coming from an army, can do, background IDS has found this particularly frustrating but these are highly technical issues and he seems to struggle with the never ending detail.
I would repeat this is not a particularly severe criticism. I have been involved in the odd judicial case about benefits and had to have regard to the law in this area. It is undoubtedly the most confusing and confused area of law I have ever come across. Really bewildering.
I suspect Obama doesn't want to get on the wrong side of Ed Miliband.
If you think a 4% difference wouldn't be important in what may be a very close result, I can only say I hope your BT pals are of a similarly complacent cast of mind. Nice that you're taking Panelbase seriously though.
"...Labour, with a different leader and slightly more pragmatic taxation policy, could probably have won in 1992. David Cameron, had he driven the process of Conservative party modernisation through harder, would probably have won an overall majority in 2010. In both instances the government of the day had lost the trust of the people. But the opposition had not done quite enough to secure it.
The same could not be said of the elections of 1983, 1987, 2001 and 2005. None of them were up for grabs. An illegal war in Iraq. The destruction of the post-war social consensus. It didn’t matter. The government couldn’t “lose” those elections, because the opposition had moved into a political “dead zone”. They were unelectable. Their licence to govern had been revoked.
Watching Prime Minister’s Questions yesterday I realised that Labour is now teetering on the cusp of that political dead zone. As in 1983 and 1987, it is flirting with outright unelectability >> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100234456/labour-is-losing-its-licence-to-govern/