Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On the day of the LDs crucial economy debate new polling pu
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On the day of the LDs crucial economy debate new polling puts more pressure on Clegg
Unlike the red and blue teams the LD conference has a formal policy making function with the result, as we’ve seen in the past, that it can embarrass the leadership.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
WHY MIKE SMITHSON IS WRONG (1/3)
A trend on pb lately has been polling micro-focus. It's a trend which probably began Stateside, and which to an extent has been taken up by Michael Ashcroft. Nowhere now does it more regularly (some might say monotonaously) than pb.com. In particular the trend has emerged of focusing on the 2010 LibDem voters, something which perhaps suits Smithson as a LibDem.
I don't have the time to do a proper hatchet job on this theory, and I'll leave it to others to pick up the cudgel, or rather cudgels, for this micro-focus has many flaws. All I will do here is set out a number of reasons why it is a dead-end alley. Some of these are obvious but need re-stating, others may be less so. These apply to General Election polling.
1. Polls are rarely accurate. Election after election they get it wrong. Much has been made of a so-called 'gold standard' pollster, when in reality it generally means this pollster was lucky enough to stick the tail the right place on the donkey's arse three times in a row. What's that? The fourth time it wasn't so good? There's a surprise.
2. To an extent this isn't the pollsters fault. Until the night before the vote, when they rarely poll, they are attempting something artificial, namely: 'how would you vote if there were a General Election tomorrow?' Well there isn't going to be a General Election tomorrow, and 9/10ths of the population, actually make that 99/100ths of the population, have no interest in the question whatsoever, which leads me to
3. Most people don't care about politics. It's very very boring. It has become even more so over the last twenty years. Actually it's deathly dull to most people. So unless there's a genuine local campaign (viz NIMBY) like HS2 they would much rather be watching / listening to / doing other things. No-one but anoraks go around thinking about how they would vote tomorrow.
4. It's all about floating voters, of which I'm one, unlike almost everyone else on pb.com. I've voted for all three main parties. We are the people who decide the election because we're pliable. Unlike almost all other floating voters I find politics interesting, probably because I studied it. Other floaters don't.
5. People forget and lie. This is the most important so far. As point 4 I am interested in politics yet I, yep me who took politics, cannot remember how I voted last time. I 'think' I voted LibDem but I'm not actually sure. I might have voted Labour. I either can't fully remember or I have selective memory based on the fact that the LibDems have proved bitterly disappointing. But I'm not sure. I know I vote differently in different elections, and that I have voted for all three parties at least once in the last ten years. See, I'm a floater. But am I a 2010 LibDem voter? That might be what I'd tell the pollster, but I'm not sure.
6. Allied to the fact people forget and lie is the way the voting electorate changes. Around 30 million people vote in a General Election, but they're not the same 30 million. In fact it's surprisingly fluid. People die, move away, others become new voters, some voted last time but won't next and vice versa.
7. So what's the lesson to draw from all this? It's as follows:
I. Do not focus on the minutaie. The more you do the more inaccurate you become. No, the election is NOT just about how many 2010 alleged LibDems switch or don't. That is to look at fern seed a mile away and miss the elephant standing right in front of you.
II. What it IS about is trends. This is the only value in mid-term polling. What are the trends happening? Who is losing support, who is gaining? What are the leads and deficits? These are the key questions.
III. Second to point II are the key associated questions about trust and popularity. Who do you most trust to run the economy and which leader is most liked / disliked. This last question is incredibly important. The General Election IS a like/dislike contest, something that only becomes apparent in the last 4-6 weeks of the campaign when most floaters firm up. Again, look for trends. It's not about levels, it's about trends.
The rest is froth and bubble. In a way, I don't care. In another way I do because this has been a great site and it's deteriorating by too much micro-focus and not enough trend focus, which when driven by an undeniable bias towards LibDems is skewing objective analysis. So in summary:
The trend is your friend. Watch for economic trust and for like / dislike trends.
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-17496-160.htm
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-17496-218.htm
Now, who was it who knifed him again?
From a brand management perspective, it would probably be fairly straightforward to right the ship, and for PB to go on to future media glory. However, it would require the owner to first acknowledge the problem and secondly to implement remedial measures. Nobody is holding their breath.
Indi had 1000 go missing as well, AEC not covering themselves in glory.
"These days, whenever you hear folk saying PB and great site, it is nearly always in the past tense. I think that its heyday was the period from launch up until about 2008. It has been a long slow decline since then. Mike made a few key errors back around 2008-2009 which gave the strong impression that Tory commentators could, unchallenged, say what the heck they liked, whereas Labour and SNP commentators had to live by harsher rulebooks. That skewing of the playing field has, untackled over several years, crippled the reputation of the blog.
From a brand management perspective, it would probably be fairly straightforward to right the ship, and for PB to go on to future media glory. However, it would require the owner to first acknowledge the problem and secondly to implement remedial measures. Nobody is holding their breath."
Lol: After reading the above you have to be convinced OGH has clearly got things about right.
:please-do-not-slam-the-door-on-your-way-out-thank-you:
Charlie hit himself over the head with an empty whisky bottle.
To some extent I would agree - watch for trends, what for subsidiaries (particularly on the big issues that people have a view on - the economy and the PM). The economy is the best way to project trends - assuming that it impacts personal standards of living/environment and isn't just a macro number. Views on PM is, for me, the single most important factor because, increasingly (excluding the tribal) elections come down to a vote on twho you want to be the PM.
However, it's fair to say that the election will likely be determined on two broad groups: will the 'new UKIP' voters hold their noses and vote Cameron (I believe a lot will) and will LD defectors retun home in 2015 (I suspect a lot will move to NOTA). There is a danger of over analysis of micro details - which OGH's approach does risk - but he is trying to illuminate the main debate. Equally it is clear that politicians are framing their strategy around these points (eg, arguably Ed M on Syria) so it is helpful from that perspective.
In conclusion: as with all things polls are useful but only one data point. Slicing and dicing data can lead to statistical weaknesses (especially if the study isn't powered for result but issues are identified by post hoc entrail-stirring).
Countdown : 2 days 2 hours 2 minutes
In the meantime, I would not worry too much about what they think of the Lib Dems - they've gone, and they're not coming back......
According to the Indy, Damian McBride's memoirs, Power Trip: A Decade of Policy, Plots and Spin is rather surprisingly being published by Iain Dale, formerly of this parish, who apparently offered serialisation rights to the right wing press on the basis of their submitting sealed bids. TSE and others on here suggested recently that the Daily Mail had won this contest and that excerpts would appear around the end of this week to coincide with the Labour Party Conference.
There will no doubt be some Lib Dems who hanker after the days of ideological purity that one can indulge in in opposition. There are probably some Lib Dems who have not left who find Osborne economics an anathema. I heard one of Pienaar's politics on Sunday. But the majority will be delighted that their decisions have a real chance of becoming the law of the land. Really delighted. We should not forget that.
I expect Clegg to win today and fairly comfortably. The debate seems quite poorly focussed with the consequences of the amendment being unclear. Lib Dems have to work extra hard to make Coalitions work. If they don't they really don't have a reason to exist any more and they will fade away. So far they have done a pretty good job.
I am not aware of any anti-lefty moderation policy. We get tim and MickPork and BenM and the others here all day every day day. The lefty vs righty banter is as good as ever.
It's the Nat tendency that bores and won't face facts. It's going to be a big fat 'NO'. I hope the Scottish banter moves to one of what happens after the No vote - devomax, EV4EL, etc. That's where the interest lies.
My fundamental problem is that I see the electorate as more volatile and less block like than this analysis presumes. It seems slightly old fashioned to me, more from the days when voting was strongly tribal and a matter of class loyalty. But we have to accept that many very successful analysts in the US continue to use these kinds of classifications with considerable success. The next election will be interesting.
Re PB, my only concern is that there is too much personal abuse directed at posters of all persuasions. It is boring, unproductive and probably discourages the wider range of views and comments that we need. I think the moderators do try hard to stop this but arguably could do more. It is a challenge because the free rein given to posters to post what they like is probably the site's greatest attraction.
Simple logic dictates that both these two factions questioned in isolation 20 months before a GE are very likely to indicate their true party preference - a very large pinch of salt is therefore required when interpreting the findings of this poll.
- The SDP wing: I might be sorely tempted to vote for a Orange book Liberal (with a capital L) party, but too often the likes of Cable strike me as old fashioned politicians who want to "intervene before breakfast, lunch and dinner" [and yes, that was deliberate]
- The pro EU stance as a matter of philosophy. At the moment I am a reluctant in voter. I think the benefits just about outweigh the costs, but I don't like the direction of travel. But surely EU membership should be a cost-benefit discussion rather than a philosophy. It seems like they don't have confidence in Britain
- Their ability to face both ways: to be Tory light in the SW and SE and to be Labour-light in the North. Gives the impression they are a bunch of chancers
Am I a 'reasonable' Tory leaning poster? (I certainly criticise Dave n George often enough). I'm an economically dry social libertarian. So, FWIW, here's my anti LD view:
I like and respect in a political party a clear and consistent view of who they are and what they represent. It seems to me that the yellows like to be on both sides of the fence at once. This worked OK in opposition when voters could hang on them whatever image they liked. But the fundamental pushmepullyou disconnect between Orange Bookers and outright lefties is not viable in a governing party. This is, of course, why the left and right within the LibDem party have gone different ways and they're trashed.
Some commenter the other day said the LibDems are a party that wants to ban smoking but allow anybody to carry national secrets through Heathrow! They just need to grow up.
My other BIG beef is around freedom and liberty. I detest the state and its incursions into our lives. I was genuinely hoping that this government would have a Great Repeal Act and wash away a whole bunch of the Labour years' nanny state legislation. It hasn't happened. The 'Liberal' in the party name seems a lie. Can anyone think of a single pro-personal freedom anti state control law being mooted by Clegg? I can't.
Oh ....and they've sold their souls (and minds) to the EU and Green religions.
http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2013#sorting=rank+region=+country=+faculty=+stars=false+search=
Jeremy Brown's call for banning the face veil among children will probably get Kippers very excited but that's about it. People, certainly in Scotland, are just not interested in what the LibDems have to say.
We hear Orange book LibDems like Jeremy Brown talk as tough as Michael Howard and ex-Labour LibDems like Vince Cable talk as economically "wet" as Ed Balls. To me the LibDems simply want to be the "neither of the other 2" party and right now the Kippers are trying to push them aside from that space.
As I type this, the SKY 2nd news item is the LibDem leader openly disagreeing with his Home Office colleague on a proposal Jeremy Brown hasn't actually announced yet other than in private.
I told him i couldn't understand where he was coming from because if he hadn't voted Clegg he would have voted Cameron and he got both. He simply said he didn't expect a party leader that he had voted for to be a liar.....
You've just got to feel sorry for politicians with an electorate like that!
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/15/scottish-independence-amazing-referendum
It's to unleash the luvvies:
"Watch also for the role of artists and creatives at this local level. This constituency is wired to cope with confident leaps into the early dawn (thus their general support for independence), and relishes the opportunity to engage with those who face both ways on the question."
For some reason I picture the cause for independence being brought to the people through the medium of interpretative dance.
(The article is otherwise a good one from a pro-independence perspective of the flavour that James Kelly would recognise.)
Regardless of all the arguments and any logic, if on 17th September 2014 the Rangers and Celtic football team captains/managers etc and the front pages of the Daily Record and the Scottish Sun tell Scots to vote Yes, Eck will win by a landslide. Don't underestimate the ability of the unionist parties to hand it to the Yes campaign. We already see the London based parties positioning themselves for GE2015. In a year's time there will be even less interest in Scotland and far more on the opinions of marginal seat voters in the midlands, north-west of England etc.
I'm not convinced of the security argument, but admittedly , don't know the stats for robberies/muggings/murders/terrorism carried out whilst burka clad.
The feminist/women's rights issue is also something I can understand, but that's not as simple as it's made out to be, and way beyond my paygrade.
We've got many problems on the streets of the UK, but anecdotally, burka clad women have never caused me any.
The genius then decides not to stay here and subsidise the dross but instead moves to a country with higher living standards and/or lower taxes.
In fact even more so.
Condensing your answers, there appear to be several problems:
1) They are a gestalt entity of two attitude systems that do not necessarily belong together;
2) Their seemingly-blind pro-EU stance is anathema to many people;
3) They have been seen by many as more of a protest party than a party of power at a national level.
Some of which seems to be more applicable to the national party than local constituencies. I've often thought that the Lib Dems in local government have a reasonable track record.
So what can they do about these?
1. A Labour majority? Then the Lib Dems, under a social democrat leader (Vince or Farron) could retreat to their comfort zone, criticise some of the "Tory-led" things they had to do in government and take credit for some of the grown-up decisions they made. They'd win back the agitators and protest-voters; those people who don't want their vote to go to a party that's likely to win power. And crucially, would be able to reposition themselves between a Labour party losing support whilst in power and a Tory party possibly divided over Europe .
2. A repeat of the GE2010 result and entry into a Con/Lib Dem coalition? By 2020 this would mean the Lib Dems 10 years in government. If the economy continues to heal and rebalances the Lib Dems will have 10 years of mature governing to extol to the electorate but would probably be tainted as crypto-Tories.
3. A lab/Lib Dem coalition? Fraught with problems. Alexander and Clegg and Laws would all have to go. And it would look like a massive about turn and very slippery. But it would have the benefit of a more popular leadership (at least to begin with) and the experience of five years of coalition behind it. It would also leave the Tories as the sole, serious opposition party and one that gets tight over Europe.
I suppose the existential question is, do the LIb Dems want a future as a serious party of power or one as a hub for protest voters and life in the comfort zone?
NB - I don't think the Tories can win a majority.
The process to right the Costa Concordia has started. It's a massively impressive operation - engineering on a truly vast scale.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24104643
But I don't think I'll watch the whole thing for 12 hours...
Fairfax is heading for a dead heat , absents are splitting for Palmer but pre polls and postals for O'Brien . Stand by for a big row and investigation of the Coolum Beach PPVC rogue result .
1) putting all his eggs in the AV basket
2) rolling over on tuition fees after campaigning against them
3) in his apology for (1) saying explicitly that no LD promises could ever be believed (as they could all be given up in coalition talks)
"He is already building the "everything those nasty English Tories and their LibDem lackies do, we can prevent in Scotland" theme. It will only grow and grow. In somewhere like Glasgow where 30% of households don't work, his money for doing nothing mantra goes down well."
Couldn't agree with you more. Scotland has a much more developed sense of social cohesion and community.They're more akin to Holland than England which is why our grubby Thatcherite values are anathema to the Scots
As I said before even money sounds about right. I have Scottish relatives who though in the 'no' camp themselves believe things are moving inexorably towards 'yes'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24104743
Leaving aside the cost of bailing out unjailed bankers, I do wonder if raising the profile of MPs' sleaze -- since people are bound to make the contrast -- is really that clever an idea for a government looking to gain from incumbency.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn 43m
Interesting to see @Kevin_Maguire has been told there will be no EU referendum announcement at Labour conference.
The CPS has is in effect begun viewing benefit fraud in the same light as fraud in general.
To get a 10 year sentence for fraud, the value of the fraud has to be greater than 750k.
So if you're committing benefit fraud circa 20k, you're looking at non custodial sentences to a couple of years in sentencing terms (out in 6 months on tag)
Page 26 of the report/page 29 of the pdf
http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/web_sentencing_for_fraud_statutory_offences.pdf
You said you hadn't got round to it a week or two ago as things had been too busy. Have I missed it or has PB decided not to cover a poll of IIRC 20k people?
1) In support of "help to buy"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/constructionandproperty/10310821/John-Cridland-Scrapping-Help-to-Buy-would-be-like-taking-a-patient-off-life-support-before-hes-out-of-intensive-care.html
"John Cridland is Director-General of the CBI"
2) On how the wage squeeze isn't going away any time soon but isn't as bad as the doom-mongers suggest (from David Smith the Sunday times economics editor- non paywall)
http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/001927.html#more
Plus my piece was rubbish anyway.
You're welcome to submit a guest thread on it.
"...Actually, for many of us, by far the funniest outcome of the highly unpredictable next general election would be an overall majority for either Labour or the Tories. It would be worth it simply for the looks of horror on the faces of Ashdown and Clegg in the wee small hours of election night as it dawns on them that their historic move into government was, perhaps, a temporary post-crash fluke and not a new status quo. To avoid such a disaster for their self-esteem (which has hitherto never been a problem in Ashdown's case), they must pray that the fracturing of UK politics continues. That is what they rely on to create hung parliaments stretching out for decades to come, which will keep them in government, for ever.
But is this really how British politics ends? As an interminable conversation about who Clegg and Ashdown will deign to form a government with? Please, someone, do something." http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100235998/it-will-be-hilarious-if-the-lib-dems-dont-end-up-in-government-after-2015/
The Molotov-Ribbentrop, Miliband-Farage Pact
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2013/09/the-molotov-ribbentrop-ed_miliband-nigel_farage-pact.html
A Mumsnet report on who is winning the battle for Britain's female vote
http://www.mumsnet.com/pdf/womens-voting-intentions-report.pdf
"...I don't see Reds Under The Bed (there was a frog under mine the last time I looked, courtesy of the cats) but I do see a lot of Left-wing people in positions of cultural power. Opponents to the [Lobbying] Bill should understand that we tire of the sleek faces of this quangocracy, moving from committee to committee like well-grazed cattle, untouched by past failure and nearly always reliably anti-Tory in their off-the-shelf no-thinking-required 1990s New Labour views.
One who spoke against the Bill is Jenny Watson, who now leads the Electoral Commission (a body we require for what, exactly? To stamp out electoral fraud? Try not to laugh). Previous to safeguarding our democracy, Ms Watson was "the last Chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission … is a past Deputy Chairman of both the Banking Code Standards Board, and of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management. She has also worked in a number of human rights organisations, including Liberty and Charter88", says the Electoral Commission's website..." http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/graemearcher/100236036/left-wing-opponents-to-the-anti-lobbying-bill-are-unpleasant-but-the-legislation-is-a-mess/
(A) just because I have something as my base case, it doesn't meant I am complacent about it.
(B) Nothing I do or say will impact the outcome
(9) I'd rather spend the money on something else
But this wasn't an amusing discussion the first time round and I very much doubt it will amuse the second timke either. I suggest you give it up before turn into tim.
The comment are closed on your piece.
I think we'll see 3 one on one debates.
Cameron v Miliband
Clegg v Miliband
and Cameron v Clegg.
Longer term, though, I think they could get away with the bipolar position while in permanent opposition. If they move to government longer term they will need to choose, particularly on econonmics. They need to carve out a distinct identity.
I could see myself voting for an economically dry, socially liberal party. It's probably a minority position though (although one hopes the Tories could get there as well - seems to be where Cameron wants to take them). Flip flopping on economics from one Parliament to the next doesn't seem credible.
A sensible compromise would be to have one debate with more party leaders and two with just the main three. I expect that something like that will happen.