politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » GE2015 could be decided by whether enough people have felt

Scott_P said:

SeanT said:

if they choose independence + sterling.

They can't "choose" it without agreement from the BoE and the chancellor

They don't need anyone's agreement to use Sterling - its an internationally traded currency - tho of course the BoE could withdraw the guarantee presently behind Scottish banknotes, so they would have to switch to 'Bank of England' notes entirely....the irony, the irony....

CarlottaVance said:

anothernick said:

CarlottaVance said:

tim said:

TGOHF said:

tim said:

So the PB Tories want to concentrate on deficit reduction with a giveaway Autumn Statement and are silent on cuts to pensioner spending due to fear of UKIP.
There's a coherent strategy for you

Is Falkirk over tim ? Y/N ?

No.
When will it impact on the polls in your opinion?

Ignoring the polling and the top of the thread and rambling about Falkirk all day simply tells us why you don't understand the polling

Says the man ignoring the Scottish polling on Falkirk.....but that's London Labour for you!

Real Scottish voting at Dunfirmline did not suggest that Falkirk is damaging the Labour vote.

A 7% swing against the party of an imprisoned wife beater? Impressive!

Remind me what swing the Tories achieved against an imprisoned perverter of the course of justice at Eastleigh.

SeanT said:

That's not true. They can choose to use sterling as their currency, of their own volition, and no one can stop them - what are we going to do, invade? Try and stop pound coins crossing the river at Berwick?

I've just been to Zambia where they use the US dollar in parallel with the "Kwacha". America was not involved in that decision.

"They can choose to use sterling as their currency"

No they can't. As with Zambia, they can buy, sell and trade in Sterling. That is not the same thing.

FPT:

john_zims said:
@fitalass

"Farage with his one-trick pony act made Soubry & Pryce look good."

As I have said before I don't think Farage is the best leader for UKIP but last night he was excellent.

And from a UKIP point of view so was Soubry. We need her on the TV all the time because she is brilliant at recruiting new members and support for UKIP with her sanctimonious and patronising attitude to people's genuine concerns.

Scott_P said:

CarlottaVance said:

They don't need anyone's agreement to use Sterling - its an internationally traded currency -

So they could 'use' Sterling if they bought the notes

And they don't need anyones agreement to do that - correct?

So Scotland can 'use sterling'?

Their view is probably 'monetary policy is set for London/the South East anyway, so what's going to change?

Where they would need agreement would be to continue issuing Scottish bank notes. Which will be one of the things to be negotiated...along with, oh, Faslane....the Type 26 order....and so forth.....

Bobajob is also missing the point that Labour will have to continue to engage on the macro economic argument; the Tories will be saying "Look, public finances are back under control, the economy is growing strongly and that is now filtering through to wages and employment, as we said it would. You can't have one without the other". Labour will be left trying to justify how they could have delivered the latter without the former, and against a backdrop that the public believes (with justification) that Labour opposed measures to bring public finances under control. Labour will have to defend their "you have to spend to save" message (actually a core belief) at the same time that the opposite strategy, which Labour vehmently opposed, will appear to be working.

Labour's current positioning on cost of living is politically "clever" in the sense that is discomforts the Conservatives, but the broader picture is that they are losing the debate on public finances and, having staked so much on it, cannot simply walk away and claim it no longer matters.

Of course, the election is still a long way off and much could happen in the meantime: the British economy could be derailed, by internal or external forces or Cameron could be fundamentally discredited by Scotland voting for independence. But at the moment those of us who predicted in 2010 that the Coalition would endure some hard years but would ultimately be proven right are on course to be vindicated. The issue has always been whether the recovery would be sufficiently entrenched that the Coalition parties could persuade the electorate that the pain was worthwhile. I am less confident of that now than I was in 2010, for a combination of reasons including the weaknesses of the Tory leadership (Cameron and Osborne - out of touch, Clegg - somewhat unfairly cast as a joke), Labour's attack machine being more effecutive, more forensic and more shameless than I anticipated, the Tory press being less reliably Tory, boundaries not changing and UKIP's vote holding up). But the Tories still have a reasonable chance of overcoming the current deficit in the polls.

BTW, aren't Labour supporters just a teensy bit nervous that after six weeks of their man tapping into the mood of the public with popular policies and apparently plastering Cameron over the walls of Westminster the Labour lead has hardened by perhaps two points, to the kind of levels that would have disappointed at any point during H1 2013?

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Same when we go to Stoke on Trent 'burbs. New housing everywhere going up. Just no jobs in that area....commuting to Manchester supposedly?

Working from home, in the office one day a week (wherever the office might be)?

Mr. Ajob, the Scottish becoming independent and actually losing influence over their monetary policy is quite significant. There's also the question of a lender of last resort, which is more than just a hypothetical matter given the recent events in the eurozone and here.

CarlottaVance said:

Scott_P said:

CarlottaVance said:

They don't need anyone's agreement to use Sterling - its an internationally traded currency -

So they could 'use' Sterling if they bought the notes

And they don't need anyones agreement to do that - correct?

So Scotland can 'use sterling'?

Their view is probably 'monetary policy is set for London/the South East anyway, so what's going to change?

Where they would need agreement would be to continue issuing Scottish bank notes. Which will be one of the things to be negotiated...along with, oh, Faslane....the Type 26 order....and so forth.....

I don't think monetary policy would change that much with an indy Scotland as (I think) the Scots are relatively neutral on incomings and outgoings to the exchequer - what Aberdeen/Edinburgh gives, Glasgow takes...

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

"GDP figures simply won’t win votes on their own. "

.

GDP is more than a number. If the economy grows by 4-5% or so between now and the next election, that'll show up somewhere; either in terms of falling unemployment, or rising wages, or extra revenues for the government, providing scope for reductions in taxation.

IMHO, the best thing the government could do politically is to cut Employees' national insurance contribution, providing a measurable boost to people on low to medium incomes. Voters like prizes.

Overall, the economic recovery to date has had an impact on the government's standing. Approval of the government's handling of the economy has moved from the high twenties to the high thirties; net disapproval of the government has moved from the high thirties to the high twenties.

Sean, Antifrank is right on this one and you are also underestimating the problem. If the economy grows another 5% between now and the election, which is possible, it is entirely possible that that extra money is absorbed by bringing spending back within what we actually earn. If the government took it all in extra taxes, for example, we would still have a government that was spending more than we pay in tax.

As Cameron rightly says we are nowhere near out of this yet. There is no money for tax cuts that are not funded by increases elsewhere or cuts in spending. In fact we should continue to have both: tax increases, probably by fiscal drag, and cuts.

The tories' problem is how much of the truth the British people are willing to take. And Labour, per Nick this morning, think it is time to spend again. I would like to think that good sense will prevail but the polls point otherwise, at least at the moment.

The Theresa May Gov't of 2020 will sort it.

Peter_the_Punter said:

OK.

Why are they more 'tribal and loyal'?

It's a cliché that Scottish Labour voters vote they way they do because that's what their fathers and grandfathers did, and it's a cliché based depressingly on fact; I'm surprised we haven't had someone at a Scottish Antiques Roadshow presenting their Labour membership as a family heirloom (amusingly Ed M. is presenting the multiple purchases of memberships in Falkirk as a charming family tradition). The fact that there was a disproportionate Scottish input into the foundation and forming of the Labour party probably feeds into generational loyalty also.

tim said:

@DavidL

you think they'll announce that the featherbedding of pensioners will cease in this new truth?

Do you really think Ed is going to go on a ticket of hitting pensioners? That's a serious question by the way. Especially given the way Brown operated at the last election...

Said it was an anecdote - If you are an unemployed brickie - try Leighton Buzzard, Persimmon are the main builders.

tim said:

TGOHF said:

anothernick said:

CarlottaVance said:

tim said:

TGOHF said:

tim said:

So the PB Tories want to concentrate on deficit reduction with a giveaway Autumn Statement and are silent on cuts to pensioner spending due to fear of UKIP.
There's a coherent strategy for you

Is Falkirk over tim ? Y/N ?

No.
When will it impact on the polls in your opinion?

Ignoring the polling and the top of the thread and rambling about Falkirk all day simply tells us why you don't understand the polling

Says the man ignoring the Scottish polling on Falkirk.....but that's London Labour for you!

Real Scottish voting at Dunfirmline did not suggest that Falkirk is damaging the Labour vote.

Can you think of a single event that would damage the Labour vote in Scotland.

It survived the Iraq war, the worst PM ever and the wrecking of the economy.

It is bullet proof.

Not as stupid as a Scottish Tory in England determined to help Labour by voting for the Tory candidate who will finish third

Why is it stupid to vote for the candidate you favour?

Max_Edinburgh said:

There seems to be remarkable complacency amongst Labour supporters. There lead at this stage is hardly stratospheric. The economy, whether they choose to admit it or not is improving. And they genuinely seem to think that when it comes to the crunch, when people are in the ballot box, they will not ask themselves, are Ed Milliband and Ed Balls (Ed Balls!), good for my job and good for my future?

Indeed. The voters say that the economy is the most important issue. Which party to they most favour on that issue? The Conservatives. Which party do they most blame for our economic predicament? Labour. It would be bold to imagine that they'd therefore want to return a Labour government in 2015.

tim said:

Sean_F said:

tim said:

TGOHF said:

anothernick said:

CarlottaVance said:

tim said:

TGOHF said:

tim said:

So the PB Tories want to concentrate on deficit reduction with a giveaway Autumn Statement and are silent on cuts to pensioner spending due to fear of UKIP.
There's a coherent strategy for you

Is Falkirk over tim ? Y/N ?

No.
When will it impact on the polls in your opinion?

Ignoring the polling and the top of the thread and rambling about Falkirk all day simply tells us why you don't understand the polling

Says the man ignoring the Scottish polling on Falkirk.....but that's London Labour for you!

Real Scottish voting at Dunfirmline did not suggest that Falkirk is damaging the Labour vote.

Can you think of a single event that would damage the Labour vote in Scotland.

It survived the Iraq war, the worst PM ever and the wrecking of the economy.

It is bullet proof.

Not as stupid as a Scottish Tory in England determined to help Labour by voting for the Tory candidate who will finish third

Why is it stupid to vote for the candidate you favour?

You've said it'd be stupid to vote for the party you belong to in your seat, you know why.

I've never said it would be stupid. It's just that I'd vote Conservative in a Con/Lab marginal as the lesser of two evils.

But, if someone takes the view that they'd actually like to express support for the party they favour, rather than going for the lesser of two evils, that's a rational choice.

tim said:

@DavidL

"The tories' problem is how much of the truth the British people are willing to take. And Labour, per Nick this morning, think it is time to spend again."

You keep ignoring the fact that spending is higher than under Labour and on the rise.
Why would anyone think the Tories "truth" is any different from last time.

you think they'll announce that the featherbedding of pensioners will cease in this new truth?

And you keep ignoring the fact that spending is down in real terms and only up in nominal terms. Despite an ever increasing interest rate bill. Despite the built in increases in public spending created by the last government that they have had to contend with. Despite insanities such as PFI contracts and the nonsense we have seen with the carriers this week. Despite the consequences of the EZ crisis on growth 2010-12.

It is true that Darling would probably have cut more but we know of course that he was not going to be Chancellor after the election anyway for precisely that reason. Balls would have spent more. They don't have much of an economic policy but he is very clear about that.

tim said:

@Stuart
@TUD

Has anyone got any polling on how people who have moved to Scotland vote?

Not that I recall.
Re. Independence, lots of anecdata about English folk settling in Scotland and voting for Yes, therefore not evidence
I guess there may be a shy Unionism factor.

Richard_Tyndall said:

FPT:

john_zims said:
@fitalass

"Farage with his one-trick pony act made Soubry & Pryce look good."

As I have said before I don't think Farage is the best leader for UKIP but last night he was excellent.

And from a UKIP point of view so was Soubry. We need her on the TV all the time because she is brilliant at recruiting new members and support for UKIP with her sanctimonious and patronising attitude to people's genuine concerns.

Farage was rubbish last night and got totally roasted by the audience and Anna Soubry.

Nick Palmer's got a big battle on his hands in Broxtowe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm-MUMSp_DE#action=share

Theuniondivvie said:

tim said:

@Stuart
@TUD

Has anyone got any polling on how people who have moved to Scotland vote?

Not that I recall.
Re. Independence, lots of anecdata about English folk settling in Scotland and voting for Yes, therefore not evidence
I guess there may be a shy Unionism factor.

A poll of my two english children (21 and 17) living in Scotland returned:

No - 100%

Yes - 0%

FWIW, amongst their friends at Uni/school, they reckon it splits roughly 80/20 in favour of No but their friends may not necessarily be representitive.

Theuniondivvie said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

OK.

Why are they more 'tribal and loyal'?

It's a cliché that Scottish Labour voters vote they way they do because that's what their fathers and grandfathers did, and it's a cliché based depressingly on fact; I'm surprised we haven't had someone at a Scottish Antiques Roadshow presenting their Labour membership as a family heirloom (amusingly Ed M. is presenting the multiple purchases of memberships in Falkirk as a charming family tradition). The fact that there was a disproportionate Scottish input into the foundation and forming of the Labour party probably feeds into generational loyalty also.

You are much closer to the people of Scotland than I am, Union, so I have to respect your opinion, and I am sure there is something in it, but the theory still falls short, somehow. If it were entirely true, why aren't they still voting for Bonnie Prince Charlie and his successors, like JackW?

My own explanation would be something along the lines of 'they know which side their bread is buttered on and tend to vote accordingly'.

It may not be perfect, but I think it runs better than 'history', or 'stupidity'.

On Topic - I don't think the tories have to make people feel they are better off, they have to make them feel they are better off than if the alternative was in power. With the armoury at his disposal from Labour's period in office, if Crosby can't achieve that, he is vastly overrated and over paid.

re QT last night - I thought Farage was rather rude in his talking over Soubry all the time . I am not surprised she treated him with some contempt.

Peter_the_Punter said:

My own explanation would be something along the lines of 'they know which side their bread is buttered on and tend to vote accordingly'.

It may not be perfect, but I think it runs better than 'history', or 'stupidity'.

Yes, I expect most electoral groups vote out of a fair degree of (not always rational) self interest, complicated here by 'who will best stand up for Scotland'. Of course that leads on to the meme of the most impoverished constituencies being Labour, and chickens and eggs.

In the tv preambles to the Dunfermline by election, there were at least 3 interviewees who literally said I'm voting Labour because my father did, so it's definitely a factor.

Carlotta raises an important point: how is Scotland going to buy all of these pounds it wants to have in circulation? As the BoE will not default I don't think that we need to worry about the pounds we already have although avoiding having too many RBS and Clydesdale pounds might be a good plan. But where does next week's paycheque come from?

Countries that use another's currency tend to avoid very high domestic inflation but at a very high price. The pressure on their balance of payments is far more instant and a balance of payment crisis (say if oil dropped in value) feeds very rapidly into a restriction in the domestic money supply and a sharp recession. Their governments have to remain pretty mcuh in balance and find borrowing expensive.

It also means that when Chancellor "Iron" Balls decides that the housing bubble triggered by the feckless policies of his predecessor needs to be pricked and interest rates have to go up substantially (probably about 2017) Scotland will have nothing to say about it.

It also means that as Ed "the collossus" Miliband strides the European stage and the pound appreciates rapidly there is nothing we can do about that either.

In both these scenarios a difficult financial situation in Scotland might be made much worse and there will be nothing this supposedly independent country can do about it.

tim said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

tim said:

@RichardTyndall

"Soubry's harpy act"

I wonder why UKIP have trouble attracting women voters.

Farage doesn't like having facts pointed out to him, it's a shame Cameron is too cowardly to debate him.

This from the boy that stalks female posters on here. Crawl away again Tim.

Lol
The thicker the Tory the more i'll point it out, if a couple of them are women so be it.

Just glad the moderators don't agree with you about that.

It only requires a tiny swing against Soubry. She'd be doing incredibly well to hold on. A tight Tory/Labour seat with a sizeable Lib Dem vote. Much depends on whether the locals are happy that Labour are going with NP again or if they'd have prefered someone new. He bucked the national trend to almost hold on in 2010.

Richard_Tyndall said:

MikeSmithson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

FPT:

john_zims said:
@fitalass

"Farage with his one-trick pony act made Soubry & Pryce look good."

As I have said before I don't think Farage is the best leader for UKIP but last night he was excellent.

And from a UKIP point of view so was Soubry. We need her on the TV all the time because she is brilliant at recruiting new members and support for UKIP with her sanctimonious and patronising attitude to people's genuine concerns.

Farage was rubbish last night and got totally roasted by the audience and Anna Soubry.

Nick Palmer's got a big battle on his hands in Broxtowe.




I have to say, and with all due respect to Mike (for whom I have an immense amount of admiration), that having seen the programme just now I don't know where he's coming from.

On the first question Soubry was shown to be wrong: RN supply ships ARE being built in S Korea. There are plenty of good reasons for that (cost etc.) but rather than state them she initially denied that any RN ships were being built in Korea and then, when challenged, she said (despite being defence minister) that she "didn't know".

On the second question she looked ridiculous as she was shaking her head vigorously as Farage said that the town of Boston had been through a "population explosion as a direct result of [the UK's] membership of the EU". However then Farage quoted the official figures showing an increase in the foreigner population of 467% over the period: if that's not a population explosion I don't know what is. Quite apart from it being very bad manners to react so obviously and deliberately while someone else is speaking her reaction looked absurd compared to the facts and once again she looked as if she simply didn't know.

I have a very serious disagreement with Nick Palmer on the question of animal rights (he would probably call it "animal welfare") but on the basis of last night's performance even I might be moved to vote for him in Broxtowe simply to get Soubry out- she was that rude and ignorant (unlike Nick who, on here at least, comes across as neither). Unfortunately for Nick I don't live in Broxtowe so I can be of no help to him but on the basis of last night I don't think he will need me!

Fascinating looking at the results of Tata Motors today.

Profits are up but only because of Jaguar Land Rover's superb performance. The Indian business is making a loss

FrankBooth said:

It only requires a tiny swing against Soubry. She'd be doing incredibly well to hold on. A tight Tory/Labour seat with a sizeable Lib Dem vote. Much depends on whether the locals are happy that Labour are going with NP again or if they'd have prefered someone new. He bucked the national trend to almost hold on in 2010.

Yes the bare numbers look a bit grim for Soubry . But she is a fairly stand out character in that she is a bit bossy and matter of fact in tone. It may work to distinguish her from the herd or it may not. If you are in danger in the normal course of things then you need to be a bit different. She needs to be on tele a lot before 2015

Both the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10435125/Tory-minister-Anna-Soubry-attacks-Nigel-Farages-scaremongering.html

And the New Statesman rate Soubry's performance vs Farage:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/11/watch-how-tory-minister-anna-soubry-stood-farages-immigration-scaremongering

Summat's up......

MaxU said:

"matter of fact" ?! Her main problem last night, as far as I could make out was that she didn't actually know the facts!

state_go_away said:

FrankBooth said:

It only requires a tiny swing against Soubry. She'd be doing incredibly well to hold on. A tight Tory/Labour seat with a sizeable Lib Dem vote. Much depends on whether the locals are happy that Labour are going with NP again or if they'd have prefered someone new. He bucked the national trend to almost hold on in 2010.

Yes the bare numbers look a bit grim for Soubry . But she is a fairly stand out character in that she is a bit bossy and matter of fact in tone. It may work to distinguish her from the herd or it may not. If you are in danger in the normal course of things then you need to be a bit different. She needs to be on tele a lot before 2015

True but she sort of got away with by stating (in a matter of fact way) that she did not know certain things (as in a tone of who would expect her to know ). You crumble more if you don't know the facts by pretending you do or not answering the question. As I say she is a bit different from the nice touchy feely politician manuafactured by the hundred in today's climate and she may as well be in the seat she is in.

BBC obit on John Cole:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13069441

It was all the funnier during the daft '80s Tory ban on hearing the voices of 'terrorist' politicians hearing his Irish brogue commenting after some nice middle class English VO artist had dubbed Gerry Adams....

TGOHF said:

Sourby at least is clear on HS2 - ie for.

Palmer is wobbly and vague.

Ah, but Palmer will have my invaluable assistance for a couple of days, TG. Factor that into your calculations before placing your bets.

Not sure I'm likely to face many queries about HS2 on the doorstep but expect Nick will brief me fully in due course.

Great tweet from K G-M: "Whenever I hear "Mrs Thatcher" I actually hear "Missus Thotcha" in the accent of John Cole. Sorry he's died. RIP"

Roger said:

Tyndall. Do you ever consider what an unpleasant poster you are? Why not leave the insults out just for once?

No I don't. I simply feel it is better to be honest rather than hypocritical like you. For as long as you and other posters such as Tim continue to behave in a thoroughly dishonest and two faced manner in your postings I will happily continue to point that out to you.

There is a simple way for that to stop and that is for you to stop being such a dishonest hypocrite.

I am not sure where you get that idea from. In the case of the RN supply ships she first denied that any were being built in South Korea and then, when challenged, admitted she didn't know (strange for a defence minister). There are plenty of good reasons (mainly about cost) that she could use to justify building the ships in South Korea but she hobbled herself by denying it in the first place, which meant that her only option then was to say that she was in fact ignorant.

On her demeanor. I admire plain-speaking when it is her turn to speak but I think the attempt to deliberately undermine others on the panel by obvious head-shaking and "making faces" while they are speaking is just plain rude. The only justification for it would be if she was intellectually streets ahead of the other panelists and her lack of factual knowledge showed that she definitely was not.

state_go_away said:

MaxU said:

"matter of fact" ?! Her main problem last night, as far as I could make out was that she didn't actually know the facts!

True but she sort of got away with by stating (in a matter of fact way) that she did not know certain things (as in a tone of who would expect her to know ). You crumble more if you don't know the facts by pretending you do or not answering the question. As I say she is a bit different from the nice touchy feely politician manuafactured by the hundred in today's climate and she may as well be in the seat she is in.

Tyndall. One day everyone might see the world as you do but I wouldn't hold your breath and while you're waiting if you weren't so bitter you might have a more pleasant time.

MaxU said:

I have to say, and with all due respect to Mike (for whom I have an immense amount of admiration), that having seen the programme just now I don't know where he's coming from.

On the first question Soubry was shown to be wrong: RN supply ships ARE being built in S Korea. There are plenty of good reasons for that (cost etc.) but rather than state them she initially denied that any RN ships were being built in Korea and then, when challenged, she said (despite being defence minister) that she "didn't know".

On the second question she looked ridiculous as she was shaking her head vigorously as Farage said that the town of Boston had been through a "population explosion as a direct result of [the UK's] membership of the EU". However then Farage quoted the official figures showing an increase in the foreigner population of 467% over the period: if that's not a population explosion I don't know what is. Quite apart from it being very bad manners to react so obviously and deliberately while someone else is speaking her reaction looked absurd compared to the facts and once again she looked as if she simply didn't know.

I have a very serious disagreement with Nick Palmer on the question of animal rights (he would probably call it "animal welfare") but on the basis of last night's performance even I might be moved to vote for him in Broxtowe simply to get Soubry out- she was that rude and ignorant (unlike Nick who, on here at least, comes across as neither). Unfortunately for Nick I don't live in Broxtowe so I can be of no help to him but on the basis of last night I don't think he will need me!

Almost exactly my position as well - with the exception of the Animal Rights stuff with which I have a little more sympathy with Nick over at least as anti-vivisection goes.