politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Electing a leader from Scotland could give the LDs a huge boos
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Electing a leader from Scotland could give the LDs a huge boost north of the the border
We all know that GE10 wasn’t a good one for Gordon Brown’s LAB. The party lost power after having a comfortable majority for 13 years and suffered huge seat losses.
Comments
-
Libdems are a distand third in many Scottish seats they used to be strong in, prehaps they will make a comeback if the SNP go back to pre indyref levels (which would mean tory support falling back in Scotland as well). I think right now they should concentrate on the southern Tory facing seats they used to be strong in, especially as this is likely to be a weak chaotic government.0
-
There is no reason why a Jo Swinson leadership would preclude that. She has the ability to appeal right across the country.nunu said:Libdems are a distand third in many Scottish seats they used to be strong in, prehaps they will make a comeback if the SNP go back to pre indyref levels (which would mean tory support falling back in Scotland as well). I think right now they should concentrate on the southern Tory facing seats they used to be strong in, especially as this is likely to be a weak chaotic government.
0 -
Sorry Mike, but Jo Swinson is no Ruth Davidson or Kezia Dugdale.. For starters, Jo Swinson just simple disappeared from the political radar in Scotland when she lost her seat until May called this surprise GE just weeks ago. You also forget that both Gordon Brown and Charles Kennedy really cut their teeth in Scottish politics long before they became Leaders of their parties, Jo Swinson does not have that back story. As we say in Scotland, you are now desperately trying to hang Jo Swinson's Scottish credentials on a Libdem shoogly peg.MikeSmithson said:
There is no reason why a Jo Swinson leadership would preclude that. She has the ability to appeal right across the country.nunu said:Libdems are a distand third in many Scottish seats they used to be strong in, prehaps they will make a comeback if the SNP go back to pre indyref levels (which would mean tory support falling back in Scotland as well). I think right now they should concentrate on the southern Tory facing seats they used to be strong in, especially as this is likely to be a weak chaotic government.
Also worth mentioning that neither Gordon Brown or Charles Kennedy had three such dominant female figures in Sturgeon, Davidson or Dugdale to deal with in the Holyrood devolved Parliament.0 -
The LibDems need to have a leader who has a convincing line, and is convincing on Europe - Labour's splits over Europe were cleverly papered over during the GE and the Tory divisions are legendary. Clegg was credible as he spoke eloquently and with credibility (although the fees got him in the end) - Swinson needs to prove much more than just not be Clegg.....it is time for a female leader for lib dems, they used to have a good level support from female voters but a street fighter is what is needed - I cannot recall Swinson achieving much at all 2015-7, maybe she should have done strictly.......the LDs still seem stuck on this matter and a lack of talent in Parliament will not help them.
Mike S is right to look to the power base.......however it seems focussed on Scotland or the fringes of London, hardly a 2005 beating combination.......the old West Country strongholds (Yeovil etc) and Wales seem absolutely gone for the time being, they were flattered by 12 seats (should have been 14 or 15) but thats life, and the LDs need to get used to it
0 -
Much as I admire Ms Swinson and think she would be a good candidate for Lib Dem leader - isn't a corollary of OGH point that Brown's 'boost' in Scotland was swamped by a much bigger negative effect in England? I would hope that a strong candidate would overcome such facile factors as which part of the UK they hailed from, but we live in febrile times.
I see GO's organ is on the case:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jo-swinson-emerges-as-favourite-to-become-new-lib-dem-leader-a3565686.html0 -
It is also worth noting that the Libdems collective GE result seat tally came courtesy of their successes in Scotland, and therefore were more based on tactical anti SNP voting than a genuine resurgence in the Libdems as a third party force in UK politics. Looking deeper into the SNP seats that didn't fall but now have slimmer majorities, it should worry the Libdems that they have now been replaced in second place in key formerly held Libdem seats by the Scottish Conservatives.swing_voter said:The LibDems need to have a leader who has a convincing line, and is convincing on Europe - Labour's splits over Europe were cleverly papered over during the GE and the Tory divisions are legendary. Clegg was credible as he spoke eloquently and with credibility (although the fees got him in the end) - Swinson needs to prove much more than just not be Clegg.....it is time for a female leader for lib dems, they used to have a good level support from female voters but a street fighter is what is needed - I cannot recall Swinson achieving much at all 2015-7, maybe she should have done strictly.......the LDs still seem stuck on this matter and a lack of talent in Parliament will not help them.
Mike S is right to look to the power base.......however it seems focussed on Scotland or the fringes of London, hardly a 2005 beating combination.......the old West Country strongholds (Yeovil etc) and Wales seem absolutely gone for the time being, they were flattered by 12 seats (should have been 14 or 15) but thats life, and the LDs need to get used to it0 -
To be fair, she probably had to get a job and earn a living for the last two years.fitalass said:
Sorry Mike, but Jo Swinson is no Ruth Davidson or Kezia Dugdale.. For starters, Jo Swinson just simple disappeared from the political radar in Scotland when she lost her seat until May called this surprise GE just weeks ago. You also forget that both Gordon Brown and Charles Kennedy really cut their teeth in Scottish politics long before they became Leaders of their parties, Jo Swinson does not have that back story. As we say in Scotland, you are now desperately trying to hang Jo Swinson's Scottish credentials on a Libdem shoogly peg.MikeSmithson said:
There is no reason why a Jo Swinson leadership would preclude that. She has the ability to appeal right across the country.nunu said:Libdems are a distand third in many Scottish seats they used to be strong in, prehaps they will make a comeback if the SNP go back to pre indyref levels (which would mean tory support falling back in Scotland as well). I think right now they should concentrate on the southern Tory facing seats they used to be strong in, especially as this is likely to be a weak chaotic government.
Also worth mentioning that neither Gordon Brown or Charles Kennedy had three such dominant female figures in Sturgeon, Davidson or Dugdale to deal with in the Holyrood devolved Parliament.
Btw, I posted on this thread before, it's disappeared0 -
MikeSmithson said:
There is no reason why a Jo Swinson leadership would preclude that. She has the ability to appeal right across the country.nunu said:Libdems are a distand third in many Scottish seats they used to be strong in, prehaps they will make a comeback if the SNP go back to pre indyref levels (which would mean tory support falling back in Scotland as well). I think right now they should concentrate on the southern Tory facing seats they used to be strong in, especially as this is likely to be a weak chaotic government.
They,and you for that matter, thought that about T May.
0 -
Completely OT - but a fine bit of family feuding soap opera from Singapore:
http://mothership.sg/tag/38-oxley-road/0 -
At the moment, both large parties are led by people of limited political ability. The Lib Dems should go for their most effective potential leader and not worry about ticking boxes. If he or she is good enough, the votes will come.
Is Swinson good enough? Who knows. She is completely untested at that level. Lib Dem members need to be aware that they will be picking someone who could be debating against Corbyn and May (or Boris, or Davis) in three months. They may not have time to grow into the role and if they do flop, it will simply confirm the party's irrelevance in many people's minds. We saw how much damage the lack of media coverage is doing the Lib Dems; another 7% performance would see them condemned to the same media oblivion for the next five years.0 -
As with UKIP the leader of the Lib Dems is irrelevant, they are on a downward spiral.david_herdson said:At the moment, both large parties are led by people of limited political ability. The Lib Dems should go for their most effective potential leader and not worry about ticking boxes. If he or she is good enough, the votes will come.
Is Swinson good enough? Who knows. She is completely untested at that level. Lib Dem members need to be aware that they will be picking someone who could be debating against Corbyn and May (or Boris, or Davis) in three months. They may not have time to grow into the role and if they do flop, it will simply confirm the party's irrelevance in many people's minds. We saw how much damage the lack of media coverage is doing the Lib Dems; another 7% performance would see them condemned to the same media oblivion for the next five years.
Farron's comments about gays confirmed what plenty of us have said for ages, the Liberals are the most illeberal party we have, campaigning for a second referendum is further evidence.
They'll appoint another Messiah and in 6 months they'll still be going nowhere.0 -
Apols if posted before - interested in comments from those involved in Conservative campaigning if CCHQ was as dire as in this London marginal:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/speakerscorner/2017/06/how-tories-lost?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/0 -
"One local Tory official said that “we were being bullied…CCHQ were arrogant, incompetent and misguided”CarlottaVance said:Apols if posted before - interested in comments from those involved in Conservative campaigning if CCHQ was as dire as in this London marginal:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/speakerscorner/2017/06/how-tories-lost?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/
'Sir; Lynton Crosby's work?0 -
Morning all.
Must admit to being rather surprised by Tim Farron’s decision to stand down, he gave a very dignified speech imho as to his reasons, which for me raised a few concerns regarding faith and politics, but that’s a discussion for another time. – And so to his replacement, Jo Swinson appears to be the only name being touted around, so unless the narrative changes and a new LD candidate makes a bid, she’ll be the party leader.0 -
Jo Swinson, a politician with priorities.
Easter-egg makers not doing enough to cut packaging, says MP
Lib Dem Jo Swinson's report praises Nestlé but criticises luxury eggs from Baileys and M&S
0 -
Fife NE apart I struggle to see much more room for upside in Scotland for the Lib Dems. Possibly Ross Skye and Lochaber where although third they are sort of in contention.
Many of their traditional areas of strength went Tory in a big way last Thursday and it is hard to see that changing in the short term. A seat like Argyll & Bute, for example, which they used to hold and were still a strong second in in 2015 they are now a fairly poor third and in danger of falling to 4th.
A more important issue for the Lib Dems is whether they get a national hearing. Nick Clegg and Charlie Kennedy before him did that really well. Farron struggled to be heard and seemed to have very little of interest to say. Is Jo Swinson the answer to that? I am not sure. Cable (much though I detest the man) or Lamb would probably do better.0 -
Oh, she's THAT type of LibDem... I remember when banning patio heaters was a flagship LD policy.old_labour said:Jo Swinson, a politician with priorities.
Easter-egg makers not doing enough to cut packaging, says MP
Lib Dem Jo Swinson's report praises Nestlé but criticises luxury eggs from Baileys and M&S0 -
Norman Lamb last night on BBC QT said he was thinking and consulting on standing again. I think it likely to be a contested election, and that sort of debate is good for a party.SimonStClare said:Morning all.
Must admit to being rather surprised by Tim Farron’s decision to stand down, he gave a very dignified speech imho as to his reasons, which for me raised a few concerns regarding faith and politics, but that’s a discussion for another time. – And so to his replacement, Jo Swinson appears to be the only name being touted around, so unless the narrative changes and a new LD candidate makes a bid, she’ll be the party leader.
I like Swinson too, but Lamb is exactly my sort of politician, with good judgement. He also speaks well and was one of several very capable LD Ministers.0 -
As the old saying goes, the best time to kick an opponent is when they are down:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/commentisfree/2017/jun/15/the-guardian-view-on-grenfell-tower-theresa-may-hurricane-katrina?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other0 -
Whilst I do think there is a case for Swinson, it's not this one.
In choosing Farron, the mistake was to put tactical considerations above strategic ones. The key issue at this leadership election, as it ought to have been at the last, is choosing a leader who will establish a strong, distinctive position for the Lib Dems in the context of an economically populist Labour Party, and who will make the right judgments on issues. Choosing on the basis of who will give a small boost in a handful of seats where the LDs have any chance north of the border is simply a failure to see the big picture and the big problem for the party.0 -
I was interested in Carlotta Vance's link to the Conservative campaign in Brentford, especially the part that says that activists were told to concentrate on a list of 10,000 people who were presumed to be swing voters. This information turned out to be false.
Isn't this what David Herdson complained about in his now almost legendary post? He was given wrong information about where to campaign and wasted time campaigning among solid Labour voters.0 -
I don't think it does. Not everyone who is a LD has faith and if this guy was trouble by the conflict in faith and life today, then I rather think the more of him for resigning. Its easy to mock faith when you have none yourself.freetochoose said:
As with UKIP the leader of the Lib Dems is irrelevant, they are on a downward spiral.david_herdson said:At the moment, both large parties are led by people of limited political ability. The Lib Dems should go for their most effective potential leader and not worry about ticking boxes. If he or she is good enough, the votes will come.
Is Swinson good enough? Who knows. She is completely untested at that level. Lib Dem members need to be aware that they will be picking someone who could be debating against Corbyn and May (or Boris, or Davis) in three months. They may not have time to grow into the role and if they do flop, it will simply confirm the party's irrelevance in many people's minds. We saw how much damage the lack of media coverage is doing the Lib Dems; another 7% performance would see them condemned to the same media oblivion for the next five years.
Farron's comments about gays confirmed what plenty of us have said for ages, the Liberals are the most illeberal party we have, campaigning for a second referendum is further evidence.
They'll appoint another Messiah and in 6 months they'll still be going nowhere.0 -
There's an opportunity for the Lib Dems to reposition themselves as the party of opportunity, internationalism and liberalism. It's theirs for the taking now both the Conservatives and Labour have lapsed into parochial populism. This would take a leader with a strategic grasp and an ability to articulate a direction, something that is out of the comfort zone of most LDs currently. They are much happier with tactics. I think that leader unfortunately is Nick Clegg, who lost his seat last week.0
-
What's the timetable for the LD election?
Given the arithmetic of this parliament, the next leader is going to be very important and have relevance in a way Farron never did. They will be the deciding factor in several parliamentary votes, and amendments that make it into our laws.
Refusing to work with the Government at all, particularly if done irresponsibly, will be as bad if not worse than being constructive.
Tricky.0 -
There does seem to be evidence that the micro targeting using big data that was so effective in 2015 was a total disaster this time.SandraM said:I was interested in Carlotta Vance's link to the Conservative campaign in Brentford, especially the part that says that activists were told to concentrate on a list of 10,000 people who were presumed to be swing voters. This information turned out to be false.
Isn't this what David Herdson complained about in his now almost legendary post? He was given wrong information about where to campaign and wasted time campaigning among solid Labour voters.
But what is the chicken and what is the egg here? In 2015 the Tories had Cameron campaigning vigorously, doing his live debates with the public, looking every inch a leader in command of the agenda and on top of things. In 2017 the Tories had May, almost hiding away, reluctant to have any uncontrolled contact with the public (something all too painfully demonstrated again yesterday) and reluctant to commit herself on almost anything for consecutive days.
Campaigning, targeted or not, works when you have something you can really hope to sell and in 2017 the Tories just didn't. There was a residual fear of Corbyn that held their lead (just) but nothing positive at all.0 -
At least they campaigned. Tories didn't bother here in Stockton South. A "please vote for Wharton a man I described as a clown in 2015" letter from Middlesbrough FC chairman Steve Gibson. A strong and stable national leaflet. A Wharton cured cancer leaflet in Tory wards (much ridiculed as the man claimed credit for anything and everything). And that's it.CarlottaVance said:Apols if posted before - interested in comments from those involved in Conservative campaigning if CCHQ was as dire as in this London marginal:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/speakerscorner/2017/06/how-tories-lost?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/
Entertaining follow up. Wharton's strategy SPAD is now the formally non-political SPAD for the Tees Valley mayor. And thanks to a brilliant bit of Tory legislation gets paid more than the mayor does...0 -
I agree, it is the national hearing that matters, but I wouldn't over use the SCon klaxon. There is potential for SLD revival there if the Cons continue to bomb out nationally.DavidL said:Fife NE apart I struggle to see much more room for upside in Scotland for the Lib Dems. Possibly Ross Skye and Lochaber where although third they are sort of in contention.
Many of their traditional areas of strength went Tory in a big way last Thursday and it is hard to see that changing in the short term. A seat like Argyll & Bute, for example, which they used to hold and were still a strong second in in 2015 they are now a fairly poor third and in danger of falling to 4th.
A more important issue for the Lib Dems is whether they get a national hearing. Nick Clegg and Charlie Kennedy before him did that really well. Farron struggled to be heard and seemed to have very little of interest to say. Is Jo Swinson the answer to that? I am not sure. Cable (much though I detest the man) or Lamb would probably do better.
Both Swinson and Lamb are good speakers, but Lamb has gravitas and quite a long history of competent performances. His position over A50 was also more realistic, abstaining rather than voting against. He is likely to move the party to be less rejectionist over Brexit.
The extinction of UKIP, and dwindling support for Greens, as well as diminishing SNP presence does leave the stage much less crowded for a third party at the next election. Farron struggled on TV, but Lamb always comes over as a thoughtful pragmatic sane centrist. He has good ideas and also the ability to think them through. He would offer voters a real alternative to Corbyn and May in a way that Farron struggled to.0 -
It was worse than that: the early part of the campaign focused on brand May rather than brand Conservative. Yet instead of accentuating that message by doing all the things you mention Cameron doing, she ended up hiding.DavidL said:
There does seem to be evidence that the micro targeting using big data that was so effective in 2015 was a total disaster this time.SandraM said:I was interested in Carlotta Vance's link to the Conservative campaign in Brentford, especially the part that says that activists were told to concentrate on a list of 10,000 people who were presumed to be swing voters. This information turned out to be false.
Isn't this what David Herdson complained about in his now almost legendary post? He was given wrong information about where to campaign and wasted time campaigning among solid Labour voters.
But what is the chicken and what is the egg here? In 2015 the Tories had Cameron campaigning vigorously, doing his live debates with the public, looking every inch a leader in command of the agenda and on top of things. In 2017 the Tories had May, almost hiding away, reluctant to have any uncontrolled contact with the public (something all too painfully demonstrated again yesterday) and reluctant to commit herself on almost anything for consecutive days.
(Snip)
There's a story behind this: was there some indication that brand May wasn't working, but they didn't come up with a good alternative? Was there illness? Did she find she didn't enjoy meeting the public (and to be honest, who can blame her?)
0 -
3 months. And basically there will be bugger all in terms of Parliamentary action (beyond the Queen's Speech, which clearly the LDs won't back) until after party conference season. There will also be an interim leader (probably Cable). I think 3 months is far more than needed, but not really a problem in terms of Parliamentary votes.Casino_Royale said:What's the timetable for the LD election?
Given the arithmetic of this parliament, the next leader is going to be very important and have relevance in a way Farron never did. They will be the deciding factor in several parliamentary votes, and amendments that make it into our laws.
Refusing to work with the Government at all, particularly if done irresponsibly, will be as bad if not worse than being constructive.
Tricky.0 -
You're right, although I'm atheist I'm not mocking his faith, I'm pointing out that "liberals" such as Farron really aren't. If the leader of UKIP held the same views on gays can you imagine the furore? Farron got off lightly imo.SquareRoot said:
I don't think it does. Not everyone who is a LD has faith and if this guy was trouble by the conflict in faith and life today, then I rather think the more of him for resigning. Its easy to mock faith when you have none yourself.freetochoose said:
As with UKIP the leader of the Lib Dems is irrelevant, they are on a downward spiral.david_herdson said:At the moment, both large parties are led by people of limited political ability. The Lib Dems should go for their most effective potential leader and not worry about ticking boxes. If he or she is good enough, the votes will come.
Is Swinson good enough? Who knows. She is completely untested at that level. Lib Dem members need to be aware that they will be picking someone who could be debating against Corbyn and May (or Boris, or Davis) in three months. They may not have time to grow into the role and if they do flop, it will simply confirm the party's irrelevance in many people's minds. We saw how much damage the lack of media coverage is doing the Lib Dems; another 7% performance would see them condemned to the same media oblivion for the next five years.
Farron's comments about gays confirmed what plenty of us have said for ages, the Liberals are the most illeberal party we have, campaigning for a second referendum is further evidence.
They'll appoint another Messiah and in 6 months they'll still be going nowhere.0 -
Looking briefly at her record as employment minister, I'd be surprised if she was not the toast of some pervy bosses who were preying on some of their vulnerable lady employees.Dura_Ace said:
Oh, she's THAT type of LibDem... I remember when banning patio heaters was a flagship LD policy.old_labour said:Jo Swinson, a politician with priorities.
Easter-egg makers not doing enough to cut packaging, says MP
Lib Dem Jo Swinson's report praises Nestlé but criticises luxury eggs from Baileys and M&S0 -
I heard that the Scottish Klaxons have been sent en masse to Wales which promised much (even a lead share of the vote in the early polling) but went backwards. It would be nice if they didn't get another 20 years use out of them.foxinsoxuk said:
I agree, it is the national hearing that matters, but I wouldn't over use the SCon klaxon. There is potential for SLD revival there if the Cons continue to bomb out nationally.DavidL said:Fife NE apart I struggle to see much more room for upside in Scotland for the Lib Dems. Possibly Ross Skye and Lochaber where although third they are sort of in contention.
Many of their traditional areas of strength went Tory in a big way last Thursday and it is hard to see that changing in the short term. A seat like Argyll & Bute, for example, which they used to hold and were still a strong second in in 2015 they are now a fairly poor third and in danger of falling to 4th.
A more important issue for the Lib Dems is whether they get a national hearing. Nick Clegg and Charlie Kennedy before him did that really well. Farron struggled to be heard and seemed to have very little of interest to say. Is Jo Swinson the answer to that? I am not sure. Cable (much though I detest the man) or Lamb would probably do better.
Both Swinson and Lamb are good speakers, but Lamb has gravitas and quite a long history of competent performances. His position over A50 was also more realistic, abstaining rather than voting against. He is likely to move the party to be less rejectionist over Brexit.
The extinction of UKIP, and dwindling support for Greens, as well as diminishing SNP presence does leave the stage much less crowded for a third party at the next election. Farron struggled on TV, but Lamb always comes over as a thoughtful pragmatic sane centrist. He has good ideas and also the ability to think them through. He would offer voters a real alternative to Corbyn and May in a way that Farron struggled to.0 -
Good morning, everyone.
Swinson's back up to 1.75 (back) on Betfair. Bit short for me to put more on, so I'm hoping Lamb declares first and then I can lay him, then Cable and I can lay him.
0 -
Come the revolution.......RochdalePioneers said:
gets paid more than the mayor does...CarlottaVance said:Apols if posted before - interested in comments from those involved in Conservative campaigning if CCHQ was as dire as in this London marginal:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/speakerscorner/2017/06/how-tories-lost?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/0 -
Both good policies, although you're probably the only person who would call them 'flagship'. I'm sure all MPs have backed things which may be worthy but not wildly important.Dura_Ace said:
Oh, she's THAT type of LibDem... I remember when banning patio heaters was a flagship LD policy.old_labour said:Jo Swinson, a politician with priorities.
Easter-egg makers not doing enough to cut packaging, says MP
Lib Dem Jo Swinson's report praises Nestlé but criticises luxury eggs from Baileys and M&S
Much better than having positively loony policies such as homeopathy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Tredinnick_(politician)
or Climate Change denial.0 -
May built a reasonably successful campaign avoiding questions, deflecting responsibility and blaming others. Even after the election I have no clear idea why she wanted to be our PM. Indeed given her conduct over the last week you have to wonder if she knows herself beyond a vague sense of duty.JosiasJessop said:
It was worse than that: the early part of the campaign focused on brand May rather than brand Conservative. Yet instead of accentuating that message by doing all the things you mention Cameron doing, she ended up hiding.DavidL said:
There does seem to be evidence that the micro targeting using big data that was so effective in 2015 was a total disaster this time.SandraM said:I was interested in Carlotta Vance's link to the Conservative campaign in Brentford, especially the part that says that activists were told to concentrate on a list of 10,000 people who were presumed to be swing voters. This information turned out to be false.
Isn't this what David Herdson complained about in his now almost legendary post? He was given wrong information about where to campaign and wasted time campaigning among solid Labour voters.
But what is the chicken and what is the egg here? In 2015 the Tories had Cameron campaigning vigorously, doing his live debates with the public, looking every inch a leader in command of the agenda and on top of things. In 2017 the Tories had May, almost hiding away, reluctant to have any uncontrolled contact with the public (something all too painfully demonstrated again yesterday) and reluctant to commit herself on almost anything for consecutive days.
(Snip)
There's a story behind this: was there some indication that brand May wasn't working, but they didn't come up with a good alternative? Was there illness? Did she find she didn't enjoy meeting the public (and to be honest, who can blame her?)0 -
There's a huge centre ground up for grabs at the moment. More so than at any time since the early 80's. If the Libs can choose a leader who appeals there has never been a bigger gap for them to fill. The Tories are shot and Corbyn's Labour are a complete turn off to 60% of the population.
I don't know anything about Jo S. Being Scottish won't make a difference. The issues with Brown were very different. If she's good this could be the first chink of light for those of us on the centre left.0 -
There's a technical issue here. The election addresses and most leaflets need to be finalised at the start of the campaign, so they were full of the chosen theme of "Your candidate with Theresa May" (indeed Anna Soubry's was "Theresa May with Anna", subtly reversing the power implication - when she called for Theresa to go on election night, a Tory councillor said wryly, "That love affair didn't last long"). So it was too late to change the theme. The real disaster was that they decided that Corbyn should have enough rope to hang himself so should be given lots of uncontested airtime (it was felt that if Theresa or other Tories argued with him it would shore up Labour loyalist votes), and when it turned out he was rather good they didn't have a plan B.JosiasJessop said:
It was worse than that: the early part of the campaign focused on brand May rather than brand Conservative. Yet instead of accentuating that message by doing all the things you mention Cameron doing, she ended up hiding.
There's a story behind this: was there some indication that brand May wasn't working, but they didn't come up with a good alternative? Was there illness? Did she find she didn't enjoy meeting the public (and to be honest, who can blame her?)0 -
"I have no clear idea why she wanted to be our PM"DavidL said:
May built a reasonably successful campaign avoiding questions, deflecting responsibility and blaming others. Even after the election I have no clear idea why she wanted to be our PM. Indeed given her conduct over the last week you have to wonder if she knows herself beyond a vague sense of duty.JosiasJessop said:
It was worse than that: the early part of the campaign focused on brand May rather than brand Conservative. Yet instead of accentuating that message by doing all the things you mention Cameron doing, she ended up hiding.DavidL said:
There does seem to be evidence that the micro targeting using big data that was so effective in 2015 was a total disaster this time.SandraM said:I was interested in Carlotta Vance's link to the Conservative campaign in Brentford, especially the part that says that activists were told to concentrate on a list of 10,000 people who were presumed to be swing voters. This information turned out to be false.
Isn't this what David Herdson complained about in his now almost legendary post? He was given wrong information about where to campaign and wasted time campaigning among solid Labour voters.
But what is the chicken and what is the egg here? In 2015 the Tories had Cameron campaigning vigorously, doing his live debates with the public, looking every inch a leader in command of the agenda and on top of things. In 2017 the Tories had May, almost hiding away, reluctant to have any uncontrolled contact with the public (something all too painfully demonstrated again yesterday) and reluctant to commit herself on almost anything for consecutive days.
(Snip)
There's a story behind this: was there some indication that brand May wasn't working, but they didn't come up with a good alternative? Was there illness? Did she find she didn't enjoy meeting the public (and to be honest, who can blame her?)
I've been making this point since she was PM: I was undecided about her because there was no visibility of who she was or what she wanted. It was funny to read the different strands of the Conservative party on here projecting their image onto her, when it turns out that is all she is: a projection screen.
I gave her until the conference speech to get things together, and that was utterly underwhelming. Still, I got swept along with the rest of us on here, thinking the polling figures meant the GBP were seeing something in her I wasn't.
But I was right about Corbyn. )0 -
"turned out he was rather good"NickPalmer said:
There's a technical issue here. The election addresses and most leaflets need to be finalised at the start of the campaign, so they were full of the chosen theme of "Your candidate with Theresa May" (indeed Anna Soubry's was "Theresa May with Anna", subtly reversing the power implication - when she called for Theresa to go on election night, a Tory councillor said wryly, "That love affair didn't last long"). So it was too late to change the theme. The real disaster was that they decided that Corbyn should have enough rope to hang himself so should be given lots of uncontested airtime (it was felt that if Theresa or other Tories argued with him it would shore up Labour loyalist votes), and when it turned out he was rather good they didn't have a plan B.JosiasJessop said:
It was worse than that: the early part of the campaign focused on brand May rather than brand Conservative. Yet instead of accentuating that message by doing all the things you mention Cameron doing, she ended up hiding.
There's a story behind this: was there some indication that brand May wasn't working, but they didn't come up with a good alternative? Was there illness? Did she find she didn't enjoy meeting the public (and to be honest, who can blame her?)
Good at campaigning, yes. We've still got to see whether his lamentable leadership over the last couple of years will improve, even with a cowed party behind him.0 -
Don't get your hopes upRoger said:There's a huge centre ground up for grabs at the moment. More so than at any time since the early 80's. If the Libs can choose a leader who appeals there has never been a bigger gap for them to fill. The Tories are shot and Corbyn's Labour are a complete turn off to 60% of the population.
I don't know anything about Jo S. Being Scottish won't make a difference. The issues with Brown were very different. If she's good this could be the first chink of light for those of us on the centre left.0 -
Mr. Palmer, Jovian and Flavius Phocas were both good at persuading men they should be emperor.
They were varying shades of terrible in the job.0 -
but Anna won despite all this. She a rather good remain MP. That's why she was re-elected.NickPalmer said:
There's a technical issue here. The election addresses and most leaflets need to be finalised at the start of the campaign, so they were full of the chosen theme of "Your candidate with Theresa May" (indeed Anna Soubry's was "Theresa May with Anna", subtly reversing the power implication - when she called for Theresa to go on election night, a Tory councillor said wryly, "That love affair didn't last long"). So it was too late to change the theme. The real disaster was that they decided that Corbyn should have enough rope to hang himself so should be given lots of uncontested airtime (it was felt that if Theresa or other Tories argued with him it would shore up Labour loyalist votes), and when it turned out he was rather good they didn't have a plan B.JosiasJessop said:
It was worse than that: the early part of the campaign focused on brand May rather than brand Conservative. Yet instead of accentuating that message by doing all the things you mention Cameron doing, she ended up hiding.
There's a story behind this: was there some indication that brand May wasn't working, but they didn't come up with a good alternative? Was there illness? Did she find she didn't enjoy meeting the public (and to be honest, who can blame her?)0 -
In the pub last night -I might be the only Liberal in the pub - was asked if I had a vote on the Lib Dem leadership. Questioner seemed surprised that I did have one.
As we have become more presidential perhaps it is time to establish "registered" supporters who can only sign up for one party, for free, and give them votes in leadership elections.0 -
Oh I see, sort of three quidders but for free.Icarus said:In the pub last night -I might be the only Liberal in the pub - was asked if I had a vote on the Lib Dem leadership. Questioner seemed surprised that I did have one.
As we have become more presidential perhaps it is time to establish "registered" supporters who can only sign up for one party, for free, and give them votes in leadership elections.
It wouldn't take long to see the flaw in your argument and I doubt parties would agree to it.0 -
Labour surely dropped one in Broxtowe. If Nick had stood he would probably have retaken the seat. Sorry Nick but watching Soubry put the boot in on the Sunday morning politics show was very enjoyable.SquareRoot said:
but Anna won despite all this. She a rather good remain MP. That's why she was re-elected.NickPalmer said:
There's a technical issue here. The election addresses and most leaflets need to be finalised at the start of the campaign, so they were full of the chosen theme of "Your candidate with Theresa May" (indeed Anna Soubry's was "Theresa May with Anna", subtly reversing the power implication - when she called for Theresa to go on election night, a Tory councillor said wryly, "That love affair didn't last long"). So it was too late to change the theme. The real disaster was that they decided that Corbyn should have enough rope to hang himself so should be given lots of uncontested airtime (it was felt that if Theresa or other Tories argued with him it would shore up Labour loyalist votes), and when it turned out he was rather good they didn't have a plan B.JosiasJessop said:
It was worse than that: the early part of the campaign focused on brand May rather than brand Conservative. Yet instead of accentuating that message by doing all the things you mention Cameron doing, she ended up hiding.
There's a story behind this: was there some indication that brand May wasn't working, but they didn't come up with a good alternative? Was there illness? Did she find she didn't enjoy meeting the public (and to be honest, who can blame her?)0 -
Seems to work in America, oh wait a minute!!freetochoose said:
Oh I see, sort of three quidders but for free.Icarus said:In the pub last night -I might be the only Liberal in the pub - was asked if I had a vote on the Lib Dem leadership. Questioner seemed surprised that I did have one.
As we have become more presidential perhaps it is time to establish "registered" supporters who can only sign up for one party, for free, and give them votes in leadership elections.
It wouldn't take long to see the flaw in your argument and I doubt parties would agree to it.0 -
And it wasnt a second referendum it was a first on the terms of the deal v no deal v remainSquareRoot said:
I don't think it does. Not everyone who is a LD has faith and if this guy was trouble by the conflict in faith and life today, then I rather think the more of him for resigning. Its easy to mock faith when you have none yourself.freetochoose said:
As with UKIP the leader of the Lib Dems is irrelevant, they are on a downward spiral.david_herdson said:At the moment, both large parties are led by people of limited political ability. The Lib Dems should go for their most effective potential leader and not worry about ticking boxes. If he or she is good enough, the votes will come.
Is Swinson good enough? Who knows. She is completely untested at that level. Lib Dem members need to be aware that they will be picking someone who could be debating against Corbyn and May (or Boris, or Davis) in three months. They may not have time to grow into the role and if they do flop, it will simply confirm the party's irrelevance in many people's minds. We saw how much damage the lack of media coverage is doing the Lib Dems; another 7% performance would see them condemned to the same media oblivion for the next five years.
Farron's comments about gays confirmed what plenty of us have said for ages, the Liberals are the most illeberal party we have, campaigning for a second referendum is further evidence.
They'll appoint another Messiah and in 6 months they'll still be going nowhere.0 -
+2 (one for each of you)SquareRoot said:
but Anna won despite all this. She a rather good remain MP. That's why she was re-elected.NickPalmer said:
There's a technical issue here. The election addresses and most leaflets need to be finalised at the start of the campaign, so they were full of the chosen theme of "Your candidate with Theresa May" (indeed Anna Soubry's was "Theresa May with Anna", subtly reversing the power implication - when she called for Theresa to go on election night, a Tory councillor said wryly, "That love affair didn't last long"). So it was too late to change the theme. The real disaster was that they decided that Corbyn should have enough rope to hang himself so should be given lots of uncontested airtime (it was felt that if Theresa or other Tories argued with him it would shore up Labour loyalist votes), and when it turned out he was rather good they didn't have a plan B.JosiasJessop said:
It was worse than that: the early part of the campaign focused on brand May rather than brand Conservative. Yet instead of accentuating that message by doing all the things you mention Cameron doing, she ended up hiding.
There's a story behind this: was there some indication that brand May wasn't working, but they didn't come up with a good alternative? Was there illness? Did she find she didn't enjoy meeting the public (and to be honest, who can blame her?)
The Tories did have the problem that their national campaign switched away from the emphasis on TM yet, as Nick says, their principal leaflets were already printed and my TM leaflet arrived during the last week. So the Tories lost brand coherence between their national and local activity, and the local leaflet unhelpfully drew attention back towards TM's by then somewhat tarnished reputation.
Shipman in the ST claimed even TM was complaining that repeating Strong and Stable made her sound robotic, but Crosby told her to keep on doing it (and his view was that her problem was an inability to do it naturally). There was also a claim that her Maidenhead acceptance speech contained chunks quoted verbatim from the "Tory candidates 'lines to take'" sheet sent out by HQ to all their PPCs. If so it indicates a frightening inability to express her views in her own words, which should be a core competence for any politician let alone a PM.
OT, YouGov is doing its post-election mega-survey of the GE today; tons of questions about the campaign and politics/engagement/knowledge/opinion generally. Takes about 20 minutes, working fast, to complete.0 -
If Jo runs, she wins I think.
I'm inclined more towards Lamb personally, mind.0 -
Interesting but bonkers. If the economist thinks Isleworth went from a Labour majority of 400 to one of 14,000 because they campaigned on nationa rather than local issues then I think they shoud re-read their copy of 'Voters Parties and Leaders' and try again.CarlottaVance said:Apols if posted before - interested in comments from those involved in Conservative campaigning if CCHQ was as dire as in this London marginal:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/speakerscorner/2017/06/how-tories-lost?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/
It takes a very big issue to get 14,000 voters to change their minds in two years and whether or not the bins were emptied isn't that.
It was BREXIT. If they had wanted to get more votes in London Mrs May should not have behaved as though it was her idea or she would inevitably get people riled.0 -
For me the Tories tried to run a Cameron election, without Cameron.0
-
-
I enjoy reading your posts. Its obvious you live abroad because I can't think of another contributor who is so consistently wrong. Great entertainment.Roger said:
Interesting but bonkers. If the economist thinks Isleworth went from a Labour majority of 400 to one of 14,000 because they campaigned on nationa rather than local issues then I think they shoud re-read their copy of 'Voters Parties and Leaders' and try again.CarlottaVance said:Apols if posted before - interested in comments from those involved in Conservative campaigning if CCHQ was as dire as in this London marginal:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/speakerscorner/2017/06/how-tories-lost?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/
It takes a very big issue to get 14,000 voters to change their minds in two years and whether or not the bins were emptied isn't that.
It was BREXIT. If they had wanted to get more votes in London Mrs May should not have behaved as though it was her idea or she would inevitably get people riled.0 -
Who's coordinating the missing list for the disaster? I assume the met police. One frightening figure given was there were more than 400 reports of missing people but no one able to identify multiple reports for the same person.0
-
Not just that but that even if the LibDems were to favour a short-term regional boost, the place it is most needed is not Scotland but South-West England, so recently a Lib-Dem stronghold but now a yellow-free zone.SirNorfolkPassmore said:Whilst I do think there is a case for Swinson, it's not this one.
In choosing Farron, the mistake was to put tactical considerations above strategic ones. The key issue at this leadership election, as it ought to have been at the last, is choosing a leader who will establish a strong, distinctive position for the Lib Dems in the context of an economically populist Labour Party, and who will make the right judgments on issues. Choosing on the basis of who will give a small boost in a handful of seats where the LDs have any chance north of the border is simply a failure to see the big picture and the big problem for the party.0 -
A key target for the LDs next election must be to get back to being the 3rd biggest party in Parliament, as this will provide the uplift in media coverage they desperately need (e.g. Guaranteed 2 questions in PMQs). The easier way to achieve that is likely to take more seats off the SNP. So a Scottish leader makes sense0
-
I thought Anna S lost! Was there a recount or something? I'm sure just before I went to sleep they announced she'd gone.Icarus said:
Labour surely dropped one in Broxtowe. If Nick had stood he would probably have retaken the seat. Sorry Nick but watching Soubry put the boot in on the Sunday morning politics show was very enjoyable.SquareRoot said:
but Anna won despite all this. She a rather good remain MP. That's why she was re-elected.NickPalmer said:
There's a technical issue here. The election addresses and most leaflets need to be finalised at the start of the campaign, so they were full of the chosen theme of "Your candidate with Theresa May" (indeed Anna Soubry's was "Theresa May with Anna", subtly reversing the power implication - when she called for Theresa to go on election night, a Tory councillor said wryly, "That love affair didn't last long"). So it was too late to change the theme. The real disaster was that they decided that Corbyn should have enough rope to hang himself so should be given lots of uncontested airtime (it was felt that if Theresa or other Tories argued with him it would shore up Labour loyalist votes), and when it turned out he was rather good they didn't have a plan B.JosiasJessop said:
It was worse than that: the early part of the campaign focused on brand May rather than brand Conservative. Yet instead of accentuating that message by doing all the things you mention Cameron doing, she ended up hiding.
There's a story behind this: was there some indication that brand May wasn't working, but they didn't come up with a good alternative? Was there illness? Did she find she didn't enjoy meeting the public (and to be honest, who can blame her?)0 -
No, they ran a UKIP election, without FarageHaroldO said:For me the Tories tried to run a Cameron election, without Cameron.
0 -
So long as it isn't Vince.
Swinson, Lamb, or Davey would do a great job.0 -
Lamb will be the establishment candidate, the establishmentcandidate always loses from Ashdown v beith right through to farron. Even hughne was the "establishment" candidate over cleggbut that time it was more an age issue and that Clegg would get his turn.Pulpstar said:If Jo runs, she wins I think.
I'm inclined more towards Lamb personally, mind.0 -
-
The lead raises the question what the downside, if any, is for votes in England.0
-
Martin Kettle:
Theresa May can still shape Brexit. But she may not have the skills.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/16/theresa-may-shape-brexit-eu-exit?CMP=share_btn_tw0 -
Both Swinson and Lamb are decent media performers - essential in the modern age. Getting on the media is another matter.
The LibDems require a big hitter, a big beast who will get noticed and that means Uncle Vince. He has the name recognition, experience and gravitas for the post.
Cable for leader, Swinson as deputy and leader in waiting and a big campaigning role for Lamb.
Sorted ... next ...
0 -
This shocking shambles in heart of the capital speaks volumes about the incompetence of our rulers. They've lost control.nichomar said:Who's coordinating the missing list for the disaster? I assume the met police. One frightening figure given was there were more than 400 reports of missing people but no one able to identify multiple reports for the same person.
0 -
Take back control of our death traps!TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
In 2010 Labour already had by far the most seats in Scotland and beyond Fife North East there are not many more seats in Scotland the LDs are in second place to the SNP and can target0
-
Vince is the heavyweight the LDs need with Brexit coming up, there may not be another general election for 5 yearsTheScreamingEagles said:So long as it isn't Vince.
Swinson, Lamb, or Davey would do a great job.0 -
Alternative history is tricky, but localism was a factor - I stood aside for my successor because he knows the constituency backwards and I've not lived anywhere near there for all but a couple of months in the last 7 years. With a few exceptions we seemed to be successfully transferring my personal vote, and we did get a chunky swing to Labour while neighbouring Erewash and Ashfield moved to the Tories.Icarus said:
Labour surely dropped one in Broxtowe. If Nick had stood he would probably have retaken the seat. Sorry Nick but watching Soubry put the boot in on the Sunday morning politics show was very enjoyable.SquareRoot said:
but Anna won despite all this. She a rather good remain MP. That's why she was re-elected.
Anna Soubry is high-profile, which people like, and abrasive with everyone, which they don't. IMO the seat will fall next time, if the national picture is roughly what it is now. (Big if, of course.) The evidence that first-time incumbency wears off gradually is relevant.
0 -
ICYMI last night
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/875500153200934913
27% of voters support the DUP deal, 48% oppose it.
0 -
Some of the Tory-held seats may be targets thoughHYUFD said:In 2010 Labour already had by far the most seats in Scotland and beyond Fife North East there are not many more seats in Scotland the LDs are in second place to the SNP and can target
0 -
Doesn't your inclusion of Kezia in this Scots hall of political fame dent your argument? It's not so long since Kezia was seen as new, inexperienced and struggling, out of her depth. If Kezia is now seen as part of the big time then surely Jo could do it was well? The rare comments I have seen from Kezia on TV haven't left me with a particularly strong impression of a titan of politics in the making.fitalass said:
Sorry Mike, but Jo Swinson is no Ruth Davidson or Kezia Dugdale.. For starters, Jo Swinson just simple disappeared from the political radar in Scotland when she lost her seat until May called this surprise GE just weeks ago. You also forget that both Gordon Brown and Charles Kennedy really cut their teeth in Scottish politics long before they became Leaders of their parties, Jo Swinson does not have that back story. As we say in Scotland, you are now desperately trying to hang Jo Swinson's Scottish credentials on a Libdem shoogly peg.MikeSmithson said:
There is no reason why a Jo Swinson leadership would preclude that. She has the ability to appeal right across the country.nunu said:Libdems are a distand third in many Scottish seats they used to be strong in, prehaps they will make a comeback if the SNP go back to pre indyref levels (which would mean tory support falling back in Scotland as well). I think right now they should concentrate on the southern Tory facing seats they used to be strong in, especially as this is likely to be a weak chaotic government.
Also worth mentioning that neither Gordon Brown or Charles Kennedy had three such dominant female figures in Sturgeon, Davidson or Dugdale to deal with in the Holyrood devolved Parliament.0 -
-
Hilary POTUS, Tory 100 Maj, Vince great leader.JackW said:Both Swinson and Lamb are decent media performers - essential in the modern age. Getting on the media is another matter.
The LibDems require a big hitter, a big beast who will get noticed and that means Uncle Vince. He has the name recognition, experience and gravitas for the post.
Cable for leader, Swinson as deputy and leader in waiting and a big campaigning role for Lamb.
Sorted ... next ...
ARSE hat-trick incoming0 -
I agree, except that he is rather dull and, like many politicians, strikes me as an excellent team player who may not necessarily have the skills to lead?foxinsoxuk said:
Norman Lamb last night on BBC QT said he was thinking and consulting on standing again. I think it likely to be a contested election, and that sort of debate is good for a party.SimonStClare said:Morning all.
Must admit to being rather surprised by Tim Farron’s decision to stand down, he gave a very dignified speech imho as to his reasons, which for me raised a few concerns regarding faith and politics, but that’s a discussion for another time. – And so to his replacement, Jo Swinson appears to be the only name being touted around, so unless the narrative changes and a new LD candidate makes a bid, she’ll be the party leader.
I like Swinson too, but Lamb is exactly my sort of politician, with good judgement. He also speaks well and was one of several very capable LD Ministers.
0 -
No.HYUFD said:
Vince is the heavyweight the LDs need with Brexit coming up, there may not be another general election for 5 yearsTheScreamingEagles said:So long as it isn't Vince.
Swinson, Lamb, or Davey would do a great job.0 -
Nick Palmer intervened and concerned that a Soubry defeat to Labour would mean a shift to the right added his Broxtowe progressive alliance canvass returns to the count and Soubry coasted to the win.Roger said:I thought Anna S lost! Was there a recount or something? I'm sure just before I went to sleep they announced she'd gone.
0 -
Unfortunately not.Roger said:
I thought Anna S lost! Was there a recount or something? I'm sure just before I went to sleep they announced she'd gone.Icarus said:
Labour surely dropped one in Broxtowe. If Nick had stood he would probably have retaken the seat. Sorry Nick but watching Soubry put the boot in on the Sunday morning politics show was very enjoyable.SquareRoot said:
but Anna won despite all this. She a rather good remain MP. That's why she was re-elected.NickPalmer said:
There's a technical issue here. The election addresses and most leaflets need to be finalised at the start of the campaign, so they were full of the chosen theme of "Your candidate with Theresa May" (indeed Anna Soubry's was "Theresa May with Anna", subtly reversing the power implication - when she called for Theresa to go on election night, a Tory councillor said wryly, "That love affair didn't last long"). So it was too late to change the theme. The real disaster was that they decided that Corbyn should have enough rope to hang himself so should be given lots of uncontested airtime (it was felt that if Theresa or other Tories argued with him it would shore up Labour loyalist votes), and when it turned out he was rather good they didn't have a plan B.JosiasJessop said:
It was worse than that: the early part of the campaign focused on brand May rather than brand Conservative. Yet instead of accentuating that message by doing all the things you mention Cameron doing, she ended up hiding.
There's a story behind this: was there some indication that brand May wasn't working, but they didn't come up with a good alternative? Was there illness? Did she find she didn't enjoy meeting the public (and to be honest, who can blame her?)0 -
Nick - what are we going to do about Labour's EU positioning? John McDonnell seems to want to steamroller the party into a position that almost nobody except himself holds.NickPalmer said:
Alternative history is tricky, but localism was a factor - I stood aside for my successor because he knows the constituency backwards and I've not lived anywhere near there for all but a couple of months in the last 7 years. With a few exceptions we seemed to be successfully transferring my personal vote, and we did get a chunky swing to Labour while neighbouring Erewash and Ashfield moved to the Tories.Icarus said:
Labour surely dropped one in Broxtowe. If Nick had stood he would probably have retaken the seat. Sorry Nick but watching Soubry put the boot in on the Sunday morning politics show was very enjoyable.SquareRoot said:
but Anna won despite all this. She a rather good remain MP. That's why she was re-elected.
Anna Soubry is high-profile, which people like, and abrasive with everyone, which they don't. IMO the seat will fall next time, if the national picture is roughly what it is now. (Big if, of course.) The evidence that first-time incumbency wears off gradually is relevant.
0 -
Perhaps I'm a Jacobite double agent for Trump, Jezza and Jo Swinson !! ....Pulpstar said:
Hilary POTUS, Tory 100 Maj, Vince great leader.JackW said:Both Swinson and Lamb are decent media performers - essential in the modern age. Getting on the media is another matter.
The LibDems require a big hitter, a big beast who will get noticed and that means Uncle Vince. He has the name recognition, experience and gravitas for the post.
Cable for leader, Swinson as deputy and leader in waiting and a big campaigning role for Lamb.
Sorted ... next ...
ARSE hat-trick incoming
0 -
Reading between the lines I am guessing that it wasn't the model that was wrong but the assumptions being fed into it. Canvassers were being sent to the type of swing voter who should have been likely to switch Tory, had they been heading for the expected landslide victory. Because the humans managing the data assumed that was where the campaign was at the time, as did most of us.DavidL said:
There does seem to be evidence that the micro targeting using big data that was so effective in 2015 was a total disaster this time.SandraM said:I was interested in Carlotta Vance's link to the Conservative campaign in Brentford, especially the part that says that activists were told to concentrate on a list of 10,000 people who were presumed to be swing voters. This information turned out to be false.
Isn't this what David Herdson complained about in his now almost legendary post? He was given wrong information about where to campaign and wasted time campaigning among solid Labour voters.
But what is the chicken and what is the egg here? In 2015 the Tories had Cameron campaigning vigorously, doing his live debates with the public, looking every inch a leader in command of the agenda and on top of things. In 2017 the Tories had May, almost hiding away, reluctant to have any uncontrolled contact with the public (something all too painfully demonstrated again yesterday) and reluctant to commit herself on almost anything for consecutive days.
Campaigning, targeted or not, works when you have something you can really hope to sell and in 2017 the Tories just didn't. There was a residual fear of Corbyn that held their lead (just) but nothing positive at all.
The model would have been perfectly capable of identifying the type of voter likely to swing away from the Tories in a close fought election, had anyone at CCHQ realised we were heading for such a situation and pulled out the right data.
Blaming the model for pulling out the wrong data is a human not a statistical failing!0 -
For a newly elected PM to only have 77% support from her own party is damning.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
The challenge for the Tories is to find a leader to replace May who is not actively repellent to a large proportion of the voting public. Tories love Boris, for example, but others less so. He won in London, but he did it against a heavily compromised Ken Livingstone and with the 100% backing of the Evening Standard in a campaign that did not get widespread media coverage beyond that. Boris is now totally associated with Brexit and that £350 million extra a week for the NHS. Other candidates are probably even less appealing. The only one that may have a chance, IMO, is Hammond - but would the members vote for him?DavidL said:
There does seem to be evidence that the micro targeting using big data that was so effective in 2015 was a total disaster this time.SandraM said:I was interested in Carlotta Vance's link to the Conservative campaign in Brentford, especially the part that says that activists were told to concentrate on a list of 10,000 people who were presumed to be swing voters. This information turned out to be false.
Isn't this what David Herdson complained about in his now almost legendary post? He was given wrong information about where to campaign and wasted time campaigning among solid Labour voters.
But what is the chicken and what is the egg here? In 2015 the Tories had Cameron campaigning vigorously, doing his live debates with the public, looking every inch a leader in command of the agenda and on top of things. In 2017 the Tories had May, almost hiding away, reluctant to have any uncontrolled contact with the public (something all too painfully demonstrated again yesterday) and reluctant to commit herself on almost anything for consecutive days.
Campaigning, targeted or not, works when you have something you can really hope to sell and in 2017 the Tories just didn't. There was a residual fear of Corbyn that held their lead (just) but nothing positive at all.
0 -
I've just checiked Anna S's result. I'd thought she'd lost and was brave giving all those interviws the next day. So great news. In this instance a strong Tory anti-Brexiteer is worth several from any other party and being the feisty lady she is she wont take any crap from the May clique.0
-
The leadership question is not good for Boris. Since he is the only candidate we can be sure everyone knows anything about, that is probably his ceiling. He needs to stand in order to remain a big hitter, and should do well in the early rounds but based on that poll, Foreign Secretary is as good as it gets.TheScreamingEagles said:ICYMI last night
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/875500153200934913
27% of voters support the DUP deal, 48% oppose it.0 -
God's morning. Happy Bloomsday all.
Does anyone care who the LD leader is?0 -
The challenge for the Tories is to hold onto almost all the 42% they got last Thursday to keep Corbyn out as John Major did in 1992 when he held almost all the 42% Thatcher got in 1987 to keep out Kinnock. Hammond would probably be best placed to do that but Boris is not badly placed, he still leads most polls of preferred next Tory leader, the only potential candidate who really is toxic is Gove who has a huge net negative ratingSouthamObserver said:
The challenge for the Tories is to find a leader to replace May who is not actively repellent to a large proportion of the voting public. Tories love Boris, for example, but others less so. He won in London, but he did it against a heavily compromised Ken Livingstone and with the 100% backing of the Evening Standard in a campaign that did not get widespread media coverage beyond that. Boris is now totally associated with Brexit and that £350 million extra a week for the NHS. Other candidates are probably even less appealing. The only one that may have a chance, IMO, is Hammond - but would the members vote for him?DavidL said:
There does seem to be evidence that the micro targeting using big data that was so effective in 2015 was a total disaster this time.SandraM said:I was interested in Carlotta Vance's link to the Conservative campaign in Brentford, especially the part that says that activists were told to concentrate on a list of 10,000 people who were presumed to be swing voters. This information turned out to be false.
Isn't this what David Herdson complained about in his now almost legendary post? He was given wrong information about where to campaign and wasted time campaigning among solid Labour voters.
But what is the chicken and what is the egg here? In 2015 the Tories had Cameron campaigning vigorously, doing his live debates with the public, looking every inch a leader in command of the agenda and on top of things. In 2017 the Tories had May, almost hiding away, reluctant to have any uncontrolled contact with the public (something all too painfully demonstrated again yesterday) and reluctant to commit herself on almost anything for consecutive days.
Campaigning, targeted or not, works when you have something you can really hope to sell and in 2017 the Tories just didn't. There was a residual fear of Corbyn that held their lead (just) but nothing positive at all.0 -
Yep. Given the experience, organisation, resources and analytic/strategic skill of CCHQ I think they could have got May to c.335 seats *without changing anything else* had they known the true lie of the land.IanB2 said:
Reading between the lines I am guessing that it wasn't the model that was wrong but the assumptions being fed into it. Canvassers were being sent to the type of swing voter who should have been likely to switch Tory, had they been heading for the expected landslide victory. Because the humans managing the data assumed that was where the campaign was at the time, as did most of us.DavidL said:
There does seem to be evidence that the micro targeting using big data that was so effective in 2015 was a total disaster this time.SandraM said:I was interested in Carlotta Vance's link to the Conservative campaign in Brentford, especially the part that says that activists were told to concentrate on a list of 10,000 people who were presumed to be swing voters. This information turned out to be false.
Isn't this what David Herdson complained about in his now almost legendary post? He was given wrong information about where to campaign and wasted time campaigning among solid Labour voters.
But what is the chicken and what is the egg here? In 2015 the Tories had Cameron campaigning vigorously, doing his live debates with the public, looking every inch a leader in command of the agenda and on top of things. In 2017 the Tories had May, almost hiding away, reluctant to have any uncontrolled contact with the public (something all too painfully demonstrated again yesterday) and reluctant to commit herself on almost anything for consecutive days.
Campaigning, targeted or not, works when you have something you can really hope to sell and in 2017 the Tories just didn't. There was a residual fear of Corbyn that held their lead (just) but nothing positive at all.
The model would have been perfectly capable of identifying the type of voter likely to swing away from the Tories in a close fought election, had anyone at CCHQ realised we were heading for such a situation and pulled out the right data.
Blaming the model for pulling out the wrong data is a human not a statistical failing!0 -
You have committed the PB sin of preaching at us rather than doing any real thinking.freetochoose said:
As with UKIP the leader of the Lib Dems is irrelevant, they are on a downward spiral.david_herdson said:At the moment, both large parties are led by people of limited political ability. The Lib Dems should go for their most effective potential leader and not worry about ticking boxes. If he or she is good enough, the votes will come.
Is Swinson good enough? Who knows. She is completely untested at that level. Lib Dem members need to be aware that they will be picking someone who could be debating against Corbyn and May (or Boris, or Davis) in three months. They may not have time to grow into the role and if they do flop, it will simply confirm the party's irrelevance in many people's minds. We saw how much damage the lack of media coverage is doing the Lib Dems; another 7% performance would see them condemned to the same media oblivion for the next five years.
Farron's comments about gays confirmed what plenty of us have said for ages, the Liberals are the most illeberal party we have, campaigning for a second referendum is further evidence.
They'll appoint another Messiah and in 6 months they'll still be going nowhere.
Of course it is true that the LibDems face a challenging situation.
Nevertheless there is clearly political space for a party with liberal views and for one unashamed to say that Brexit is likely to be a bad mistake. UKIP is declining because its 'space' is largely taken by the Tories, and because its leaders are not the right people to put together the sort of patriotic/left wing party for which it had been assumed Corbyn had left a gap (and because this gap was probably never as big as some Tories had hoped).
If we steer towards a soft Brexit and things go reasonable well, Labour is probably well placed and the LibDems will continue to struggle. If, on the other hand, it is clear that Brexit is heading towards difficult waters, Labour may find its 'yes but, no but' position increasingly challenging and dissatisfied Tories (including large numbers of the so-called resigned remainers) are likely to find the LibDems, under the right leadership, potentially attractive.0 -
Nadine Dorries.SouthamObserver said:
The challenge for the Tories is to find a leader to replace May who is not actively repellent to a large proportion of the voting public. Tories love Boris, for example, but others less so. He won in London, but he did it against a heavily compromised Ken Livingstone and with the 100% backing of the Evening Standard in a campaign that did not get widespread media coverage beyond that. Boris is now totally associated with Brexit and that £350 million extra a week for the NHS. Other candidates are probably even less appealing. The only one that may have a chance, IMO, is Hammond - but would the members vote for him?DavidL said:
There does seem to be evidence that the micro targeting using big data that was so effective in 2015 was a total disaster this time.SandraM said:I was interested in Carlotta Vance's link to the Conservative campaign in Brentford, especially the part that says that activists were told to concentrate on a list of 10,000 people who were presumed to be swing voters. This information turned out to be false.
Isn't this what David Herdson complained about in his now almost legendary post? He was given wrong information about where to campaign and wasted time campaigning among solid Labour voters.
But what is the chicken and what is the egg here? In 2015 the Tories had Cameron campaigning vigorously, doing his live debates with the public, looking every inch a leader in command of the agenda and on top of things. In 2017 the Tories had May, almost hiding away, reluctant to have any uncontrolled contact with the public (something all too painfully demonstrated again yesterday) and reluctant to commit herself on almost anything for consecutive days.
Campaigning, targeted or not, works when you have something you can really hope to sell and in 2017 the Tories just didn't. There was a residual fear of Corbyn that held their lead (just) but nothing positive at all.0 -
Gavin Barwell .... oh dear ....0
-
A bit late to worry about that.SouthamObserver said:
Nick - what are we going to do about Labour's EU positioning? John McDonnell seems to want to steamroller the party into a position that almost nobody except himself holds.NickPalmer said:
Alternative history is tricky, but localism was a factor - I stood aside for my successor because he knows the constituency backwards and I've not lived anywhere near there for all but a couple of months in the last 7 years. With a few exceptions we seemed to be successfully transferring my personal vote, and we did get a chunky swing to Labour while neighbouring Erewash and Ashfield moved to the Tories.Icarus said:
Labour surely dropped one in Broxtowe. If Nick had stood he would probably have retaken the seat. Sorry Nick but watching Soubry put the boot in on the Sunday morning politics show was very enjoyable.SquareRoot said:
but Anna won despite all this. She a rather good remain MP. That's why she was re-elected.
Anna Soubry is high-profile, which people like, and abrasive with everyone, which they don't. IMO the seat will fall next time, if the national picture is roughly what it is now. (Big if, of course.) The evidence that first-time incumbency wears off gradually is relevant.0 -
Perhaps the problem with micro targeting is that in 2015 the focus was mostly on LD seats, whereas in 2017 it was on Labour ones. The latter seats, especially urban areas are more likely to have a transient population and the data is more likely to be out of date.DavidL said:
There does seem to be evidence that the micro targeting using big data that was so effective in 2015 was a total disaster this time.SandraM said:I was interested in Carlotta Vance's link to the Conservative campaign in Brentford, especially the part that says that activists were told to concentrate on a list of 10,000 people who were presumed to be swing voters. This information turned out to be false.
Isn't this what David Herdson complained about in his now almost legendary post? He was given wrong information about where to campaign and wasted time campaigning among solid Labour voters.
But what is the chicken and what is the egg here? In 2015 the Tories had Cameron campaigning vigorously, doing his live debates with the public, looking every inch a leader in command of the agenda and on top of things. In 2017 the Tories had May, almost hiding away, reluctant to have any uncontrolled contact with the public (something all too painfully demonstrated again yesterday) and reluctant to commit herself on almost anything for consecutive days.
Campaigning, targeted or not, works when you have something you can really hope to sell and in 2017 the Tories just didn't. There was a residual fear of Corbyn that held their lead (just) but nothing positive at all.
It's also possible their model for predicting whether someone is a Lab-Con swing voter is just rubbish.0 -
Those of us who are betting on it certainly do care.TOPPING said:God's morning. Happy Bloomsday all.
Does anyone care who the LD leader is?0 -
The last poll I saw had Boris as a net drag on the Tory vote.HYUFD said:
The challenge for the Tories is to hold onto almost all the 42% they got last Thursday to keep Corbyn out as John Major did in 1992 when he held almost all the 42% Thatcher got in 1987 to keep out Kinnock. Hammond would probably be best placed to do that but Boris is not badly placed, he still leads most polls of preferred next Tory leader, the only potential candidate who really is toxic is Gove who has a huge net negative ratingSouthamObserver said:
The challenge for the Tories is to find a leader to replace May who is not actively repellent to a large proportion of the voting public. Tories love Boris, for example, but others less so. He won in London, but he did it against a heavily compromised Ken Livingstone and with the 100% backing of the Evening Standard in a campaign that did not get widespread media coverage beyond that. Boris is now totally associated with Brexit and that £350 million extra a week for the NHS. Other candidates are probably even less appealing. The only one that may have a chance, IMO, is Hammond - but would the members vote for him?DavidL said:
There does seem to be evidence that the micro targeting using big data that was so effective in 2015 was a total disaster this time.SandraM said:I was interested in Carlotta Vance's link to the Conservative campaign in Brentford, especially the part that says that activists were told to concentrate on a list of 10,000 people who were presumed to be swing voters. This information turned out to be false.
Isn't this what David Herdson complained about in his now almost legendary post? He was given wrong information about where to campaign and wasted time campaigning among solid Labour voters.
But what is the chicken and what is the egg here? In 2015 the Tories had Cameron campaigning vigorously, doing his live debates with the public, looking every inch a leader in command of the agenda and on top of things. In 2017 the Tories had May, almost hiding away, reluctant to have any uncontrolled contact with the public (something all too painfully demonstrated again yesterday) and reluctant to commit herself on almost anything for consecutive days.
Campaigning, targeted or not, works when you have something you can really hope to sell and in 2017 the Tories just didn't. There was a residual fear of Corbyn that held their lead (just) but nothing positive at all.
0 -
The Tories and SNP will both want to stop an early election and once Brexit talks get underway they will dominate all, the LDs should pick a heavyweight for the Brexit period and they can always pick another leader for the election later onTheScreamingEagles said:
No.HYUFD said:
Vince is the heavyweight the LDs need with Brexit coming up, there may not be another general election for 5 yearsTheScreamingEagles said:So long as it isn't Vince.
Swinson, Lamb, or Davey would do a great job.0 -
lolTheScreamingEagles said:ICYMI last night
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/875500153200934913
27% of voters support the DUP deal, 48% oppose it.
57% of voters didnt want a Tory government just last week0 -
Titter ....Sean_F said:
Nadine Dorries.SouthamObserver said:
The challenge for the Tories is to find a leader to replace May who is not actively repellent to a large proportion of the voting public. Tories love Boris, for example, but others less so. He won in London, but he did it against a heavily compromised Ken Livingstone and with the 100% backing of the Evening Standard in a campaign that did not get widespread media coverage beyond that. Boris is now totally associated with Brexit and that £350 million extra a week for the NHS. Other candidates are probably even less appealing. The only one that may have a chance, IMO, is Hammond - but would the members vote for him?DavidL said:
There does seem to be evidence that the micro targeting using big data that was so effective in 2015 was a total disaster this time.SandraM said:I was interested in Carlotta Vance's link to the Conservative campaign in Brentford, especially the part that says that activists were told to concentrate on a list of 10,000 people who were presumed to be swing voters. This information turned out to be false.
Isn't this what David Herdson complained about in his now almost legendary post? He was given wrong information about where to campaign and wasted time campaigning among solid Labour voters.
But what is the chicken and what is the egg here? In 2015 the Tories had Cameron campaigning vigorously, doing his live debates with the public, looking every inch a leader in command of the agenda and on top of things. In 2017 the Tories had May, almost hiding away, reluctant to have any uncontrolled contact with the public (something all too painfully demonstrated again yesterday) and reluctant to commit herself on almost anything for consecutive days.
Campaigning, targeted or not, works when you have something you can really hope to sell and in 2017 the Tories just didn't. There was a residual fear of Corbyn that held their lead (just) but nothing positive at all. ....
Peter Bone ....
0 -
What nonsense.nichomar said:
Lamb will be the establishment candidate, the establishmentcandidate always loses from Ashdown v beith right through to farron. Even hughne was the "establishment" candidate over cleggbut that time it was more an age issue and that Clegg would get his turn.Pulpstar said:If Jo runs, she wins I think.
I'm inclined more towards Lamb personally, mind.
Ashdown beating Beith was anti-establishment beating establishment.
There was no serious establishment candidate in 1999 when Kennedy won but let's say another anti-establishment win for the sake of argument.
But Menzies Cambell beating Chris Huhne, and Nick Clegg beating Chris Huhne were both establishment wins. There is no sensible way to spin it otherwise.
Additionally, it is not clear what "establishment" means at this point. Swinson is likely to be the outgoing leader's strong preference, as Lamb was in 2015. But does that make her "establishment" or him?
You're positing a rule that just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.0
