politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour’s “crutch” remains: The 2010 LD-LAB switchers are st

First!

Lucky for Eck there is no public outrage about politician's expenses right now.

The Peninsula Hotel confirmed the First Minister was charged $1,195 per night for his suite, which was the equivalent of £740 using the exchange rate at the time. This meant his total bill amounted to nearly $5,000, or £2,956, for the four-night stay.

Scottish Labour last night said the truth of Mr Salmond’s “excesses” using the public purse was emerging despite him attempting to cover up the truth.

Paul Martin, the party’s business manager, said: “Now we know why Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon are so desperate to cover up his wild spending in the US.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10755898/Revealed-The-five-star-suite-Alex-Salmond-enjoyed-at-the-taxpayers-expense.html

surbiton said:

Mike,

Just looking at the Labour percentages below, one could conclude that these returnees are actually Labour voters coming home. They are actually Labour who had voted LD. 2005 was Iraq and 2010 was general disillusionment..

2010: 29.0%
2005: 35.2%
2001: 40.7%

This may be true in terms of kinds of person as opposed to specific people, but at an individual level a lot of the individual Labour-identifying lefty-ex-LibDems will never have voted Labour. before.

philiph said:

edmundintokyo said:

philiph said:

Only 55% of 2010 Labour voters are in the Labour column now.

No, you've got it backwards.

yes, I didn't make that clear. I meant if the 2010 Labour are 55% of current Labour figure of 40% in the polls then that implies they have lost 6% of the 2010 vote.

I'm not sure I believe they have lost that much of the2010 vote in real life.

6% wouldn't be a huge number to lose over 4 years. People die, new people register to vote, people move overseas, different people move back... And there's a leadership change as well, which will replace some people who liked Gordon and dislike Ed with the converse.

Nearly a quarter of the labour support didn't vote last time ? You'd have to say it's likely a fair chunk of that will stay home again. It's surely very soft.

Mike's analysis is interesting, but I think there may be danger in focusing intently on a particular defined voter-segment.

Consider these three things - Any one of which can be defended as possible or even likely

- Labour's polling lead declines slowly over the year, broadly in line with the trend of the last year, to either a small or no lead before the election.
- Labour's vote share according to the polls declines slightly during an election campaign. (There is no Peter Mandelson this time).
- There is a modest , Kinnock-style, underperformance on the day for Labour.

You could make a case for each of these individually, or all 3. 2 of these, together, could lead to Con Most Seats.

No 2 if it happens, may not be easy to spot at the time. It will probably look like noise - wobbles up and down.
No 3 - The pollsters will be factoring in all they can to prevent it - They will want their polls to look like the outcome, and adjust accordingly. But their task is hard.

edmundintokyo said:

philiph said:

edmundintokyo said:

philiph said:

Only 55% of 2010 Labour voters are in the Labour column now.

No, you've got it backwards.

yes, I didn't make that clear. I meant if the 2010 Labour are 55% of current Labour figure of 40% in the polls then that implies they have lost 6% of the 2010 vote.

I'm not sure I believe they have lost that much of the2010 vote in real life.

6% wouldn't be a huge number to lose over 4 years. People die, new people register to vote, people move overseas, different people move back... And there's a leadership change as well, which will replace some people who liked Gordon and dislike Ed with the converse.

edmundintokyo said:

philiph said:

edmundintokyo said:

philiph said:

Only 55% of 2010 Labour voters are in the Labour column now.

No, you've got it backwards.

yes, I didn't make that clear. I meant if the 2010 Labour are 55% of current Labour figure of 40% in the polls then that implies they have lost 6% of the 2010 vote.

I'm not sure I believe they have lost that much of the2010 vote in real life.

6% wouldn't be a huge number to lose over 4 years. People die, new people register to vote, people move overseas, different people move back... And there's a leadership change as well, which will replace some people who liked Gordon and dislike Ed with the converse.

Yes and no. The chart above implies that 45% of labour votes will be from people who didn't vote for them last time. That strikes me as a high percentage of new voters.

6% of your alleged core vote is substantial, in round figures it represents a 20% loss of the 2010 voters.

Good morning all, now that I have a job I really do need to sell our house - cheap mortgage finally runs out in 2015 (Barclays might want their money back!).

Hythe House is a beautiful listed house only 50 minutes by train from Euston (from nearby Rugby) for the cost of a flat in London! Liberal Democrats preferred - the previous owner apologised for not being there to welcome us (in 1984) because it was her stint at Greenham Common - she left bottle of Champagne though!

AveryLP said:

TGOHF said:

The Telegraph moves onto the next trougher...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10755898/Revealed-The-five-star-suite-Alex-Salmond-enjoyed-at-the-taxpayers-expense.html

That Telegraph article feels implausible to me.

It is not the floor plan, views or number of rooms. It is just that I can't see Eck fitting into that bath.

That isn't a bath, it's a marble trough.

20% from DNV-other?

Is there a split of who many are Other and how many are DNV?

Surely if even 10% of Labour's support comes from DNV10 that's got to be a big risk in terms of softness of the vote? That would be 4 percentage points right off the top - enough to shift them to the low to mid 30s.

Stuart_Dickson said:

TGOHF said:

SNP cave in on trident as currency panic sets in


http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-snp-trident-for-pound-plan-1-3369902

Ho ho. We all know who is panicking, and it ain't Yes Scotland.

No, you're too utterly complacent to panic.

Charles said:

20% from DNV-other?

Is there a split of who many are Other and how many are DNV?

Surely if even 10% of Labour's support comes from DNV10 that's got to be a big risk in terms of softness of the vote? That would be 4 percentage points right off the top - enough to shift them to the low to mid 30s.

At the top end 20% of their current vote is roughly equivalent to 7% which would get their vote back down to 2010 levels.

What I am having trouble understanding is that if 20% of current Labour support falls into that category why do the different filters imposed by the different pollsters on certainty to vote not result in bigger differences in their results? Presumably the pollsters are using different techniques which have broadly the same effect at the end of the day.

The unfiltered results presumably have Labour in the low 40s to achieve their current polling.

Does Age Make a Difference to VI?

YouGov poll asked what each leader's age is from just a recent photo.

Most got Cameron right at 47 (mean result), Clegg nearly right at 46 (he is 47) but thought Farage to be older at 53 (he is just 50), Miliband younger at 42 (he is 44) and Boris 48 (he is 49).

So with this narrow age spread, will the voters go for the younger (inexperienced), older (wiser? and experienced) or those they know most about, or a plague on all their houses?

Age ranges given for each leader:

Cameron: 38-60
Clegg: 37-56
Farage:40-65
Miliband:34-51
Johnson: 38-61

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/04/09/Farage-turns-50-but-public-think-hes-older/

TGOHF said:

SNP cave in on trident as currency panic sets in


http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-snp-trident-for-pound-plan-1-3369902

You boys are in a panic today , Scotsman is not best for the truth. Grovelling apology to Panelbase to save them being sued.
pic.twitter.com/8LsL8qn3mc

Thanks OGH,

If something is worth saying once, it's worth saying 100 times....

A bit like ed is crap.

malcolmg said:

TGOHF said:

AveryLP said:

TGOHF said:

The Telegraph moves onto the next trougher...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10755898/Revealed-The-five-star-suite-Alex-Salmond-enjoyed-at-the-taxpayers-expense.html

That Telegraph article feels implausible to me.

It is not the floor plan, views or number of rooms. It is just that I can't see Eck fitting into that bath.

And no side bath entry for Mrs S.

I see now that the unionists have lost the argument and stare defeat in the face , they revert to their normal tactics of insults , slurs and libels on the person.

no comment needed, just worth repeating that one.

malcolmg said:

JosiasJessop said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

TGOHF said:

SNP cave in on trident as currency panic sets in


http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-snp-trident-for-pound-plan-1-3369902

Ho ho. We all know who is panicking, and it ain't Yes Scotland.

No, you're too utterly complacent to panic.

Do you ever think before you post

All the time. (*) May I suggest that you try doing the same?

(*) Although I haven't had a drink since Friday, so the amount of blood reaching my head is reaching dangerous levels...

JosiasJessop said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

TGOHF said:

SNP cave in on trident as currency panic sets in


http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-snp-trident-for-pound-plan-1-3369902

Ho ho. We all know who is panicking, and it ain't Yes Scotland.

No, you're too utterly complacent to panic.

Do you ever think before you post

TGOHF said:

malcolmg said:

TGOHF said:

AveryLP said:

TGOHF said:

The Telegraph moves onto the next trougher...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10755898/Revealed-The-five-star-suite-Alex-Salmond-enjoyed-at-the-taxpayers-expense.html

That Telegraph article feels implausible to me.

It is not the floor plan, views or number of rooms. It is just that I can't see Eck fitting into that bath.

And no side bath entry for Mrs S.

I see now that the unionists have lost the argument and stare defeat in the face , they revert to their normal tactics of insults , slurs and libels on the person.

Says the bigot calling others " Knuckledraggers "

If you will act like one, why not raise the tone of your debate and give us a few positives for the union, instead you choose to post libels regarding Mr Salmond. YES at least have a positive position to put to people, it may not happen 100% but at least is a vision of what can be done.
NO have said that Scotland is 100% useless, broken and could never ever do anything, how do they expect to win with that as their slogan. 100% of all papers produced by NO/Westminster claim Scotland is crap, do you think that is encouraging people to stay in the union. What great brains are thinking up these wonderful ideas.

DavidL said:

There is something slightly odd about those hotel prices. Even in Dundee, which is a good step away from Gleneagles, hotel rates are nearly doubling while the Ryder Cup is on.

"Normal" rates really should not be much of a guide.

But as I have said before laughing at or mocking Salmond is not even relevant to winning the referendum vote. Energy being spent on this is energy wasted by a No campaign that needs to get out and sell the Union in a positive way.

David, they have shown what they have to sell , slurs, insults and lies, they have no winning campaign. They are fixated on Alex Salmond , meanwhile thousands upon thousands of YES people are focused on winning the vote. The amount of time spent on a hotel bill from years ago beggars belief, these people must be really stupid. The public do not care about £3K and expect their First Minister to stay in a decent hotel.

Monksfield said:

Student loans: what a ticking bomb this is. The majority of ordinary middle and working class graduates are going to be enslaved by debt for most of their working lives. God knows how they will be able to afford to have families etc.

Repayments look very manageable:

"You only make repayments when your income is over £21,000 a year. … Each month you pay back 9% of any income over £21,000."

https://www.gov.uk/student-finance/repayments

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Welcome back to the Diplomacy game, Mr. Foxinsox.

Mr. Flashman (deceased), he didn't send out voting ballots with the preferred candidate's face on them, did he?

Mr. G, just joined the thread so this is neither against nor for you, or the specific unionists to whom you refer, but I fear the unpleasantness expressed here may well be reflected more widely. That's one of the reasons why I think a potential split will be acrimonious rather than amiable, sadly.

MD, as they see defeat coming the unionists are getting more and more desperate, we will see more from them before we are finished. Most people are sensible but there will be a minority stirring it and trying to pin it on YES people. Labour will fight tooth and nail to keep their snouts in the trough.

Looking at polls day by day or even month by month is rarely fruitful. This belatedly has dawned on Polling Observatory, which after months of saying that month on month there had been essentially no change yesterday acknowledged:

"It seems our speculation about a possible “voteless recovery” last month may have been premature...

The Conservatives’ renewed strength in the polls may owe something to a well-received budget from George Osborne, but when we take a longer view it becomes apparent that this latest narrowing is in fact the a continuation of a very gradual trend that has been proceeding, in stop-start fashion, for more than a year – as our excellent colleague Anthony Wells noted in his year-end review. In the early months of last year, Labour leads over the Conservatives were in double digits. This fell to under six points in the summer, before rebounding slightly in the autumn. Since November 2013, though, the narrowing has continued, and the lead has fallen from just under seven points to just over three.

Regular readers of this blog will know that we are cautious about identifying trends in what is often stable opinion, and also wary of using figures on polling leads, which are subject to more volatility and random variation. The underlying pattern here is however clear – the gap between the top two parties is steadily narrowing. Our main chart suggests this is the product both of rising Conservative support and falling Labour support, and also suggests that this is happening despite no decline in support for UKIP, who many argue are the main cause of recent Conservative weakness".

http://nottspolitics.org/2014/04/09/polling-observatory-35-march-2014-politics-fast-and-slow

Glaciers melt slowly.

FattyBolger said:

OT but amused to see a pint pot full of pennies on the bar of my village local in Deep England last week. It was labelled "Help yourself to your tax cut". Price of pint unchanged.

Cute. And clever business.

I suspect most people will be slightly embarrassed to take the money, so the pub owner will pocket the tax cut (edit: but without appearing greedy to his customers)

It's like when WH Smith first launched their honesty boxes for newspaper - they found that their takings went up substantially because people would rather pay £1 (or whatever) than queue to get 20p in change.

Latest Survation is

47% NO 37% YES or 56/44 if dk's excluded

Last poll was 48/39

https://twitter.com/search?q=#indyref&src=hash

Let's take the EU as a template for what No has to do.

They need to get beyond the lies told by Salmond, the non-existent legal advice, the uncertainty of whether and what terms Scotland would be able to re-negotiate membership and instead focus on how the EU treats small countries in its determinations.

Suppose in 10 years time an independent Scotland is a signed up member of the EU on whatever terms it has to take. There is a new policy on agriculture that will have a material effect on Scotland. What chance has Scotland got of its views being taken into account (a) as part of the second largest economy and second largest net contributor to the EU budget and (b) as a country of 5m people?

There are endless examples of how the interests of small countries are simply ignored when the big boys carve the cake. At the moment we are one of the big boys. Why would we want to give that up? Better together.

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

Monksfield said:

Student loans: what a ticking bomb this is. The majority of ordinary middle and working class graduates are going to be enslaved by debt for most of their working lives. God knows how they will be able to afford to have families etc.

Sorry, that's BS.

3x £9,000 = 27,000

That's slightly more than 1x the national average wage. Most people who want mortgages borrow up to 5x (some borrow more, but that's not usually wise).

If they can only borrow a smaller amount to buy a house, then - over time - house prices will moderate to compensate*. Which would be a good thing.

* excluding P/SPL of course because the sources of demand are different

Mr Charles, the Student loan fiasco is a ticking time bomb the size of the NHS computer fiasco and yet consrvatives seem hugely complacent on this.

It's a vote killer and Willetts should be sacked. The man's an idiot.

I don't know the details of exactly how the system works, so I'll talk to principals.

Graduates benefit most from higher education, in terms of increased life opportunities and/or earning potential. It is therefore morally right that they should pay for that education.

There are, of course, some subjects - principally STEM - where the government may decide that the national interest is to subsidise individuals selecting these degrees and I wouldn't have an issue with that. Similarly, there is a strong national interest in making the system means blind so that everyone can achieve their individual full potential.

Within those constraints, I don't care precisely how the system is structured, although they way they have done it seems rather complex.

Also from the Polling Observatory piece linked to below, some important observations about how public opinion moves:

"Those who make a habit of following political stories on newspaper front pages – or via highly charged political Twitter feeds easily forget that most voters are paying little to no attention to the events which are filling their days. Even major political set-pieces like the budget, Prime Minister’s Questions, or the Clegg-Farage debates barely register with many voters. Indeed, most of the population are at work during PMQs, unable to tune in to a television or a politics live blog, while the vast majority had much more interest in the latest goings on in Albert Square or Coronation Street than the duelling rhetoric of Nigel and Nick. Even economic news, which is of more immediate interest to many voters, tends to trickle down as a gradual process of diffusion, either in a general sense among the public that things are getting better or worse for the country or more directly as people feel better about the pounds in their pocket, and more eager to spend them. In practice, the fallout from political events is usually slow and sluggish, as it takes a long time for voters to notice and respond to things which are a long way from their everyday concerns.

Shifts in public opinion therefore tend to take place slowly, over long periods of time (with rare, but important, exceptions such as the Cameron veto and the “omnishambles” budget). Political commentators, however, exist entirely in the “high frequency politics” world, and interpret every day’s and week’s events in terms set by this world, projecting them onto the wider public, whose indifference is so far from their own everyday experience that it is hard for them to keep it in mind. Every minor event is expected to produce a sharp public reaction and every momentary twitch in the pulse of public opinion is attributed to the stories attracting Westminster buzz...

It is important to bear in mind that the important, and lasting, changes in public opinion take place gradually, often too slowly to perceive without the benefit of months of data, because as election fever takes hold in the Westminster village, the focus on “fast politics” will become ever more intense. There will be many moments and many stories that are presented to us as ‘game-changers’ or turning points. In most cases they will be nothing of the sort, while the real action takes place away from the noisy slapstick comedy playing out on the news channels. Millions of voters will begin settling on their choices, nudged this way and that by forces which are, to some extent, predictable. The regularity of the tidal forces which move the “slow politics” of voters’ shifting opinions allow us to make modestly informed forecasts about the direction public opinion will take next, based on the lessons of history."

No further comment required. I won't even highlight the bit about the Clegg-Farage debate.

BobaFett said:

JosiasJessop said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

TGOHF said:

SNP cave in on trident as currency panic sets in


http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-snp-trident-for-pound-plan-1-3369902

Ho ho. We all know who is panicking, and it ain't Yes Scotland.

No, you're too utterly complacent to panic.

If you think the Nats are complacent you are hopelessly, scarily wrong. They are the most determined electoral fighting force on these islands.

I think you are misplacing "determined" for noisy and blustering.

Either way this mornings poll indicates that again the majority of Scots are not swayed. NO will win come 18th September.

And to paraphrase .... it's suddenly gone quiet over there ....

Monksfield said:

Student loans: what a ticking bomb this is. The majority of ordinary middle and working class graduates are going to be enslaved by debt for most of their working lives. God knows how they will be able to afford to have families etc.

Perhaps you should reflect on why "ordinary middle and working class graduates are going to be enslaved by debt for most of their working lives".

The answer is very simple.

In 2000-1, the UK government did not need to borrow a penny to finance its annual expenditure. More than that, the central government net financing requirement showed a surplus of £14.3 billion for the year.

Move forward ten years to 2009-10 and the annual financing requirement of central government was £218.3 billion.

And for those who prefer to measure accrued debt as a ratio of GDP rather than annual cash borrowing:

- in 2000-01 Public Sector Net Debt was 30.1% of GDP.
- in 2009-10 Public Sector Net Debt was 151.7% of GDP.

Or in pounds, at the end of March 2010, UK Public Sector Net Debt was £2,228,308,000,000 or 2.2 Trillion. And this figure doesn't include a further £200 billion of Quantitative Easing undertaken by the Bank of England and guaranteed by the taxpayer.

From boom to bust in under a decade under Gordon and Labour.

Now who do you think should be blamed for condemning our children and grandchildren to a lifetime of 'debt enslavery'?

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

Monksfield said:

Student loans: what a ticking bomb this is. The majority of ordinary middle and working class graduates are going to be enslaved by debt for most of their working lives. God knows how they will be able to afford to have families etc.

Sorry, that's BS.

3x £9,000 = 27,000

That's slightly more than 1x the national average wage. Most people who want mortgages borrow up to 5x (some borrow more, but that's not usually wise).

If they can only borrow a smaller amount to buy a house, then - over time - house prices will moderate to compensate*. Which would be a good thing.

* excluding P/SPL of course because the sources of demand are different

Mr Charles, the Student loan fiasco is a ticking time bomb the size of the NHS computer fiasco and yet consrvatives seem hugely complacent on this.

It's a vote killer and Willetts should be sacked. The man's an idiot.

It is a fiasco but it was not Willetts' fault, as I understand it.

One problem was the Treasury's aversion to anything with the word "tax" in it, as a graduate tax would not have the problem of unemployed or low-paid graduates having a huge debt hanging over them (even if they'd not in fact need to repay it).

Another is Nick Clegg's immediate capitulation (which will cost the LibDems dear, imo) which meant the policy was not as closely examined as one might have hoped.

The irony is that income-contingent loans might actually be a good solution to other problems, such as support for new enterprises, or development in deprived regions.

BobaFett said:

JackW said:

BobaFett said:

JosiasJessop said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

TGOHF said:

SNP cave in on trident as currency panic sets in


http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-snp-trident-for-pound-plan-1-3369902

Ho ho. We all know who is panicking, and it ain't Yes Scotland.

No, you're too utterly complacent to panic.

If you think the Nats are complacent you are hopelessly, scarily wrong. They are the most determined electoral fighting force on these islands.

I think you are misplacing "determined" for noisy and blustering.

Either way this mornings poll indicates that again the majority of Scots are not swayed. NO will win come 18th September.

And to paraphrase .... it's suddenly gone quiet over there ....

It's not wise to underestimate your opponent.

Or to overestimate them in the light of evidence.

Charles said:

Monksfield said:

Student loans: what a ticking bomb this is. The majority of ordinary middle and working class graduates are going to be enslaved by debt for most of their working lives. God knows how they will be able to afford to have families etc.

Sorry, that's BS.

3x £9,000 = 27,000

That's slightly more than 1x the national average wage. Most people who want mortgages borrow up to 5x (some borrow more, but that's not usually wise).

If they can only borrow a smaller amount to buy a house, then - over time - house prices will moderate to compensate*. Which would be a good thing.

* excluding P/SPL of course because the sources of demand are different

It's all cumulative though isn't it? You have a vicious cocktail of loans, high asset prices - rentals or mortgages and ongoing pressure on ordinary people's wages. This is going to drag down people's ability to spend in the future as their disposable income is limited. And will hurt the real economy as a result. You say house prices may eventually diminish, but at the moment virtually every pillar of Government policy is specifically designed to prevent this desirable outcome from happening. If on the other hand, a high proportion of loans will never be paid off, then a load of debt will eventually need to be written away, and it will be the taxpayer who does it.

Conversely, I now try to avoid shopping in WH Smiths whenever possible because they so aggressively seek to make you use the self-service tills, which I detest because they almost always go wrong for me. This is no doubt a reflection on my technological savvy, but shops should be dealing with customers as they are, not as they would wish them to be.

Mr. Fett, an understandable error but I just had a new OS installed on an old one.

I just need to sell more books (my expenses, as it were, are very low). I'm hoping 1-4 short stories I'll have out in the next year or so will help to function as advertisements to attract people to my full-size books. There's also a small chance the second Sir Edric comedy will be bundled with the first as a traditionally published book, which would be splendid.

Edited extra bit: incidentally, thanks for your advice and the sentiment behind it.

antifrank said:

Someone has to pay for higher education. At a time when fewer than half the population goes into higher education, it seems appropriate that the cost should be borne at least in part by those that benefit most from that higher education: the students. If they don't in fact benefit particularly from their higher education, perhaps they and we should rethink whether they should be doing it at all in the first place.

But those words could just as easily be a defence of the old student grant system: if graduates earn more, they'll pay more tax. Or they could defend a graduate tax, which is arguably what the current government should have introduced.

But Michael Gove, I think, might argue that we all benefit from a better educated and enlightened populace -- the traditional defence of a liberal arts education.

BobaFett said:

antifrank said:

Conversely, I now try to avoid shopping in WH Smiths whenever possible because they so aggressively seek to make you use the self-service tills, which I detest because they almost always go wrong for me. This is no doubt a reflection on my technological savvy, but shops should be dealing with customers as they are, not as they would wish them to be.

Hate the things - just a penny pinching way to save on staff costs.

I agree with that. But while I avoid them in supermarkets, I always use them in libraries, because there I want to cut costs.

Icarus said:

JackW said:

@Icarus

Hope you sell the little cottage soon .... but where do the staff live presently ?

I have no idea where or how the staff manage, Lutterworth does have a Morrison's though - you can see it from the Waitrose car park.

I like Morrisons, keeps the riff raff out of my local Waitrose.

CarlottaVance said:

So 2010 Labour voters who lent their vote to the LibDems will take it back? Whodathunkit? I guess the real question is whether the Miliband proposition will be compelling enough to get them to the poll on the day. And whether we have a Farageasm to Hoover up more non-voting in 2010 Labour supporters.....

I've said for some time that the issue isn't whether the Libdem switchers will vote - they are with the possible exception of UKIP the most politically-motivated part of the electorate. They voted LibDem before even though they knew they wouldn't win, and they recoiled strongly from the coalition.

The more open question is turnout among traditional "yeah, I suppose so" Labour and Tory voters. That's why GOTV will be crucial (and incidentally why I'm spending 18 months of my life canvassing nearly every weekend - knowing who to get out on polling day is absolutely vital).