Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tories deficit in latest ComRes phone poll is down to s

SystemSystem Posts: 12,615
edited April 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tories deficit in latest ComRes phone poll is down to six percent

ComRes phone poll just out has the Tories closing the gap. CON 32%(+4), LAB 38%(nc), LD 9%(-3), UKIP 13(-1).

Read the full story here


Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,168
    Something for everyone.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,168
    edited April 2013
    So the most three recent phone polls have Labour with reducing leads of approx 6.6%

    and

    So this ComRes fieldwork was Friday to Sunday, during when the onslaught on UKIP happened.

    Tories +4

    UKIP -1

    Interesting.

    Huzzah for Grant Shapps?
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    FPT @tim

    How are you getting on with house price inflation in Middlesbrough?

    Here is a table to give you some clues: 
    Region                Monthly change   Annual change   Avg. price
                         (since Feb 2013) (since Mar 2012) (Mar 2013)

    London                      2.5%           9.6%          £374,568
    Yorkshire & The Humber      1.1%          -0.8%          £117,192
    East                        1.0%           1.1%          £174,753
    West Midlands               1.0%           0.4%          £130,276
    East Midlands               0.3%          -0.7%          £122,795
    South East                 -0.3%           1.2%          £208,479
    South West                 -0.5%           0.0%          £170,110
    Wales                      -0.9%           1.2%          £116,174
    North East                 -1.8%          -5.5%          £ 97,033
    North West                 -2.5%          -4.9%          £106,537

    Total England & Wales       0.1%           0.9%          £161,793
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    So the most three recent phone polls have Labour with reducing leads of approx 6.6%

    and

    So this ComRes fieldwork was Friday to Sunday, during when the onslaught on UKIP happened.

    Tories +4

    UKIP -1

    Interesting.

    Huzzah for Grant Shapps?

    Grant Shapps is much feared by his rivals in Brewers Green, TSE.

    So your credit is probably well placed.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,435
    ComRes/The Sunil:

    Governing Coalition: 41%
    Team Ed: 38%
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited April 2013
    Luckily from Labour's point of view, they've got a clear strategy for reversing this narrowing of the lead, and they've begun to implement it in the last couple of days: putting Ed Miliband on the radio and TV more.
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    We have elections on Thursday which will tell us far more than any poll.
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    The question is can UKIP get to a 10% national projection from the results. At the moment the Tories just don't have a response to them.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    @IOS

    Is Cornwall counting on Thursday night or on Friday? It's the result I am most looking forward to ;)
  • JamesKellyJamesKelly Posts: 1,348
    YouGov/Kelly Kronikle :

    Labour/UKIP 53%
    Tory-led coalition 41%
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    If the Libs can make gains with calamity clegg then my point is proved.
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    SeanT

    If UKIP score 10% and the Libs 16% at the next general election they may very well make gains at the Tories expense.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited April 2013
    This looks like an interesting read:
    "Britain is nicer than it used to be. No, I'm serious. Even checkout staff are more polite":
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/seanthomas/
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,743
    In our area LibDem non-councillor activists seem almost extinct but the sitting LibDem councillors are throwing everything into personal efforts - numerous sightings of lone councillors delivering to entire wards and canvassing single-handedly. They are generally well-liked and holding their ground quite well. Tory activists seem very rare too, and in their case the councillors are usually not quite as fanatical.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    SeanT said:

    IOS said:

    SeanT

    If UKIP score 10% and the Libs 16% at the next general election they may very well make gains at the Tories expense.

    No, I very much doubt this. I reckon UKIP will fade at the next GE, but still make 5-10%. And they will take as many votes from the LDs, Labour and trad abstainers as they do from the Tories.

    Meanwhile the Tories will soak up centrists and floaters - i.e. potential Libs who are terrified of PM Miliband and Chancellor Balls.

    The Libs are gonna get hammered in 2015, unless they replace Clegg beforehand, which is extremely unlikely.

    My present bet, FWIW, is a Labour plurality - Miliband with NOM. What happens then is anyone's guess.
    Why would UKIP fade?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited April 2013
    It's ironic how Farage is today's version of the Ken Clarke of yesteryear. In the 1990s, for example, if you talked about a politician who liked to have a pint in the pub and a smoke most people would have named Ken. Now it's Farage.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    anotherDave said:


    Why would UKIP fade?

    Partly because the fad will have moved on by then. Partly because the election will be Labour V Tory (except in those areas where Lib Dems and others are in contention). Partly because they are not well positioned anywhere currently and under FPTP that hurts. I remain pretty confident in my bet with Sam that they will get less than 10%.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Neil said:

    anotherDave said:


    Why would UKIP fade?

    Partly because the fad will have moved on by then. Partly because the election will be Labour V Tory (except in those areas where Lib Dems and others are in contention). Partly because they are not well positioned anywhere currently and under FPTP that hurts. I remain pretty confident in my bet with Sam that they will get less than 10%.
    The decline of the Labour/Tory share of the vote is a long term trend. I don't think the next election will just be Lab vs Con. UKIP will be big enough to get national attention, and they'll be the only change option.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    I'd hesitate to describe UKIP as right-wing. Most of their supporters probably resent wealthy people, for example, which is more of a left-wing trait.
  • smithersjones2013smithersjones2013 Posts: 740
    @AndyJS

    Most of their supporters probably resent wealthy people, for example, which is more of a left-wing trait.

    And your evidence for this is?
  • JamesKellyJamesKelly Posts: 1,348
    "Most of their supporters probably resent wealthy people, for example, which is more of a left-wing trait."

    In relation to wealth, the left/right dividing line is intervention to increase equality. Are UKIP in favour of redistribution of wealth?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited April 2013
    The LD councillors elected in the Broxtowe council area in 2009 were:

    Steve Carr: (Beeston North)
    Stan Heptinstall: (Bramcote and Stapleford)
    Brian Wombwell: (Bramcote and Stapleford)
    Keith Longdon: (Eastwood)
    Ken Rigby: (Kimberley & Trowell)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nottinghamshire_County_Council_election,_2009#Broxtowe_Borough

    They're all standing again apart from Brian Wombwell:

    https://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/thecouncil/democracy/elections/election2013/candidates/broxtowe/
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    SeanT said:

    anotherDave said:

    SeanT said:

    IOS said:

    SeanT

    If UKIP score 10% and the Libs 16% at the next general election they may very well make gains at the Tories expense.

    No, I very much doubt this. I reckon UKIP will fade at the next GE, but still make 5-10%. And they will take as many votes from the LDs, Labour and trad abstainers as they do from the Tories.

    Meanwhile the Tories will soak up centrists and floaters - i.e. potential Libs who are terrified of PM Miliband and Chancellor Balls.

    The Libs are gonna get hammered in 2015, unless they replace Clegg beforehand, which is extremely unlikely.

    My present bet, FWIW, is a Labour plurality - Miliband with NOM. What happens then is anyone's guess.
    Why would UKIP fade?
    Because UKIP are a protest vote, and because their policies are fairly incoherent, chaotic and unconvincing: note how Farage single-handedly changed their entire tax policy from "a flat tax" to "low taxes" in the course of a 30 second intervention on QT last week.

    The more UKIP start to look a proper party of government, the more people will scrutinise their manifesto and their candidates, and have second thoughts, then decide not to make them a party of govermment. It's a paradox that, presumably, applies to all new parties.

    If UKIP can sort this out - and I am sure Farage is aware of the problem - they have a bright future. There is a vast constituency of rightwing Brits whose views are almost entirely unrepresented in parliament.

    But they need to get a bit more professional, and rely a bit less on the charm and bonhomie of Farage. This will take time.

    5-10% at the next GE, is my guess.
    I don't think any of that matters. Turnout has dropped dramatically in the past few elections. That's a lot of people unhappy with the status quo, and UKIP are the first alternative that look viable.

    http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,809
    UKIP isn't viable because they can't win.

    Cameron will get many of the Con defectors to UKIP back by launching the "Labour Tax Bombshell".

    That isn't factored into any current polling but mark my words it will be the centrepiece of the Conservative campaign and it's going to frighten people big time.

    For starters any retired homeowner is going to be told that if Con doesn't win then they won't be able to leave their home to their children - because of LD plan to replace IHT with Beneficiaries tax, ie tax all inheritance as income. That means a couple with say a £400k house instead of leaving it tax free to their kids the kids will get a tax bill of approaching £200k.

    That will frighten people big time. We're not taking about a few quid here or there - we're talking collosal sums - life changing amounts of money. People who've worked hard all their lives will be absolutely horrified at Clegg / Miliband taking their homes and it will scare people back.

  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    anotherDave said:

    SeanT said:

    anotherDave said:

    SeanT said:

    IOS said:

    SeanT

    If UKIP score 10% and the Libs 16% at the next general election they may very well make gains at the Tories expense.

    No, I very much doubt this. I reckon UKIP will fade at the next GE, but still make 5-10%. And they will take as many votes from the LDs, Labour and trad abstainers as they do from the Tories.

    Meanwhile the Tories will soak up centrists and floaters - i.e. potential Libs who are terrified of PM Miliband and Chancellor Balls.

    The Libs are gonna get hammered in 2015, unless they replace Clegg beforehand, which is extremely unlikely.

    My present bet, FWIW, is a Labour plurality - Miliband with NOM. What happens then is anyone's guess.
    Why would UKIP fade?
    Because UKIP are a protest vote, and because their policies are fairly incoherent, chaotic and unconvincing: note how Farage single-handedly changed their entire tax policy from "a flat tax" to "low taxes" in the course of a 30 second intervention on QT last week.

    The more UKIP start to look a proper party of government, the more people will scrutinise their manifesto and their candidates, and have second thoughts, then decide not to make them a party of govermment. It's a paradox that, presumably, applies to all new parties.

    If UKIP can sort this out - and I am sure Farage is aware of the problem - they have a bright future. There is a vast constituency of rightwing Brits whose views are almost entirely unrepresented in parliament.

    But they need to get a bit more professional, and rely a bit less on the charm and bonhomie of Farage. This will take time.

    5-10% at the next GE, is my guess.
    I don't think any of that matters. Turnout has dropped dramatically in the past few elections. That's a lot of people unhappy with the status quo, and UKIP are the first alternative that look viable.

    http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm
    Mm, I think you're vastly over-simplifying the reasons behind turnout.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,435
    The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that Ed, for lack of a better word, is good. Ed is right, Ed works. Ed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Ed, in all of his forms; Ed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And Ed, you mark my words, will not only save the Labour Party, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the UK. Thank you very much.
  • WitanWitan Posts: 26
    The most interesting part of this poll is how many respondents currently voting for another party think the Tories should be given a chance to finish the job in 2015. That can be built on as can the Ed Fear Factor which will do serious damage to Labour and further benefit Cameron.

    There may also be a LibDem revival at the expense of Labour. Will UKIP take some of those Labour votes as they seem to be doing at the moment?

    Overall it looks quite promising.
  • JamesKellyJamesKelly Posts: 1,348
    As a father, I think you're right, Sunil.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    Not past your bedtime Sunil? I found a present for you, not sure if you've seen this one before.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=QQV3UHsZ_u4
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    AndyJS said:

    I'd hesitate to describe UKIP as right-wing. Most of their supporters probably resent wealthy people, for example, which is more of a left-wing trait.

    No, there's a difference between resenting success and resenting people benefitting from a rigged system.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    MikeL said:

    UKIP isn't viable because they can't win.

    Cameron will get many of the Con defectors to UKIP back by launching the "Labour Tax Bombshell".

    That isn't factored into any current polling but mark my words it will be the centrepiece of the Conservative campaign and it's going to frighten people big time.

    For starters any retired homeowner is going to be told that if Con doesn't win then they won't be able to leave their home to their children - because of LD plan to replace IHT with Beneficiaries tax, ie tax all inheritance as income. That means a couple with say a £400k house instead of leaving it tax free to their kids the kids will get a tax bill of approaching £200k.

    That will frighten people big time. We're not taking about a few quid here or there - we're talking collosal sums - life changing amounts of money. People who've worked hard all their lives will be absolutely horrified at Clegg / Miliband taking their homes and it will scare people back.

    The Tories have shot their tax credentials. The number one two three priority for this government was the budget deficit. It was going to be addressed by an 80:20 mix of cuts and tax rises. Come 2015 the result will be huge deficit, huge debt, no cuts in government spending, increased taxation.

    And I think UKIP will look like winners. This Thursday will (hopefully) be a start, but they're odds-on to win the 2014 EU Parliament elections, the local elections that year are for thousands of seats, which I'm assuming UKIP will be trying to contest.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2010

    What would stop UKIP's momentum between May 2014 and May 2015?
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    corporeal said:

    anotherDave said:

    SeanT said:

    anotherDave said:

    SeanT said:

    IOS said:

    SeanT

    If UKIP score 10% and the Libs 16% at the next general election they may very well make gains at the Tories expense.

    No, I very much doubt this. I reckon UKIP will fade at the next GE, but still make 5-10%. And they will take as many votes from the LDs, Labour and trad abstainers as they do from the Tories.

    Meanwhile the Tories will soak up centrists and floaters - i.e. potential Libs who are terrified of PM Miliband and Chancellor Balls.

    The Libs are gonna get hammered in 2015, unless they replace Clegg beforehand, which is extremely unlikely.

    My present bet, FWIW, is a Labour plurality - Miliband with NOM. What happens then is anyone's guess.
    Why would UKIP fade?
    Because UKIP are a protest vote, and because their policies are fairly incoherent, chaotic and unconvincing: note how Farage single-handedly changed their entire tax policy from "a flat tax" to "low taxes" in the course of a 30 second intervention on QT last week.

    The more UKIP start to look a proper party of government, the more people will scrutinise their manifesto and their candidates, and have second thoughts, then decide not to make them a party of govermment. It's a paradox that, presumably, applies to all new parties.

    If UKIP can sort this out - and I am sure Farage is aware of the problem - they have a bright future. There is a vast constituency of rightwing Brits whose views are almost entirely unrepresented in parliament.

    But they need to get a bit more professional, and rely a bit less on the charm and bonhomie of Farage. This will take time.

    5-10% at the next GE, is my guess.
    I don't think any of that matters. Turnout has dropped dramatically in the past few elections. That's a lot of people unhappy with the status quo, and UKIP are the first alternative that look viable.

    http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm
    Mm, I think you're vastly over-simplifying the reasons behind turnout.
    It's a dramatic fall, not a gradual one.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    anotherDave said:

    they're odds-on to win the 2014 EU Parliament elections

    No, they're not, Labour are strong odds-on favourites (with Paddy Power anyway).
    anotherDave said:


    What would stop UKIP's momentum between May 2014 and May 2015?

    The same factors that slowed their momentum between June 2009 and May 2010? (Outlined below.)
  • smithersjones2013smithersjones2013 Posts: 740
    MikeL

    UKIP isn't viable because they can't win.

    Nor could the Libdems but that didn't stop Nick Clegg winning over 6.8 million votes (1 million more than Charles Kennedy). For that matter chances are the Tories can't win in 2015 either. Should we all vote Labour?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    It'll be funny if UKIP either do much worse or better than most people are expecting on Thursday.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Neil said:

    anotherDave said:

    they're odds-on to win the 2014 EU Parliament elections

    No, they're not, Labour are strong odds-on favourites (with Paddy Power anyway).
    anotherDave said:


    What would stop UKIP's momentum between May 2014 and May 2015?

    The same factors that slowed their momentum between June 2009 and May 2010? (Outlined below.)
    1. I don't think the election will be perceived as Lab vs Con.
    2. By 2015 I think UKIP will have a track record of winning FPTP local elections, possibly also a Westminster by-election. They'll look OK.

  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    AndyJS said:

    It'll be funny if UKIP either do much worse or better than most people are expecting on Thursday.

    Better would best. It might panic the parliamentary Conservative Party and give us leadership contest! :-)

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    anotherDave said:

    2. By 2015 I think UKIP will have a track record of winning FPTP local elections

    It's a long slog between winning locally and converting that to Westminster success. By next week UKIP will almost certainly still have fewer local council seats than the Greens (even if they do better than their wildest dreams) and wont have anything like the concentration the Greens enjoy in Brighton Pavilion (which took years of effort to convert into one seat in Westminster).

    This is Farage's great failing - they're simply not well positioned to capitalise on their surge in support in Westminster elections. They might be about to fix that but it's difficult to see much return from improved organisation before the GE in 2020.
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    anotherDave said:

    corporeal said:

    anotherDave said:

    SeanT said:

    anotherDave said:

    SeanT said:

    IOS said:

    SeanT

    If UKIP score 10% and the Libs 16% at the next general election they may very well make gains at the Tories expense.

    No, I very much doubt this. I reckon UKIP will fade at the next GE, but still make 5-10%. And they will take as many votes from the LDs, Labour and trad abstainers as they do from the Tories.

    Meanwhile the Tories will soak up centrists and floaters - i.e. potential Libs who are terrified of PM Miliband and Chancellor Balls.

    The Libs are gonna get hammered in 2015, unless they replace Clegg beforehand, which is extremely unlikely.

    My present bet, FWIW, is a Labour plurality - Miliband with NOM. What happens then is anyone's guess.
    Why would UKIP fade?
    Because UKIP are a protest vote, and because their policies are fairly incoherent, chaotic and unconvincing: note how Farage single-handedly changed their entire tax policy from "a flat tax" to "low taxes" in the course of a 30 second intervention on QT last week.

    The more UKIP start to look a proper party of government, the more people will scrutinise their manifesto and their candidates, and have second thoughts, then decide not to make them a party of govermment. It's a paradox that, presumably, applies to all new parties.

    If UKIP can sort this out - and I am sure Farage is aware of the problem - they have a bright future. There is a vast constituency of rightwing Brits whose views are almost entirely unrepresented in parliament.

    But they need to get a bit more professional, and rely a bit less on the charm and bonhomie of Farage. This will take time.

    5-10% at the next GE, is my guess.
    I don't think any of that matters. Turnout has dropped dramatically in the past few elections. That's a lot of people unhappy with the status quo, and UKIP are the first alternative that look viable.

    http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm
    Mm, I think you're vastly over-simplifying the reasons behind turnout.
    It's a dramatic fall, not a gradual one.
    Well it was (and the predictability of the 2001 election would certainly have been a factor), it's been a gradual rise since, whether it will continue back to the long term norms or flatline somewhere below that is an open question.

    "Not happy with the status quo" isn't really a good explanation tbh.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Why is Grayling proposing tougher prison conditions for men, but not women? Sounds like sexism to me.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    Neil said:


    The same factors that slowed their momentum between June 2009 and May 2010? (Outlined below.)

    The big difference is that we were at the tail end of a Labour government then. People were willing to vote for change. 'A pox on all your houses' was much less of a factor than it will be next time.
  • smithersjones2013smithersjones2013 Posts: 740
    @Neil

    The same factors that slowed their momentum between June 2009 and May 2010? (Outlined below.)

    There is a big difference between 2010 and now

    1) The Libdems were the obvious party of protest in 2010 now they are part of the unpopular government

    2) In 2010 people hadn't experienced the flavour of Cameron's Government and the Conservatives were supported by most on the right who wanted to get rid of Brown. This time round many people whilst unable to stomach Labour will want to get rid of Cameron and avoid another debilitating coalition.

    3) Many people have yet to forgive Labour their sins in Government now whereas the Tories had been out of power so long that they had a clean slate from that perspective. The main opposition is not necessarily going to be the recipient of the get the government out vote.

    4) The economic crisis will be five years older and voters will be five years more weary of its implications. It is unlikely that any of the major parties will have anything remotely optimistic or interesting to say (based on current positions) and the likelihood of another fractious ineffectual coalition will loom large. It will be five more years of dismal government. If I were to make a comparison in terms of previous elections I would point to the first 1974 general election.

    Consequently, there are more reasons now for voters to reject the establishment parties and protest. At the same time UKIP are the only party around for protesting voters to direct their votes at.

    If ever there has been an unpredictable period in post WWII politics it's the coming few years. As you suggest UKIP could poll between 5 and 10% which would still be no small achievement for them. On the otherhand if events favour them somewhat they could poll close to 20%.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    edited April 2013
    AndyJS said:

    Why is Grayling proposing tougher prison conditions for men, but not women?

    Indeed, my research (strictly limited to comparing the HBO tv series Oz to Prisoner Cell Block H) indicates that conditions are already far tougher for men! ;)
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Neil said:

    anotherDave said:

    2. By 2015 I think UKIP will have a track record of winning FPTP local elections

    It's a long slog between winning locally and converting that to Westminster success. By next week UKIP will almost certainly still have fewer local council seats than the Greens (even if they do better than their wildest dreams) and wont have anything like the concentration the Greens enjoy in Brighton Pavilion (which took years of effort to convert into one seat in Westminster).

    This is Farage's great failing - they're simply not well positioned to capitalise on their surge in support in Westminster elections. They might be about to fix that but it's difficult to see much return from improved organisation before the GE in 2020.
    I not suggesting they'll get a big haul of Westminster seats, just a big chunk of the vote.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,435
    MyBurningEars said:

    Not past your bedtime Sunil? I found a present for you, not sure if you've seen this one before.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=QQV3UHsZ_u4

    Thanks, I think I've seen that one at the London Transport Museum. Was about 18 months back though.
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    "Protest voters" is one of the laziest defined, and over-used terms in British politics.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    @smithersjones @williamglen @anotherDave

    We all agree that UKIP is likely to do better in 2015 than 2010. I just think that their limit is probably slightly less than 3X their 2010 vote share. I havent seen a great case for why they might do much better than that but I wouldnt be distraught to lose that particular bet.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,435
    Neil said:

    anotherDave said:

    they're odds-on to win the 2014 EU Parliament elections

    No, they're not, Labour are strong odds-on favourites (with Paddy Power anyway).
    anotherDave said:


    What would stop UKIP's momentum between May 2014 and May 2015?

    The same factors that slowed their momentum between June 2009 and May 2010? (Outlined below.)
    Didn't Labour come third in 2009? At least in terms of votes?
  • smithersjones2013smithersjones2013 Posts: 740
    "Protest voters" is one of the laziest defined, and over-used terms in British politics.

    Its actually seems to be a most inaccurate term normally used by rejected mainstream politicians (most often of the Conservative variety) to make themselves feel better.

    Ironically the Libdem 'protest' vote of the 90's never really seemed to start to dissipate until they returned to Government in Coalition in 2010. Some protest!

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    I feel sorry for everyone living in London who won't be able to participate in Thursday's exciting events.
  • smithersjones2013smithersjones2013 Posts: 740
    @Sunil

    Yes but only 116,000 votes behind UKIP. Unless UKIP's vote increases significantly from the 16% or so (2.6 million or thereabouts) it's received at the last two Euro elections, the increase in the Labour vote share since 2009/10 should see Labour pass them.

    The big unknown is how Cameron's pin-dancing over the EU will impact the Tory and UKIP Euro election votes?
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    smithersjones2013 said:

    "Protest voters" is one of the laziest defined, and over-used terms in British politics.

    Its actually seems to be a most inaccurate term normally used by rejected mainstream politicians (most often of the Conservative variety) to make themselves feel better.

    Ironically the Libdem 'protest' vote of the 90's never really seemed to start to dissipate until they returned to Government in Coalition in 2010. Some protest!

    My thoughts exactly tbh, it's a way for the big 2 to try and de-legitimise votes for other parties.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    smithersjones2013 said:

    "Protest voters" is one of the laziest defined, and over-used terms in British politics.

    Its actually seems to be a most inaccurate term normally used by rejected mainstream politicians (most often of the Conservative variety) to make themselves feel better.

    Ironically the Libdem 'protest' vote of the 90's never really seemed to start to dissipate until they returned to Government in Coalition in 2010. Some protest!

    To be fair that actually kind of proves that it IS in fact a protest vote. These are voters who rejected the two parties of government and went loyally to the LDs ... loyal only until they became a party of government at which point they vanished. Once the LDs stopped being a proper receptacle for protest votes their support collapsed, these are protest voters.

    Had the LD vote held up upon entering government even just initially in the same way the Tories did until mid-term it would have shown that these were real LD supporters and not just protesters.
  • smithersjones2013smithersjones2013 Posts: 740
    @Philip_Thompson

    Well thats if you assume that it was an anti-government vote and not an anti-Conservative vote. A vast majority of that vote actually did shift to Labour which suggests it was an anti-Conservative vote not an anti-Government vote..
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    Philip_Thompson said:

    smithersjones2013 said:

    "Protest voters" is one of the laziest defined, and over-used terms in British politics.

    Its actually seems to be a most inaccurate term normally used by rejected mainstream politicians (most often of the Conservative variety) to make themselves feel better.

    Ironically the Libdem 'protest' vote of the 90's never really seemed to start to dissipate until they returned to Government in Coalition in 2010. Some protest!

    To be fair that actually kind of proves that it IS in fact a protest vote. These are voters who rejected the two parties of government and went loyally to the LDs ... loyal only until they became a party of government at which point they vanished. Once the LDs stopped being a proper receptacle for protest votes their support collapsed, these are protest voters.

    Had the LD vote held up upon entering government even just initially in the same way the Tories did until mid-term it would have shown that these were real LD supporters and not just protesters.
    It proves sod all. If they were protest voters why didn't they feed on to other smaller parties? The largest recipient of LD2010 was Labour and the smaller parties got almost none, strange actions for protest voters.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    smithersjones2013 said:

    @Philip_Thompson

    Well thats if you assume that it was an anti-government vote and not an anti-Conservative vote. A vast majority of that vote actually did shift to Labour which suggests it was an anti-Conservative vote not an anti-Government vote..

    If they were an anti-Conservative vote why did they not go to the Labour party rather than a party that had made it clear they could go into coalition with the Conservatives before the election?

    Right now Labour is not acting as a government party and is acting as an opposition protest party themselves - they oppose absolutely every difficult decision and propose/support no tough ones. Which was the last tough policy or cut that Labour unilaterally supported? A blank sheet of paper and just saying no to everything may work for mid-term but I'll eat my hat if they keep it and it works til the election.

    Come the General Election once Labour start having to fill in the blank sheet of paper and make governmental-style decisions and policies these voters will shift just like melting snow. Which possibly has already started.
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    Philip_Thompson said:

    smithersjones2013 said:

    @Philip_Thompson

    Well thats if you assume that it was an anti-government vote and not an anti-Conservative vote. A vast majority of that vote actually did shift to Labour which suggests it was an anti-Conservative vote not an anti-Government vote..

    If they were an anti-Conservative vote why did they not go to the Labour party rather than a party that had made it clear they could go into coalition with the Conservatives before the election?

    Right now Labour is not acting as a government party and is acting as an opposition protest party themselves - they oppose absolutely every difficult decision and propose/support no tough ones. Which was the last tough policy or cut that Labour unilaterally supported? A blank sheet of paper and just saying no to everything may work for mid-term but I'll eat my hat if they keep it and it works til the election.

    Come the General Election once Labour start having to fill in the blank sheet of paper and make governmental-style decisions and policies these voters will shift just like melting snow. Which possibly has already started.
    1. People often don't pay attention, or think things won't happen tbh. The hypothetical possibility is different from the reality.

    2. So what is a protest voter then, if Labour can get protest votes a couple of years out from being a government party?

    3. It's good mid-term tactics. It's also pretty standard tbh. They announce a policy now then three things happen:

    a) Media scrutinises it, some will criticise it.
    b) Any boost will subside as people forget about
    c) Come election time you either have to relaunch it (always less interesting) or send out a new policy (why changing?)
    d) The other parties can go after it and you.

    There's just no upside to writing your manifesto mid-term, when by not playing cards you essentially force the media to focus all the more on the government with scrutiny and criticism.

    It's not intended as an election-time tactic, come election run up time they'll start rolling things out in the normal way when the upside-downside ratio is better for them.
  • smithersjones2013smithersjones2013 Posts: 740
    @Philip_Thompson

    If they were an anti-Conservative vote why did they not go to the Labour party rather than a party that had made it clear they could go into coalition with the Conservatives before the election?

    Because Labour had been the party of Government for 13 years and these people were a) more concerned about voting tactically against the Tories b) voters often don't follow policies sufficiently closely to recognise the implications of specific positions such as the Libdem commitment to explore Coalition options with the largest party in the event of a hung parliament (note the Tory Party is not mentioned directly). Not only that but the Tories had spent months if not years denouncing Coalition Government so I doubt people would have clicked that it was a possibility.

    Right now Labour is not acting as a government party and is acting as an opposition protest party themselves.

    But the implied definition of a protest party is that it has little or no chance of forming a government anytime soon. Even with the minor changes in the polls that we have seen currently the Labour Party are the government in waiting. In the de facto accepted sense of a protest party Labour are NOT a protest party.

    As for the policy assertions that is just more Tory straw clutching right now (there is very little of substance being offered by the Tories for 2015 right now either). Labour are in the driving seat and unless Miliband truly blows it I cannot see how Cameron can recover. Anyway that is by the by. The interesting thing currently is that whilst certainly there are some small shifts in the polling (the Libdems are up a tad these days and Labour are down a tad) the Tories seem to be stuck in the 28% to 32% range where they have been for almost 6 months now.

    All that is currently going can still be interpreted as anti-conservative.

    Frankly your line of argument here and other Conservative views of recent times seem reminiscent to me of the Tories in the mid 90's and we know how that turned out now don't we?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,814
    edited April 2013


    (PS Martha's very good)
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025