Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson says the electoral battlefield has never fav
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson says the electoral battlefield has never favoured LAB so strongly
It’s better to be lucky than to be good, so the saying goes – and in politics, success or failure frequently turns on the timing of events over which those involved have little or no control: their luck, in effect. What they make of that luck is a different matter.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
One point - I don't think that a CON minority government was ever really on the cards in May 2010. It was only the fact of the coalition that made it impossible for Brown to hang on.
Incidentally, I'm not sure that a Clegg departure wouldn't trigger at least a partial Lab > LD swing back.
No opposition 12 months from the election will be at its core support. Part of Labours present approx 35% support will be soft. The soufflé bash the government vote that any principal opposition traditionally enjoys is in effect. This is especially true of Labour in opposition having just lost power.
Worse for Labour since WWII no Labour opposition has ever increased its share of the vote at the subsequent general election having just lost power. Is it possible for Labour to buck this historical fact. It would mean Labour polling more than 29% in May 2015 ?
The thread picture may indeed be correct, but not as Herders intended - Voters placing their X against the coalition parties and certainly not crossing them out of the contest.
Good to see that Herdson's still got the Saturday spot - isn't this a very old pbc tradition now?
F1 qualifying's on at 6.55 on Radio 5 Live DAB if anyone's interested, other than Morris.
Had they known it was in bracket 40 to 55% on day, as it will be, then a minor option on Crown Estates and air guns would have been offered to influence that number a little downwards.
Not much was needed to keep waverers onside; sadly they went for the all or nothing and then complained when Scots Govt cleverly offered a devomax-MAX option, close enough to keep some undecideds happy, with Trident an issue that was swaying voters on the ground.
Combined Green/SNP vote is around 50% again now, both for Scottish and Euro elections, as it was in 2011, so this indy vote will be close, particularly if a dreich day and lots of soft NO's stay at home. Postals will decide this, so a good ground campaign may make a difference.
Then you write: "Labour’s hardly gained any swing voters from the Tories since 2010 anyway?"
Without the Blair liar, conservatives will not be interested in voting for the miliband idiot, so where are all the conservatives that are opposed to the cameroon lunacy going to be?
2. Only major party in opposition
3. Pissed off teachers
4. Pissed off public sector workers in general (pay-freeze / minimal rise etc)
5. Pissed off benefits claimants
6. People upset for any number of other reasons.
Apart from Hague, in 1997-2001, what other opposition hasn't achieved a net mid-term swing from the principle party of government? Yeah, they haven't. Kind of ties into the first point you quote. They're not Conservatives; they're swing voters. See the point about 2010 being very nearly Labour's lowest ever total vote since 1935. The swing voters either went Lib Dem, who had their best election in 2010 by vote share or total votes for almost a quarter of a century, or Tory, who had their best election for eighteen years.
I think we're going to have to disagree about the possibility of a minority government post-2010. There were two possibilities of one to my mind.
The first was a Lib Dem confidence-and-supply deal with the Tories, something that was seriously explored and, rightly, ruled as inferior to a full coalition for the LDs (it'd have had all the drawbacks with few of the benefits), but was on the table nonetheless and could have been the fall-back option had the coalition talks failed.
The other was an outright Con minority government, formed after Labour lost their Queen's Speech vote had Brown pushed it that far. While he was entitled to sit tight as PM (though he was already receiving a bucket-load of flak from the media for doing so less than a week after the election), he would eventually have had to have faced parliament, where there'd have been a confidence vote of one form or another (the Queen's Speech usually being regarded as a confidence vote in its own right - it parliament won't vote for your legislative programme, that's effectively a vote of no confidence in the government). On losing that vote, he would have had to have resigned and in line with constitutional practice, the Queen would have called on Cameron to form a government.
Whether explicitly or implicitly, the Lib Dems, as the swing vote in a hung parliament, would have still had to make the call between Con and Lab, and between Brown (or his successor) and Cameron. Unless they actively supported Labour, that would have inevitably ended in a Con or Con-led government of one sort or another - though almost certainly ended in an early second election too.
There is of course no reason why Labour should regard its 2010 support as safely in its column, and there are plenty of indications in the polls that a fair chunk of Labour's current support is not exactly enthusiastic. I do not regard 35% as a minimum level of support for Labour.
Plenty of bottoms to be rocked.
I also wouldn't be surprised if a fair chunk of UKIP support did not come from Labour 2010 non-voters - they are not going to go blue - (and probably won't be too fussed by a "vote UKIP get Labour message) they'll either vote UKIP or continue their strike. (EDIT) Unless Miliband can show a capacity to reach out to DE voters he has so far conspicuously failed to do in Scotland - in which case they might return to the Labour fold
In any case, until September 19th......
I am not sure everything is quite so clear.
To my mind, most of the 2015 LibDem to Labour switchers are actually 2005 and 2010 Labour to LibDem switchers just returning home because the effects of Iraq and Blair's other wars have worn off and the LibDems abandoned the left of Labour positioning of Charles Kennedy when it joined the coalition. Do we therefore know how many seats the LibDems held on to/won in 2010 from the Tories and Labour respectively if that is the case?
If UKIP can hold on to most Tory switchers then it does probably put Ed into No10. However how many ordinary potential UKIP voters are like Sean F and don't care if that is the result?
We cannot really appraise things until after next month's Euro elections. Unless the Tories are soundly beaten by both UKIP and Labour, my view is that both the Labour and UKIP votes are soft and ripe for persuading to change/stay at home.
IndyRef will colour everything in Scotland for the rest of this decade but I doubt it will make the blindest bit of difference in rUK next year. Is someone in Surrey or Birmingham or even Newcastle likely to change voting intentions because the Scots north of the wall have stuck 2 fingers up at England? If anything, a YES vote will bring out the natural "little Englander" reaction which should benefit the Tories, especially since Labour will go into meltdown in Scotland in the event of a YES vote.
I agree with OGH that a minority Cameron government in 2010 was unlikely. Gordon Brown would cut his own wrists if he thought it would have prevented the evil Tories. He has a pathological hatred of Tories. I have always reckoned his intervention in the Indy Ref would be the kiss of death on Better Together. Yes leftie Scots seem to love him but everyone else loathes and despises him for the incompetent fool he is.
Lab 395 Con 134 UKIP 126 Ind 124
The chances are that to you, being normal, the name David Axelrod rings either the faintest of bells, or no bell at all. Evidently it did not chime with the Labour staffer who spelt it “Alexrod” in a press release. Yet elsewhere in Westminster, or wherever Westminster is taking its hols, the hiring of this American political strategist to advise Ed Miliband will have caused a seismic eruption of fear, exultation and visceral excitement beyond measurement on the political Richter scale.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10775119/David-Axelrod-faces-his-toughest-challenge-yet-with-Ed-Miliband.html
It's very topical (no really, it is), so I hope you give it a quick look.
I'll see about doing an F1 post this morning, though it might be early afternoon.
Close polls a year out from a general election are rarely a guide to final results especially with Labour in Opposition.
We talk glibly about "core vote". Essentially this is a moveable feast at the margin that ALL parties add to at the final count, with inclined voters of no party, swing voters and occasional voters added to their overall pool. Even Hague added to the Conservative core vote but at a much lower rate than Blair.
In terms of the current Labour score of 35% I'd estimate for May 2015 about one quarter of that is soft. Some will stay, some will be lost and then Labour with other parties will challenge for the various uncommitted strand of viable voters. For the punter looking ahead the challenge is to project to the final scores and wager accordingly.
I am open to being converted to watching horses jump things as they go around.
But not grown men hitting small balls with long sticks. Oh no. Never that.
http://labourlist.org/2014/04/in-praise-of-simon-danczuk/
I wonder who this is aimed at?
Yet the daggers are already being sharpened in the salons of North London. ‘How can he serialise in the Mail?,’ ‘Why is he criticising Labour people?,’ and ‘He’s not a proper journalist’ are just three of the attacks I’ve heard whispered in the last few days.
Of course, I will have to set fire to several of you for heretical utterances, as Mr. Easterross rightly suggested, but I respect your right to hold a different opinion.
I don't find the ARSE predictions credible because they show such little movement in seats. The 5-6% added back into the Labour vote will definitely bring some seats with it. There is no way Labour won't win seats like Hendon, Wolves SW, Dewsbury etc. The other key factor is that for all the hubris on here the Tories actually had an appallingly poor result in 2010; they didn't get close to a majority and in many seats they gained primarily because of the swing from Lab to LD. Given that I cannot see them actually improving on their overall vote share - incumbent parties rarely do, then the swingback from LD to Labour can only hurt them. Lab most seats seems nailed on to me; majority is much less certain.
All those hoping, wanting, relying, wishing and praying for a massive UKIP collapse of support before polling day, GE 2015, are I'm afraid, due for a bitter disappointment.
Contemptible.
And now the odious Watson's involved.
I presume that this is written in a way that assumes that the NO campaign will win the Referendum?
However, if the gap tightens and the NOs win say by 52:48 (or by less), then the campaign for another vote could grow. The strength of that campaign will be depend on the Referendum turnout. Anything less than 50%, then a campaign for another vote can be easily batted away, but should the it be >70% and the SNP continues to dominate the Scottish Parliament, then it would be more difficult to put off another vote.
If EdM does become PM, then he might easily give Scotland a very large Devomax in order to preserve his Scottish Labour MPs in the HoC, even though they may be able to vote on very few matters of interest to Scotland.
Additionally, are they really polling at 'core'?
There is the possibility of tactical voting against the Tories. That will eat into the 35 if it goes to the Libs. There's swing back which ought to knock a point or so off as some decide to cling to nurse.
There's turnout, which Labour often struggle with when unpopular or not desired to any degree.
I've got them on 32-33 for the GE with the Tories on 35-36, if they fail to win back much Kipper support.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2604021/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Now-need-told-WHOLE-truth.html
I support those who work to expose historical abuse - but agree, seeking to tie it to contemporary politicians who had no involvement is contemptible.
Can Labour drop below 35%? Yes, of course they can. They will do in the European elections - which, given that there'll be a lower turnout too, represents a far smaller number of actual voters: their true 'core', perhaps.
But given a turnout in the 55-65 range, as for recent elections, the only way they can drop below that now is if they start losing voters who backed Brown, or if the Yellow-to-Reds start peeling off. Maybe Ed will repel either or both of those groups but they've looked very sticky since late 2010 for the latter and late 2009 for the former.
To put it another way, if Labour had increased their share to their current 37-ish based on a swing of 8% from the Tories since 2010 then yes, a quarter of their vote would be soft, swing voters, but that isn't the case. I'm not saying that this represents a new long-term settlement. Indeed, if Miliband does form a government, I'd expect Labour's ratings to melt like snow in April, with them quite possibly falling below the lowest figures Brown set. But he'd still have won an election first.
The formation of the coalition has changed political dynamics so significantly that many of the old rules either no longer apply or at the least, have to be greatly modified.
However in Wales, Carwyn Jones is so scared of the thought of being responsible for Taxation and Expenditure, that he will do anything to avoid that responsibility and will just try to ramp up the Barnett formula.
There's always a soft quarter.
But nothing enthuses Labour supporters more than the prospect of beating the Tories.
They need no other incentive.
Conservative supporters may not understand it, but a visceral, tribal antipathy towards their party is a master motivator.
Happy Easter one and all.
So choice is vote YES for hope or vote NO to be trashed by either labour or Tories for their own ends.
When Lord Ashcroft did a massive poll with a huge sample size he discovered that the Tories were doing WORSE in the marginals, strongly suggesting that the Red Liberals are coming out in force where it matters, and voting tactically for the Yellow Liberals in seat where Labour cannot win.
Anecdote alert: I met three 2010 Liberals yesterday. All say they are certain to vote Labour next year.
One guy has never voted Labour in a General Election before.
Yes I understand where you are coming from, but with political apathy being what it is (and I do not see it changing much in the next 5-10 years), EdM has to retain his MPs in the Celtic nations or else he risks Labour never having majority in the rUK (after constituency equilisation.) He would never be forgiven for sounding that death knell.
"Mr Danczuk said he is convinced that there was a “network of paedophiles” operating in the Commons who helped to protect Smith.
He said: “I think some of these people are still in Parliament. I don't think it's substantial, but everything would indicate that ring has existed for some time.""
Libs cannot poll 10% AND stop the Tories where it matters. If they increase, Labour deflate.
2. To answer your question,many voted Liberal. I was one of them. Never again.
We also don't know yet what the manifestoes will say. Yes, we've all learnt to discount them as irrelevant but once again 2015 is going to break the rules.
For Labour, they have to say whether they intend to protect what's left of the 1945 welfare settlement (the NHS, mostly) or whether they will spend only what the country can afford. They surely can't do both. Whatever they say will cost them votes.
For the coalition parties, their manifestoes can hardly ignore the fact that they've been governing in coalition for the last 5 years. In particular, Cameron will be pressed on what he would have done with a majority that he hasn't been able to do in the real world. The answer will cost him votes: either "nothing" (so why give him a majority) or else measures that will appeal only to his hard core, and not to floating voters.
Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it: and one thing the past teaches us is when the present day is unlike the verities we learnt in our youth and have clung to for warmth ever since.
http://newstonoone.blogspot.hu/2014/04/ukipalypse-now-where-might-ukip-win-seat.html
I don't suppose that it will make many people happy.
2. Your buyer's remorse is evident - but may cloud your judgement in the same way you accuse others.
The wider public are not enthusiastic about any of the 3 main party leaders , that also gives the Labour party as a brand the chance of a greater hearing in any debate and election campaign.
It seems that the bookies are catering to the enthusiasm of the purple punters by relieving them of their money at poor odds.
1. I suggest Lab's 2010 core is nearer 25% than 29%, that is its starting point, as we can see in Scotland a large chunk (circa 1%) of its voters are prepared to vote for others such as SNP.
2. The Conservatives have 1st time incumbents in most of the seats Lab are chasing. That 2,000+ or so vote advantage will make a difference.*
*Unless the C's have a p/poor MP such as Soubry who does not grasp the need to connect with her grassroots members.
Firstly for finding my ARSE prediction as not "credible" and secondly basing you assumption on "such little change in seats".
Presently the projection has a seat gain for Labour of just over 20, a seat loss for LibDems of just under 20 seats and odds and sods at the margin for other parties. You need to recall not every election is a portend of a landslide, indeed they are the exception.
You also note that incumbent parties "rarely" improve their share of the vote. Certainly true of Labour but not the Conservatives.
You are just wishfully thinking.
The problem for them is what happens when they get there. There's no money to chuck about this time which is pretty much their entire philosophy (well that and beating the Tories).
They don't seem to have got their act together since the last time they were in power either. It's going to be an absolute disaster.
As a 2010 Buyer's remorse Lib Dem, you'll forgive me if I doubt your objectivity.
I have quite a lot of research to do for that, so posts are likely to be more irregularly timed.
You are wrong.
The average Labour lead in September, when the Ashcroft poll was taken, was only 1-2 points less than it is at the moment.
I agree there are both leftie and rightie reasons for being anti-Iraq. I'm just saying the Lab core vote in 2010 was deflated by the leftie component of that.)
(Similarly I'd expect Ukip voters to be more anti-Iraq for rightie reasons.)
We saw the Liberal party splintered prior to WW2 and only saved by the SDPs coming away from Labour in the 1981 and merging with the Liberals in the same decade - as both were fighting for the same bathwater and faced a mutual drought - no room for a fourth party.
At the same time, due to the UK's economic weakness (bankruptcy) after WW2 and its inability to invest in new manufacturing facilities whilst supporting the front line during the Cold War, we saw the UK give away a lot of its self-determination to a partially-federal and pseudo-free trade organisation - and its subsquent consequences. At the same time, the trading strengths of the (now) Commonwealth were largely abandoned.
Naturally as this was counter to the basic raison d'etre of WW2 (and natural justice), we saw the emergence of UKIP (in varying guises) - more among the older people than the younger as globalisation increased. Yet across Europe the post WW2 period has seen a return to nationalism as well as a rise in Fundamental Islam.
Now that it can be argued that with the SDPs have returned home, is there really room for a fourth party (the LDs) whose policies chime with few of the electorate - they also suffered severe losses after emerging from the WW2 coalition.
Perhaps it should be allowed to die a natural death or does it have the strength and purpose to rise again?
I didn't quite cotton on to what you were saying until you explained it on here.
Would it be possible (if not already done) to include that brief explanation in your blog - I found it much easier to understand after reading that!
I am looking at the clear polling evidence, as is David, as is Mike.
You are looking somewhere else for your views.
In short present performance is no guide to next years performance - Ask Man Utd supporters !!
I posed the same question to OGH the other day and response was there none, namely :
Essentially, do you believe the broad thrust of present polling is the result for May 2015 ?
edit: so their real core vote is somewhere between 25% and 35% depending on how much of their wwc vote hate them.
How that can be reconciled with the pressure for Devomax under the sort of borderline No he might have to face is not at all clear, however much the Scottish part of Labour might loathe the SNP in the most irrational manner. (If there is a Yes, as someone noted, there won't be any problem!).
Interesting.
Hence the importance of how England votes for the Tories.
It will be a pity if Miliband's failure to reach his Scottish DE voters means Scotland separates and England becomes even more important in UK elections, but we are where we are.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27086401
The idea that a large number of people won't be identified from their tax data is obviously idiotic. Once again, David Davis is doing sterling work in leading the charge against it. It turns out that in the last leadership contest, Davis was the one who actually had strong liberal values, while Cameron has next to no understanding of them.
Seriously, why should the government be able to pass on my own financial records, 'anonymously' or not, without my permission?
Lefties like to think it does to give them a sense of moral superiority as they know their economic and social policies are disasterous.