Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tory hope that 2010 winners will get a first time incum

SystemSystem Posts: 12,683
edited June 2014 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tory hope that 2010 winners will get a first time incumbency bonus barely registers in the Ashcroft polling

One of the great hopes for the Tories is that those MPs who were first elected in 2010 will perform better than the national swing because of what’s become known as “first time incumbency bonus”.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    So if Miliband could eat a burger properly, the lead would be even higher ?

    And, first !!
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,769
    I'm not sure the second Ashcroft question really nails the problem. Since he knows the constituencies and the candidates are mostly selected he'd be better just to go right ahead and name them. Maybe skip the first question, which conceivably nudges the voter one way or the other on the second.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edmundintokyo said:

    I'm not sure the second Ashcroft question really nails the problem. Since he knows the constituencies and the candidates are mostly selected he'd be better just to go right ahead and name them. Maybe skip the first question, which conceivably nudges the voter one way or the other on the second.

    Agreed. The marginals poll question should be along the lines of: "In your own constituency [ Broxtowe ], would you vote for:

    Nick Palmer, Labour
    Anna Soubry, Conservative
    xxxxxxxx
    yyyyyyyyy
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,769
    edited June 2014
    Also the constituency question seems to boost the LibDems. I also reckon this an artifact of the polling not capturing the thing properly, ie the presence of the second question is nudging the voters who aren't sure of the tactical situation to switch, so they're hearing,
    1)
    Q How will you vote?
    A Labour.

    2)
    Q Yeah but you live in Broxstowe. Not going to throw your vote away on that no-hoper Palmer are you? For all the chance he has of winning you may as well set your ballot paper on fire.
    A See your point, make that LibDem.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    This MP (Labour ) is unlikely to improve her incumbency bonus. It must have been written by a spad?? but she OUGHT to have known. Its scarcely credible that she actually spoke the words..

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2659003/Embarrassment-Labour-MP-praises-constituency-village-beautiful-waterfalls-caves-without-realising-belong-namesake-70-miles-away.html
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Morning All - “first time incumbency bonus”.

    Is this not the same as the conventional ‘incumbency bonus’ which, IIRC applies to all sitting MPs and which, we are repeated told, is particularly beneficial to Lib Dem MPs?
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    ESPECIALLY FOR SOUTHAM OBSERVER

    Drought alert


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2659545/After-wettest-winter-facing-drought-Environment-Agency-warns-people-use-water-wisely-forecasters-say-South-rain-ten-days.html
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,361
    SimonStClare said:

    Morning All - “first time incumbency bonus”.

    Is this not the same as the conventional ‘incumbency bonus’ which, IIRC applies to all sitting MPs and which, we are repeated told, is particularly beneficial to Lib Dem MPs?

    In a sense, yes, but the only time it should really be visible is the election after you've taken a seat from another party - though that assumes that (1) the current MP is doing a decent job, (2) that the last one was and (3) that the last one isn't standing again. If the last MP had a negative personal vote, because of the expenses scandal, for example, then the new one is already running to stand still as the former's party selects a clean candidate and wipes off that negative personal vote.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    @david_herdson – all becomes clear, much appreciated.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,108
    No candidate names used ? Think that's the issue !
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    According to Sun Politics..Ed Balls employs four people in his office on Zero Hours contracts
  • Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    A lot of these numbers are margin-of-error, surely?

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,380
    edited June 2014
    I have always taken it on trust as it is so often referred to on here that a first time incumbency bonus is a recognised and statistically verified phenomenon. I have never really understood the logic behind it and despite David's comment I still don't.

    People apparently like MPs to be "hardworking" which means, I think, being assiduous in dealing with their post bag and generally acting as a grossly overpaid if severely under qualified social worker. Over time the number of people "helped" by such correspondence should grow so incumbency becomes established. Why would this be the more so on the first occasion when the number of letters etc is lower?

    No doubt those who have just won a seat and are apprehensive about losing it again will be particularly diligent in trying to promote their profile in the seat. I wonder if this has created a spurious correlation.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,380
    Did I miss the ICM yesterday? Work is really getting in the way at the moment.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Re: YouGov: 32/36/10/14/5

    LD increase due to 2010 LD split in favour of LD (and not Labour) for only the second time this month.

    The Cons are retaining less of their 2010 vote than before EU14 with more leaks to UKIP

    BTW, see on ICM site that they had a Scottish Poll yesterday.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited June 2014
    Andrew Neil reports on a poll showing more Scots want to keep Trident in Scotland after Independence than those that want it out...Wheres MG
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,789
    Not having candidate names is a snag which I imagine Ashcroft will fix nearer the election when the candidates are mostly known (e.g. in Broxtowe neither UKIP nor LibDems have bothered to select yet). But Q2 is clearly doing something, and it's presumably prompting people to consider whether either personal preference or tactical considerations affect their vote. Where there is a significant incumbency bonus or the reverse (not every sitting MP is generally liked), you'd expect it to show up to some extent.

    I don't know how typical it is, but in my patch most people do know both the main candidates. That's perhaps common in marginals, and uncommon in safe seats unless the MP is especially active. I meet around 7000 voters a year, mostly through spending every weekend at it; if I was standing in mid-Sussex or central Manchester I wonder if I'd bother.
  • kjohnwkjohnw Posts: 1,456
    whens ICM coming out?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    SquareRoot said:

    ESPECIALLY FOR SOUTHAM OBSERVER

    Drought alert


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2659545/After-wettest-winter-facing-drought-Environment-Agency-warns-people-use-water-wisely-forecasters-say-South-rain-ten-days.html

    Yes, I saw that last night. And despaired.

  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,991
    So good news for Tories here in Stockton South. Wharton improves from being very heavily beaten to heavily beaten. All that no door knocking done by his no activists making a big difference to the result.....
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    Looks like the Guardian are trying to get their money's worth on their ICM poll, spreading the results out over two days. The first lot is on the recovery:

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/16/insecure-britain-poll-economic-recovery-immigration
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,885
    richardDodd said:

    According to Sun Politics..Ed Balls employs four people in his office on Zero Hours contracts

    Evil baby-eating bastard Tory.....er.....oops?

    Another Labour attack line gets sunk in deep water, strapped to the weighty anchor of hypocrisy.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    More evidence of failing Wales under Labour

    "Pupils in Wales continue to lag behind the rest of the UK in English lessons despite improvements, say inspectors.

    More teaching of practical writing skills is needed, says a report by Estyn, which found a significant minority of schools have pupils who do not read or write well enough.

    There are concerns about the standards of spelling, grammar and punctuation in English classes.....

    Pupils aged seven to 14 are also still struggling to play catch-up with their peers in other parts of the UK, the education inspection body says.

    Children can write stories in class but are struggling to fill in job applications."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-27871181
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,380
    NickPalmer said:

    Not having candidate names is a snag which I imagine Ashcroft will fix nearer the election when the candidates are mostly known (e.g. in Broxtowe neither UKIP nor LibDems have bothered to select yet). But Q2 is clearly doing something, and it's presumably prompting people to consider whether either personal preference or tactical considerations affect their vote. Where there is a significant incumbency bonus or the reverse (not every sitting MP is generally liked), you'd expect it to show up to some extent.

    I don't know how typical it is, but in my patch most people do know both the main candidates. That's perhaps common in marginals, and uncommon in safe seats unless the MP is especially active. I meet around 7000 voters a year, mostly through spending every weekend at it; if I was standing in mid-Sussex or central Manchester I wonder if I'd bother.

    Oh for a nice safe seat in Manchester Nick! Would you agree that those who are fortunate enough to have such seats are much better placed to do the work at national level necessary to get a ministerial appointment?

    It seems to me that those in marginal seats will always have other priorities and that it is less likely that the party will want to invest heavily in someone who might not be there in the long term. Of course your opponent is an exception but without being ungracious her sex may have something to do with that.

    Turning to the Lib Dems until this Parliament they have never been troubled with even the
    hope of office. Maybe that is why they generally have a reputation as good constituency MPs.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,509
    edited June 2014
    richardDodd said:

    Andrew Neil reports on a poll showing more Scots want to keep Trident in Scotland after Independence than those that want it out...Wheres MG

    Very small margin - and contradicted by other questions, as well as the tenor of similar polls over the years, so I am very sceptical.

    It's a subset of the British Social attitudes survey, of which n = 3K for the UK as a whole, and I have no idea what the actual Scottish sample is or how the survey was done.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,509
    richardDodd said:

    Andrew Neil reports on a poll showing more Scots want to keep Trident in Scotland after Independence than those that want it out...Wheres MG

    Further to this- a very brief story here

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/blow-for-snp-after-new-poll-reveals-support-for-trident.24514174

    The polling was done in 2013 anyway.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Incumbacy poll doesnt mention candidate name ? Lol.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,509
    More on the BSA survey with links to the data - but no mention of Trident here despite some other Scots/EWNI analyses

    http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jun/17/british-social-attitudes-survey-immigration-scotland-and-britishness
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,789
    edited June 2014
    DavidL said:



    Oh for a nice safe seat in Manchester Nick! Would you agree that those who are fortunate enough to have such seats are much better placed to do the work at national level necessary to get a ministerial appointment?

    It seems to me that those in marginal seats will always have other priorities and that it is less likely that the party will want to invest heavily in someone who might not be there in the long term. Of course your opponent is an exception but without being ungracious her sex may have something to do with that.

    Turning to the Lib Dems until this Parliament they have never been troubled with even the
    hope of office. Maybe that is why they generally have a reputation as good constituency MPs.

    I'm not sure that marginality affects ministerial promotion that much - other counter-examples include Ed Balls. But it's clearly a factor. Generally people appointed to ministerial posts are very keen, and they allow politics to eat their lives, so they work flat out at the ministerial job all week and flat out at retaining their seats at the weekend. Whether that's a good thing is debatable - it's good to have keen ministers, but it risks losing track of real life, and clearly puts off some talented people altogether. To take a non-controversial example - I'm pretty sure Patrick Mercer's fall had its roots partly in a certain degree of fed-upness with the whole thing.

    I have a different motivation (doing my bit for the common cause) but the same effect applies. Whenever I'm doing anything, I feel faintly guilty that I'm not doing something else. Leisure time (apart from brief breaks to post on PB or whatever) is not the default in the evenings or weekends but a planned, occasional activity. It's satisfying but not exactly enjoyable.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,894
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mildly surprised that there aren't more Ladbrokes markets up (such as Winner Without Rosberg/Hamilton).
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Carnyx said:

    More on the BSA survey with links to the data - but no mention of Trident here despite some other Scots/EWNI analyses

    http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jun/17/british-social-attitudes-survey-immigration-scotland-and-britishness

    From the Telelgraph write up:

    "...47 per cent believe immigration has had a negative economic impact, compared with only 31 per cent who see it as positive. Forty-five per cent said they thought immigration had “undermined British cultural life”, compared with only 35 per cent who believe it has enriched British culture.

    Almost one in five people believe immigration has been “very bad” both culturally and economically — outnumbering those who say it had been “very good” economically by six to one."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10904177/Political-class-ignore-strength-of-feeling-on-immigration-at-their-peril.html

    http://www.natcen.ac.uk/news-media/press-releases/2014/june/being-british-today/
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,789
    A couple of interesting items:

    1. From Mehdi quoting The Times:

    "Membership in Tory marginal seats continues to plummet with local parties complaining of 'hard work with no political reward', according to figures from the Electoral Commission. Marginal constituencies lost an average of 8.6 per cent of their membership and 21 per cent of their income between the end of 2012 and the end of 2013. This tallies with a bleak national picture. Last year the Tory party revealed it now had 134,000 constituency members, down from the 253,600 who voted in the leadership poll that David Cameron won."

    2. And, less controversially, a mildly pro-Cameron piece in the Guardian, on the zealots vs pragmatists question:

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/17/politicians-kamikaze-crew-ideologues-dominic-cummings
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited June 2014
    DavidL said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Not having candidate names is a snag which I imagine Ashcroft will fix nearer the election when the candidates are mostly known (e.g. in Broxtowe neither UKIP nor LibDems have bothered to select yet). But Q2 is clearly doing something, and it's presumably prompting people to consider whether either personal preference or tactical considerations affect their vote. Where there is a significant incumbency bonus or the reverse (not every sitting MP is generally liked), you'd expect it to show up to some extent.

    I don't know how typical it is, but in my patch most people do know both the main candidates. That's perhaps common in marginals, and uncommon in safe seats unless the MP is especially active. I meet around 7000 voters a year, mostly through spending every weekend at it; if I was standing in mid-Sussex or central Manchester I wonder if I'd bother.

    [snip]

    Turning to the Lib Dems until this Parliament they have never been troubled with even the hope of office. Maybe that is why they generally have a reputation as good constituency MPs.
    Good point, however wouldn't the 'pride' (for want of a better word) in having a cabinet minister for a constituency MP, counterbalance the effect of reduced time spent dealing with local matters? - I'd have thought exposure in the national press as apposed to the local rag would count for something, unless it was some failing or the ubiquitous 'scandal' of course!
  • Oliver_PBOliver_PB Posts: 397
    NickPalmer said:

    A couple of interesting items:

    1. From Mehdi quoting The Times:

    "Membership in Tory marginal seats continues to plummet with local parties complaining of 'hard work with no political reward', according to figures from the Electoral Commission. Marginal constituencies lost an average of 8.6 per cent of their membership and 21 per cent of their income between the end of 2012 and the end of 2013. This tallies with a bleak national picture. Last year the Tory party revealed it now had 134,000 constituency members, down from the 253,600 who voted in the leadership poll that David Cameron won."

    I wonder how much of that membership churn since 2005 is members dying off. I'd bet it's a lot.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    NickPalmer said:


    2. And, less controversially, a mildly pro-Cameron piece in the Guardian, on the zealots vs pragmatists question:

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/17/politicians-kamikaze-crew-ideologues-dominic-cummings

    Another ex-spad has commented:

    "Beneath the theatre of this intervention and the huge embarrassment it caused Downing Street, is a kernel of truth. It's certainly the case that No10 hasn't given the machinery of government anything like the political steer of either the Blair or Thatcher administrations, for example.

    This is, however, in large part a product of a form of coalition governing that I fear is now being tested to absolute bankruptcy. Forming a coalition in 2010 that would share power on every front of decision-making will, I believe, come to be viewed as a serious mistake "

    https://www.publicaffairsnews.com/articles/opinion/sean-worth-coalition-model-now-dead
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited June 2014
    Oliver_PB said:

    NickPalmer said:

    A couple of interesting items:

    1. From Mehdi quoting The Times:

    "Membership in Tory marginal seats continues to plummet with local parties complaining of 'hard work with no political reward', according to figures from the Electoral Commission. Marginal constituencies lost an average of 8.6 per cent of their membership and 21 per cent of their income between the end of 2012 and the end of 2013. This tallies with a bleak national picture. Last year the Tory party revealed it now had 134,000 constituency members, down from the 253,600 who voted in the leadership poll that David Cameron won."

    I wonder how much of that membership churn since 2005 is members dying off. I'd bet it's a lot.
    You don't think that ~20% of 2010 Con voters switching to UKIP chimes with a decline in party membership?

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,894
    Betting Post

    Backed Rybarikova against Petkovic in the Topshelf Open at 3.

    She's got a 2:0 winning record, and her recent(ish) grass performance is significantly better than Petkovic's. Should probably be odds on or at least evens. Petkovic does have a better recent record in general terms, but if clay and grass played the same Nadal would have more titles than Federer already.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    Putnam's old essay on the decline in 'social capital' may have some bearing on political party membership (he was writing about the US, but it resonates for me).

    Personally, I see no reason to join a political party; the problems we face are not being fully addressed by any of them, and it all seems unnecessarily tribal and petty.
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    Plain packaging of cigarettes.Cancer Research hit back at Murdoch.Protect children from tobacco,and any other non-prescribed drug,and tobacco marketing.

    http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/sites/default/files/policy_may2014_standardpacks_overview_noqr.pdf
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    http://labourlist.org/2014/06/labour-had-had-a-wasted-week-we-cant-afford-any-more-of-them/

    http://labourlist.org/2014/06/if-blair-were-able-to-accept-responsibility-his-case-would-be-far-stronger/

    Also your chance to confess all to Aunt Harriet:
    "It’s not often that Harriet Harman could be described as following in the footsteps of Nick Clegg and Boris Johnson. But it has emerged today that she is to do just that. Harman has announced that like Clegg and Johnson, she’ll take part in a monthly phone-in show on LBC Radio. This looks like the latest effort coming from the Labour Party to engage people with party politics and convince the electorate that they’re serious about listening to their concerns."
  • Oliver_PBOliver_PB Posts: 397
    anotherDave said:

    Oliver_PB said:

    NickPalmer said:

    A couple of interesting items:

    1. From Mehdi quoting The Times:

    "Membership in Tory marginal seats continues to plummet with local parties complaining of 'hard work with no political reward', according to figures from the Electoral Commission. Marginal constituencies lost an average of 8.6 per cent of their membership and 21 per cent of their income between the end of 2012 and the end of 2013. This tallies with a bleak national picture. Last year the Tory party revealed it now had 134,000 constituency members, down from the 253,600 who voted in the leadership poll that David Cameron won."

    I wonder how much of that membership churn since 2005 is members dying off. I'd bet it's a lot.
    You don't think that ~20% of 2010 Con voters switching to UKIP chimes with a decline in party membership?

    Of course, but I think there's also a bunch of less obvious and more interesting reasons, like death of members and the decline of Conservative clubs.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,894
    Aren't the memberships of all the major parties declining?

    It'll be interesting to see whether UKIP can maintain their growth and hang onto those who joined just recently.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Aren't the memberships of all the major parties declining?

    It'll be interesting to see whether UKIP can maintain their growth and hang onto those who joined just recently.

    I think they've reported a growth in membership almost every month since the Rotherham by-election.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,318
    anotherDave said:

    Oliver_PB said:

    NickPalmer said:

    A couple of interesting items:

    1. From Mehdi quoting The Times:

    "Membership in Tory marginal seats continues to plummet with local parties complaining of 'hard work with no political reward', according to figures from the Electoral Commission. Marginal constituencies lost an average of 8.6 per cent of their membership and 21 per cent of their income between the end of 2012 and the end of 2013. This tallies with a bleak national picture. Last year the Tory party revealed it now had 134,000 constituency members, down from the 253,600 who voted in the leadership poll that David Cameron won."

    I wonder how much of that membership churn since 2005 is members dying off. I'd bet it's a lot.
    You don't think that ~20% of 2010 Con voters switching to UKIP chimes with a decline in party membership?

    It's the same reason that all of a sudden Dave is doing better with women...all the men have gorn orff to UKIP.

    That said, many of the members are as disillusioned with coalition as some Tory MPs (and it seems just about every LD). The coalition has been a wake-up call and, much as it appeared to be the answer to politics in the new age, seems to have satisfied no one.

    Except, of course, the voting public.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,108
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Aren't the memberships of all the major parties declining?

    It'll be interesting to see whether UKIP can maintain their growth and hang onto those who joined just recently.

    UKIP are increasing, the Lib Dems are too - albeit it ALOT more slowly than UKIP. The Labour membership has halved from 400k to ~ 200k, but they have almost as many members as Lib Dem (44k), Con (130k), UKIP (40k) combined.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,894
    Mr. Topping, some of us always thought coalitions were, as a rule, rubbish.

    Mr. Pulpstar, intriguing to hear the yellows are going up.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,789
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Aren't the memberships of all the major parties declining?

    It'll be interesting to see whether UKIP can maintain their growth and hang onto those who joined just recently.

    Compared with the glory days of yore, definitely (arguably so are most mass activities, from football to bingo, though I think the RSPB is defying the trend). Labour's membership bounced from a historic low after Ed took over and has I think remained fairly stable since, at just under 200K. Locally we are still seeing a rise, but that's probably related to marginality - the "we're the 8th most marginal seat, join now to share the dramatic finale" argument is fairly productive.

  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    NickPalmer said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Aren't the memberships of all the major parties declining?

    It'll be interesting to see whether UKIP can maintain their growth and hang onto those who joined just recently.

    Compared with the glory days of yore, definitely (arguably so are most mass activities, from football to bingo, though I think the RSPB is defying the trend). Labour's membership bounced from a historic low after Ed took over and has I think remained fairly stable since, at just under 200K. Locally we are still seeing a rise, but that's probably related to marginality - the "we're the 8th most marginal seat, join now to share the dramatic finale" argument is fairly productive.

    Old Trafford has a 75,000 capacity.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,894
    Mr. Dave, the Circus Maximus could accommodate twice that.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Dave, the Circus Maximus could accommodate twice that.

    This is the trouble with too much government regulation. Fights to the death would sell more tickets!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,108
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Topping, some of us always thought coalitions were, as a rule, rubbish.

    Mr. Pulpstar, intriguing to hear the yellows are going up.

    Well the source for that is Lib Dem voice, and the rate of increase is very very low. But it is a (Somewhat counter-intuitive) fact nonetheless.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    I see that both Obama and Cammo are now sucking up to Iran. When will they ever learn?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27882932
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Aren't the memberships of all the major parties declining?

    It'll be interesting to see whether UKIP can maintain their growth and hang onto those who joined just recently.

    This graph provides some long-term context for both Labour and Conservatives.

    Worth noting that the British population has increased by about ten million since WWII, so if you plotted these figures as a proportion of the total population they would look a little worse.

    It's a really big change, which says something about wider changes in society I think. There's an extent to which people now view politics as a consumer service, where they choose between competing offers, rather than as a process that they are part of.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,894
    Mr. Dave, one suspects terrorists versus lions would be quite popular.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Pulpstar said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Topping, some of us always thought coalitions were, as a rule, rubbish.

    Mr. Pulpstar, intriguing to hear the yellows are going up.

    Well the source for that is Lib Dem voice, and the rate of increase is very very low. But it is a (Somewhat counter-intuitive) fact nonetheless.
    I think there was a change in policy, where the membership dues now go to the local party rather than LD HQ.

    So a small increase in membership, could coincide with a big decrease in LD HQ income.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Until political parties exist for the benefit of potential members rather than for the benefit of their current leaders, they will continue to decline.

    Good.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,894
    Mr. Me, indeed. Might also be a symptom of the 'professionalisation' of politics, with it being seen as a career unto itself rather than as something people who have enjoyed success elsewhere might turn to.

    Maybe we should have gone for a Roman approach. I bet Blair wouldn't've been so bloody gungho if he'd had to lead the armies he was committing into battle himself.
  • manofkent2014manofkent2014 Posts: 1,543
    edited June 2014
    Financier said:

    http://labourlist.org/2014/06/labour-had-had-a-wasted-week-we-cant-afford-any-more-of-them/

    http://labourlist.org/2014/06/if-blair-were-able-to-accept-responsibility-his-case-would-be-far-stronger/

    Also your chance to confess all to Aunt Harriet:
    "It’s not often that Harriet Harman could be described as following in the footsteps of Nick Clegg and Boris Johnson. But it has emerged today that she is to do just that. Harman has announced that like Clegg and Johnson, she’ll take part in a monthly phone-in show on LBC Radio. This looks like the latest effort coming from the Labour Party to engage people with party politics and convince the electorate that they’re serious about listening to their concerns."

    Mad Hattie? Has the Labour Party completely lost its senses? I know Harman is a London MP but she is the worst spinner they have got. She doesn't even have Clegg's personal likeability. Her lies are so obvious that a few strategically planted callers will have her tied up in knots every month. Surely they can get Jowell or Khan or someone to do it rather than Harman?

    LBC listeners have my sympathy......
  • manofkent2014manofkent2014 Posts: 1,543
    edited June 2014
    Pulpstar said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Aren't the memberships of all the major parties declining?

    It'll be interesting to see whether UKIP can maintain their growth and hang onto those who joined just recently.

    UKIP are increasing, the Lib Dems are too - albeit it ALOT more slowly than UKIP. The Labour membership has halved from 400k to ~ 200k, but they have almost as many members as Lib Dem (44k), Con (130k), UKIP (40k) combined.
    I thought Libdem membership was supposed to be around 60,000. Has it fallen that far and bottomed out or something?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,318
    antifrank said:

    Until political parties exist for the benefit of potential members rather than for the benefit of their current leaders, they will continue to decline.

    Good.

    Political parties are by and large populated by people who believe their political philosophy is best designed to benefit society as a whole hence "potential members".

    There is needless to say much debate about the benefits and disadvantages of those political philosophies but it is harsh to say that politicians are all "in it for themselves".
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    antifrank said:

    Until political parties exist for the benefit of potential members rather than for the benefit of their current leaders, they will continue to decline.

    Good.

    http://www.ukip.org/

    UKIP is delighted to today announce yet another record membership figure. Party membership crashed through 39,000 over the weekend and now stands at 39,143.

    UKIP Director of Communications Patrick O’Flynn said: “This is yet more evidence that UKIP has captured the public imagination and is bringing new people into active politics all the time.




  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,818
    manofkent2014 said:

    Financier said:

    http://labourlist.org/2014/06/labour-had-had-a-wasted-week-we-cant-afford-any-more-of-them/

    http://labourlist.org/2014/06/if-blair-were-able-to-accept-responsibility-his-case-would-be-far-stronger/

    Also your chance to confess all to Aunt Harriet:
    "It’s not often that Harriet Harman could be described as following in the footsteps of Nick Clegg and Boris Johnson. But it has emerged today that she is to do just that. Harman has announced that like Clegg and Johnson, she’ll take part in a monthly phone-in show on LBC Radio. This looks like the latest effort coming from the Labour Party to engage people with party politics and convince the electorate that they’re serious about listening to their concerns."

    Mad Hattie? Has the Labour Party completely lost its senses? I know Harman is a London MP but she is the worst spinner they have got. She doesn't even have Clegg's personal likeability. Her lies are so obvious that a few strategically planted callers will have her tied up in knots every month. Surely they can get Jowell or Khan or someone to do it rather than Harman?

    LBC listeners have my sympathy......
    Labour need someone with charm... Harman doesn't have any. Alan Johnson would have been a good call for example.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    TOPPING said:

    antifrank said:

    Until political parties exist for the benefit of potential members rather than for the benefit of their current leaders, they will continue to decline.

    Good.

    Political parties are by and large populated by people who believe their political philosophy is best designed to benefit society as a whole hence "potential members".

    There is needless to say much debate about the benefits and disadvantages of those political philosophies but it is harsh to say that politicians are all "in it for themselves".
    I was referring to the structures of the parties, not to venality of politicians. The essential idea behind modern political parties is to provide foot soldiers to get placemen elected locally who will support the leadership in Parliament, whatever that leadership decides to say or do. And they wonder why that doesn't look like a tempting proposition to potential foot soldiers.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    manofkent2014 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Aren't the memberships of all the major parties declining?

    It'll be interesting to see whether UKIP can maintain their growth and hang onto those who joined just recently.

    UKIP are increasing, the Lib Dems are too - albeit it ALOT more slowly than UKIP. The Labour membership has halved from 400k to ~ 200k, but they have almost as many members as Lib Dem (44k), Con (130k), UKIP (40k) combined.
    I thought Libdem membership was supposed to be around 60,000. Has it fallen that far and bottomed out or something?
    Yes. There's a graph in the 2012 article linked to below.

    http://www.libdemvoice.org/lib-dem-party-membership-figures-2011-29703.html
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,108
    manofkent2014 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Aren't the memberships of all the major parties declining?

    It'll be interesting to see whether UKIP can maintain their growth and hang onto those who joined just recently.

    UKIP are increasing, the Lib Dems are too - albeit it ALOT more slowly than UKIP. The Labour membership has halved from 400k to ~ 200k, but they have almost as many members as Lib Dem (44k), Con (130k), UKIP (40k) combined.
    I thought Libdem membership was supposed to be around 60,000. Has it fallen that far and bottomed out or something?
    Indeed that does seem to be the case.

    65,038 membership in 2010. 42,501 low point.

    They do seem to have stopped the rot though.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,767
    This recent trend seems to be continuing

    Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 3h

    Latest EU referendum polling from YouGov has STAY moving from a 2% to an 8% lead.

    STAY 44%+3

    LEAVE 36%-3
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    This recent trend seems to be continuing

    Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 3h

    Latest EU referendum polling from YouGov has STAY moving from a 2% to an 8% lead.

    STAY 44%+3

    LEAVE 36%-3

    Broken sleazy EU on the rise.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    anotherDave said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Topping, some of us always thought coalitions were, as a rule, rubbish.

    Mr. Pulpstar, intriguing to hear the yellows are going up.

    Well the source for that is Lib Dem voice, and the rate of increase is very very low. But it is a (Somewhat counter-intuitive) fact nonetheless.
    I think there was a change in policy, where the membership dues now go to the local party rather than LD HQ.

    So a small increase in membership, could coincide with a big decrease in LD HQ income.
    This is factually incorrect . The much reported ( at the time ) fall in Lib Dem membership in 2012 was in fact overstated . An error in accounting at HQ counted a number of membership fees paid as donations rather than membership fees . This was corrected in the yet to be published 2013 accounts . The Lib Dem membership numbers bottomed out in 2013 though the apparent rise in 2013 will be larger than it was in reality .
    Conservative Party membership continued to fall drastically in 2013 . Constituency accounts so far published show a typical 15-20% fall in numbers from 2012 .
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    edited June 2014
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Betting Post

    Backed Rybarikova against Petkovic in the Topshelf Open at 3.

    She's got a 2:0 winning record, and her recent(ish) grass performance is significantly better than Petkovic's. Should probably be odds on or at least evens. Petkovic does have a better recent record in general terms, but if clay and grass played the same Nadal would have more titles than Federer already.

    Morris - good to see you offering tennis tips aagain, let's hope we might see HenryG also putting in a few guest appearances for Wimbledon.

    There's quite a wide range of odds for the player you are suggesting, e.g. 6/4 from Bet Victor compared with 2/1 from Betfair's Fixed Odds market. I've taken your advice on the latter.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,108
    edited June 2014
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    This recent trend seems to be continuing

    Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 3h

    Latest EU referendum polling from YouGov has STAY moving from a 2% to an 8% lead.

    STAY 44%+3

    LEAVE 36%-3

    The only thing that will shoot UKIP's fox is a referendum actually taking place. I can see OUT surging if Ed Miliband gets in charge and doesn't deliver one. It is eminently winnable (the referendum) to keep us in the EU. A lack of a referendum in the next parliament will be a tremendous boost for the "Out" camp, and UKIP.

    An actual referendum taking place will be bad news for them.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Marginally more hit than miss.

    http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/lib-dem-manifesto-to-be-handwritten-and-left-next-to-body-2014061787714
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,767
    antifrank said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    This recent trend seems to be continuing

    Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 3h

    Latest EU referendum polling from YouGov has STAY moving from a 2% to an 8% lead.

    STAY 44%+3

    LEAVE 36%-3

    Broken sleazy EU on the rise.
    The other question also shows Broken Sleazy EU on the rise

    Imagine the British government under David Cameron renegotiated our relationship with Europe and said that Britain's interests were now protected, and David Cameron recommended that Britain remain a member of the European Union on the new terms.How would you then vote in a referendum on the issue?

    Would vote for Britain to remain in the European Union on the new term 57% (+4)

    Would vote for Britain to leave the European Union 22 (-2)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,894
    Cheers, Mr. Putney (although perhaps you should wait and see if the bet wins :p).

    Had a hiatus for a few reasons (not least of which was that I just forgot). For reasons entirely unrelated to the Sharapova-Bouchard match in Paris I find myself paying more attention of late.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    antifrank said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    This recent trend seems to be continuing

    Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 3h

    Latest EU referendum polling from YouGov has STAY moving from a 2% to an 8% lead.

    STAY 44%+3

    LEAVE 36%-3

    Broken sleazy EU on the rise.
    Rises to 57/22 in favour of stay if DC renegotiates successfully.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Where were all these flocking Ukip members during the Newark campaign ?

    Too busy on the golf course ?

    You need people prepared to pound the streets - not bar stool ranters.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,767
    This is an awesome correction.

    David Wyllie ‏@journodave 1m

    Meanwhile, over at The New York Times #WorldCup

    pic.twitter.com/VNXFWJrt5o
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    The only thing that will shoot UKIP's fox is a referendum actually taking place.

    Or the conservative leadership turning genuinely skeptical. Merkel is going to choose Juncker, showing that Germany considers Britain to be not much more than a noisy nuisance.

    Cameron will have to do something.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,767
    TGOHF said:

    Where were all these flocking Ukip members during the Newark campaign ?

    Too busy on the golf course ?

    You need people prepared to pound the streets - not bar stool ranters.

    They were in Malta, helping the disabled?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    On topic: I'm sceptical that an opinion poll would find the incumbency bonus, especially a poll which doesn't name the candidates.

    Off topic: The coincidence between the expected timing of the release of the Chilcot report, and the disaster which is unfolding in Iraq before our eyes, is perhaps going to make the report dynamite (assuming it's not a white-wash like Hutton).
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,894
    Mr. Nabavi, I fear that's a strong assumption.

    Also, another point on Blair's deranged utterances: he wants us to intervene in Iraq against ISIS and in Syria against Assad. Assad and ISIS are enemies... and he wants us to fight both of them.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Richard_Nabavi

    If Chilcot doesn't give the answer you want, you can always hold another until it agrees with you.
    Are you pro EU?
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    Oh FFS-

    I feel obliged to report this to my fellow island inhabitants-

    Proposed Scottish constitution to include "a commitment to free university education"
  • ToryJimToryJim Posts: 4,193
    Well this is interesting news, I wonder how it plays into interest rate expectations. I would have thought raising interest rates with already falling inflation wouldn't be contemplated.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27884113
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    edited June 2014
    ToryJim said:

    Well this is interesting news, I wonder how it plays into interest rate expectations. I would have thought raising interest rates with already falling inflation wouldn't be contemplated.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27884113

    A few months ago there were quite a lot of RT contributers crapping themselves over the thought of deflation - I just thought they were being silly - and I still do!! Yellow boxes will always save the day!!!

  • ToryJimToryJim Posts: 4,193
    JBriskin said:

    Oh FFS-

    I feel obliged to report this to my fellow island inhabitants-

    Proposed Scottish constitution to include "a commitment to free university education"

    I always thought Constitutions were process and framework documents not enshrined manifestos.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @ToryJim

    Who knows what is going on with interest rates?
    It's a puzzle.

    "Bank of England 'puzzled' by productivity gap"

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27857472
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,789
    MarkSenior said:


    Conservative Party membership continued to fall drastically in 2013 . Constituency accounts so far published show a typical 15-20% fall in numbers from 2012 .

    Do you have a link for the constituency accounts? I remember exploring the Electoral Commission website once and finding some slightly random-looking data, but it didn't seem very coherent and user-friendly. i'm naturally interested in the Broxtowe accounts for anyone listed.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,894
    Mr. Briskin, whilst a valid political perspective it's not really something for a constitution. Once again, Mr. Jim is quite correct.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Nabavi, I fear that's a strong assumption.

    Also, another point on Blair's deranged utterances: he wants us to intervene in Iraq against ISIS and in Syria against Assad. Assad and ISIS are enemies... and he wants us to fight both of them.

    Militant Islam is not confined to those places - Blair is very quiet about Kenya, Nigeria, Libya etc - is he getting modest?
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    ["Bank of England 'puzzled' by productivity gap"]

    Clearly, Brits have been gearing themselves up for the world cup. Puzzle solved.
  • JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    ToryJim said:

    JBriskin said:

    Oh FFS-

    I feel obliged to report this to my fellow island inhabitants-

    Proposed Scottish constitution to include "a commitment to free university education"

    I always thought Constitutions were process and framework documents not enshrined manifestos.
    While I have not read the Indy White Paper - by all accounts it was a dangerous precedent.

  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    NickPalmer said:

    MarkSenior said:


    Conservative Party membership continued to fall drastically in 2013 . Constituency accounts so far published show a typical 15-20% fall in numbers from 2012 .

    Do you have a link for the constituency accounts? I remember exploring the Electoral Commission website once and finding some slightly random-looking data, but it didn't seem very coherent and user-friendly. i'm naturally interested in the Broxtowe accounts for anyone listed.

    They are on the Electoral Commission website however the search function is poor and does not work with Internet Explorer . It does work for Google Chrome and probably other systems .
  • ToryJimToryJim Posts: 4,193
    This article shows that some people have no remorse or sense of humanity.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2659412/Speeding-driver-killed-boy-5-driving-twice-limit-did-not-brake-jailed-five-years.html

    I think the judge is understating somewhat when he says that it is 'very unfortunate' that the perpetrator was abusive to the victim's family.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @JBriskin

    Could well be. I have espoused a different theory here many times, but yours is obviously the right one.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    Financier said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Nabavi, I fear that's a strong assumption.

    Also, another point on Blair's deranged utterances: he wants us to intervene in Iraq against ISIS and in Syria against Assad. Assad and ISIS are enemies... and he wants us to fight both of them.

    Militant Islam is not confined to those places - Blair is very quiet about Kenya, Nigeria, Libya etc - is he getting modest?
    Blair is the Middle East Envoy.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,108
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Nabavi, I fear that's a strong assumption.

    Also, another point on Blair's deranged utterances: he wants us to intervene in Iraq against ISIS and in Syria against Assad. Assad and ISIS are enemies... and he wants us to fight both of them.

    They are enemies but they aren't really fighting (right now) - ISIS is focussing on the area east of the Euphrates so far as I can work out. If the goal is to fight both ISIS and Assad then strictly on that interpretation you'd want to give arms and support to the Syrian rebels.

    Of which Jabhat al-Nusra is the biggest group right now. They are also known as Tanzim Qa'edat Al-Jihad fi Bilad Al-Sham or perhaps more relevant to Tony Blair's interests:

    Al Qaeda.



  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I have mixed views on the Chilcot inquiry. On the one hand, it's not going to change the views of a single person. John Rentoul and David Aaronovitch will carry on arguing that anyone who spits on the hem of Tony Blair is profaning a sacred person and the vast bulk of people will carry on believing that it was all an avoidable disaster, regardless of what is actually found.

    On the other hand, it has kept some lawyers nicely remunerated, so it's not all bad.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited June 2014
    taffys said:

    The only thing that will shoot UKIP's fox is a referendum actually taking place.

    Or the conservative leadership turning genuinely skeptical. Merkel is going to choose Juncker, showing that Germany considers Britain to be not much more than a noisy nuisance.

    Cameron will have to do something.

    Mr Hannan says that Mr Cameron's objection to Mr Juncker is not that he's too pro-EU (all the candidates are), it's that he's honest about it. He won't pretend that the meaningless changes presented by Mr Cameron as a successful renegotiation are anything but meaningless.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100274672/which-faceless-eurocrat-did-you-vote-for/

  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    MarkSenior said:

    NickPalmer said:

    MarkSenior said:


    Conservative Party membership continued to fall drastically in 2013 . Constituency accounts so far published show a typical 15-20% fall in numbers from 2012 .

    Do you have a link for the constituency accounts? I remember exploring the Electoral Commission website once and finding some slightly random-looking data, but it didn't seem very coherent and user-friendly. i'm naturally interested in the Broxtowe accounts for anyone listed.

    They are on the Electoral Commission website however the search function is poor and does not work with Internet Explorer . It does work for Google Chrome and probably other systems .
    For what it is worth , Broxtowe Constituency Conservatives have not published or had to publish their accounts since 2010 , Broxtowe Constituency Labour appear to have never published or had to publish their accounts
  • ToryJimToryJim Posts: 4,193
    JBriskin said:

    ToryJim said:

    JBriskin said:

    Oh FFS-

    I feel obliged to report this to my fellow island inhabitants-

    Proposed Scottish constitution to include "a commitment to free university education"

    I always thought Constitutions were process and framework documents not enshrined manifestos.
    While I have not read the Indy White Paper - by all accounts it was a dangerous precedent.

    I tried to read it but it is terribly boring, certainly not a thing of beauty like the US Constitution.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025