politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The GE2015 campaign will come down to the party with the w
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The GE2015 campaign will come down to the party with the weirdo leader versus the party that’s still toxic
It’s become the norm in recent general elections that a large part of the campaign is fought on almost totally negative grounds and we should expect nothing different in the run up to May 7th.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
David Cameron is liked by 43%, and disliked by 52%. The Conservative party is liked by 39%, and disliked by 57%. The proportion liking the Conservative party has slightly increased from 35% in October 2012.
Ed Miliband is liked by 30% (down from 37% in October 2012), and disliked by 63%. The Labour party is liked by 49%, and disliked by 43%, which represents little change.
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3245/Ipsos-MORI-Political-Monitor-August-2013.aspx
However, the premise is sound - DAVID CAMERON's Conservatives will attack ED MILIBAND's Labour, while Labour will attack the TORIES.
Of course we will get a dry run of this in September to see whether Scotland opts to AVOID ANOTHER 5YEARS OF TORY RULE , as Nichola Sturgeon was urging on QT last night......
"The backstabbing weirdo versus the out of touch Old Etonian might sound like the title of an Agatha Christie novel, but it is the choice many voters face at the next election"
the 2015 General Election, when it comes to the leaders, it may be the case of the resistible force meets the moveable object.
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/12/11/is-it-all-about-leader-ratings-and-the-economic-lead/
All they've tried to do over the last 4 years is to say "things are terrible. Evil Tories" when of course its turned out not to be. Hence now trying to attack via the NHS (too early, very dependent on a poor winter of weather, very likely to run out of steam as a narrative).
The Tories still have their powder dry. They've tested one or two concepts over the past year against Miliband which have worked well, but no campaign as yet. The real war starts in 2015. Now doesn't matter.
With Crosby, the Tories have a real strategist behind them, who Labour fear. Hence Labour's continual attempted attacks on Crosby, even though he's irrelevant to those outside the bubble.
Labour by contrast have a confusing mess. Hard to win for them.
Kesh in London: Awkward stat of the day. Jimmy Anderson has hit more fours in this innings than Alastair Cook has in 2014.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2014/0710/Russia-takes-aim-at-dissent-media-criticism-and-high-heels?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Daily&utm_campaign=20140711_Newsletter:Daily_Sailthru&cmpid=ema:nws:Daily%20Newsletter%20(07-11-2014)
Jimmy on 81??? WTF?
To beat Sagan and Cancellara over the stones was an absolute beast of a ride by Nibbles though.
Need them to somehow get back into 10-1 ^_~
Labour are focussed on the segment of voters they got from Lib Dems, the ones who voted tactically in many cases to keep the tories out and then found they had voted to put the tories in. They will be constantly reminded what a terrible mistake they made.
UKIP supporters will be reminded that Labour wreaked the economy and have no clear ideas about not doing so again. The only way to stop that is to vote tory.
The Lib Dems will be saying that the tories are horrible but competent and Labour nicer but incompetent and both need a steadying and reasonable hand on the tiller (and as one of them is not available vote Lib Dem).
UKIP will be abusive about the oh so hilarious LibLabCon.
Personally, I can't wait.
I suspect that will be more of a burden next May.
These "2010 LD switchers" - how is the party leadership intending to win them back in time for 2015 - or has it abandoned them as a lost cause?
http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/740259
The colourfull activist Valeria Novodvorskaya is dead.
And here's the opinion of the russian government essentially about her while she was alive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBy4vaqugOg
I not sure that the Conservatives believe that its just Ed Miliband who is the Labour party's big weakness, and the current polling is definitely showing that its both Miliband and Ed Balls who are a drag on Labour's chances of winning the next GE. In fact, you could say that the whole Labour Shadow Cabinet is failing to set the heather on fire right now. We shouldn't forget how keen New Labour were to push team Blair/Brown in a bid to strengthen their economic credentials when it came to their earlier GE campaigns either.
Before the last GE, the Conservatives also pushed Cameron as a Leader whose was part of a close working team which included Osborne and Hague. I suspect that the Conservatives will push hard on the fact that they now have a proven Government track record with a range of competent Ministers rather than try to just make the election campaign about Cameron vs Miliband. Ed Miliband's biggest mistake has been his failure to build a strong Shadow Cabinet team around him which is fit for purpose and able to withstand the scrutiny of an intense GE campaign.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-13/leaks-raise-fresh-sarkozy-corruption-allegations/5592620
So it will be Le Pen vs Hollande.
1) Who gets to decide that the teams have conspired for a draw?
2) What sort of penalty would apply?
3) What happens if the match has been plagued by bad light/rain?
4) Some of the best matches I've been to have been draws, with at least one side determined to play out for a draw on the last day (5th test of 2005)
5) It would encourage the tactics of limited overs cricket.
6) It buggers up a test series, say we adopted your policy, one side would be forced to play catch up for the rest of this series and not take the long term view.
We are talking about the tories being 'toxic'. Why if that was/is the case did people flock to them to keep out UKIP.
Why is nobody saying that UKIP is 'toxic'??
For them the Tories wrecked the economy as much as Labour, but their priority is social conservatism not the PMI index.
Talking about them though:
http://www.columnist.org.uk/2014/07/12/meet-the-parts-of-britain-that-could-elect-our-first-ukip-mps/
I dislike this humidity.
Meanwhile, in Turkey, man who wants to be president wants more power for the presidency:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28267924
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28263683
Worth mentioning that a mine is being opened in Dartmoor. Apparently we have the world's third largest deposit.
The "weirdo leader" versus "the Party that's still toxic" - enough about UKIP and the Lib Dems, I'm surprised no one is talking about the Conservatives with their weirdo leader and the toxic Labour Party ?
Slightly more seriously, two unrelated thoughts - Newark is being wheeled out as some form of Tory "sacred cow". Let's not forget the Party flooded the seat with hundreds of activists in the run up to and on Polling Day (much as the LDs did on a smaller scale at Eastleigh and Labour did in Ealing in 2007). They overpowered UKIP in the "ground war" in a way they could not repeat in 300 constituencies next May and all to hold a supposedly safe seat with a massive majority.
Even the Prime Minister visited four times - had UKIP won the seat, I suspect the Conservatives would have been thrown into a real crisis.
Second unrelated matter - I thought Shadsy had priced up every constituency but I can't find the prices for East Ham. It seems strange - a 100 seat accumulator on the safest seats (priced up at say 1/100) would still yield a return worth investing £1k on.
The Tories have not recovered from it 20 years later.
As for the LD, the last time they did such a strategic error they needed 50 years to recover.
Avast and belike.
P.S. Hope your mum is well.
How have the conservatives ruined the economy? They left an economy in good shape in 1997. They inherited a mess in n2010 and are putting it right.
UKIPers might 'think' that of course but that is not saying much.
How if forces united to keep out UKIP is it that they cannot be said to be toxic to a wide strata of voters?
Labour are 1/100 and everyone else are 100/1
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/east-ham/winning-party
http://sportsbeta.ladbrokes.com/UK-General-Election/Next-General-Election-Constituency-Betting/Politics-N-1z140vgZ1z140v7Z1z141ne/
Edit: But he won't let you do an accumulator.
3rd, that would explain why they spend most of their time decrying the successful SNP.
Obviously Shadsy won't take this bet :P
First, it's the nature of the UKIP vote, in that they have been left behind the London boom (income inequality).
Second, is the nature of the crisis caused by incompetent bankers and the natural identification of them with tories (which is ironic because had there been no thacherite deregulation of lending and finance the crisis would never have happened).
Third, is the initial failure of tory economic policy from 2010 till mid 2013 which also cant be said to be a success today (borrowing is still sky high and growth is limited to the London boom)
On a much more positive note, I hope one or two of you followed my advice and backed GREGORIAN each way for the July Cup. I got 16s yesterday before the withdrawals and he returned 12s so that will pay for a nice dinner for me and Mrs Stodge in the coming week.
Without detailed local knowledge it's very hard to have an advantage - I might be tempted in the light of the Illogan win to have a small wager on the LDs winning Camborne & Redruth at 7/2 but conversely the Conservatives to win St Ives looks tempting at 11/10. Andrew George had a poor result last time and Newlyn is or was fertile UKIP territory. Penzance has always had a strong Labour core which has possibly voted tactically in times past.
I'm also tempted by the 11/4 on Labour winning Ilford North closer to home.
@TSE - damn right. Some of the greatest tests have been when one side is playing for the draw. Saving a test is an honour.
The 'boom' is beyond London (there was qite a discission about this a few days ago). Witness the car investment in the regions (something which could disappear if UKIP walked us out of the EU)
Brown's warped metjhod of banking regulation alowed the croisis to fester. The tories warned about it 10 years previously
Tory economic policy did not fail. On the contrary Osborne wisely adapted his policies to reflect the Eurozone crisis. Osborne has successfully walked an economic tightrope and preserved many jobs. The disaster predicted by labour never happened.
I was taken by Peter Hitchens' column on the topic - regarding politics and policy I would agree with him on almost nothing but he comes across as a decent compassionate man.
Is it better or worse than attacking people based on which school their parents sent them to?
It's not like Paul Dacre's playing the Rains of Castermere on the violin.
What with Tom Daley and now the "Thorpedo" there must be something in the water ....
He's also suffered considerably from depression, that I would have thought is probably repression related. Hopefully he find some peace once the fuss has died down, although that will probably be some time with Thorpe's huge reputation in Oz.
Hmm. I wonder why I thought that? I hasten to add I don't have first hand experience of the matter.
The charge of hypocrisy is well founded.
UKIP's popularity has risen significantly, its membership has soared and its made real progress in various elections over a number of years.
However, it's also the case that quite a lot of people look not merely with distaste, but bafflement and substantial unease at UKIP. I forget the constituency, but the last by-election saw (I think) some Labour people tactically voting for the Conservatives to try and keep UKIP out.
The electorate's large enough for a party to both rise in popularity and be seen as toxic.
The Quantum theory of politics. Actually there may be a relevance there. Do we affect things by observing them? To what extent to polls affect what they are looking at?
Labour has adopted a quantum approach to the bankers' bonus tax. It pays for multiple things, until this is observed, at which point it can only fund one.
Last election I feel YouGov (daily polls) more directed than represented public opinion. Excessive polling is a danger, I think. Far, far worse, however, was the worm in the debates. That should be abolished immediately.
It won't be, but it should be.
Mr. Hopkins, I'm not sure if that's more unfair to UKIP or Marmite...
Worth mentioning it's entirely possible not to be a true believer or a hater. I've voted UKIP a couple of times, but it'd take a near miracle for me to do so at the General Election.
He has some fairly socially conservative views and is very anti-PC. Yet to my surprise he hates UKIP and the fact that they won the EU elections has spurred him on to actually want to be an activist, he's currently debating which party to align himself to.
Anecdote over.
To the average punter in the street, UKIP winning the Euros and coming 2nd in by elections is massive
The reason more people from other parties dislike UKIP now is because they are a threat in a way they weren't before.
I support a football team whose local rivals never finish above us in the league.. and as a result I don't particularly think about them or have negative views of them.. on the other hand, their fans absolutely despise my club. When they look like they might be getting good, and may be about to finish above us, I find my hatred for them growing, which is quite reassuring!
The fact of Newark was that people from other parties voted against UKIP and chose the Tories. We will gloss over the motives behind voting UKIP, there are many from the banal through the bogus and on to the beastly - what is important is that the extreme right wing views (or if you cannot face that then the extreme right wing reputation) of UKIP prompted many from the mainstream to chose the Tories as the best alternative to prevent 'an Orpington'.
Or well Conservatives maybe ?
It's very hard using the iPad for continued conversation.
Was out today leafleting in Barnes and in this Con/L.Dem area I got plenty of kind comments re UKIP.
But put it this way... the UKIP vote went up 22% while Lab and Libs went down 22%
People are saying these Lab and Lib votes DIDN'T go to UKIP... they went to conservatives and the UKIP 22% came from somewhere else, even though the Cons only went down 9%
Looks like a bit of a stretch
Imagine UKIP vote went up the same amount as BNP went down in a constituency, and Richard Tyndall and I were saying it didn't show BNP voters had gone to UKIP!!!
That's what we are being asked to believe
Mildly surprised you were leafleting. Bit of a long time to go before the next election (mind you, I've had a few things from both the blues and the reds).
"The fact of Newark was that people from other parties voted against UKIP and chose the Tories."
is true
the maths does not add up
So maybe 11% of The Kipper vote was 2010 Con, 3% 2010 kipper and the remainder came from LD and Lab or 2010 DNV.
There must have been some churn from 2010 LD and Lab to Tory. How much of this was tactical and how much conversion to Osbornomics is very difficult to say.
Tactical voting against Tory or Lab is commonplace. It would be surprising if there was not some against UKIP. The only real question is how common is the phenomenon and whether it will make a difference in any seat.