Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Miliband’s Achilles’ heel: those who backed Brown
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Miliband’s Achilles’ heel: those who backed Brown
One assertion that receives a regular hearing on politicalbetting is that Labour is in an extremely strong position to win the next election thanks to that group of voters who switched from Lib Dem to Labour in 2010. They’ve been consistent in their support ever since and remain favourably disposed towards Miliband and Labour. Add in that UKIP’s support has come disproportionately from Con, that …
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Notable that the US has reportedly struck at ISIS targets around the Mosul Dam. This is high on the return list for those ranged against the ISIS forces. Control of the dam means the potential for great economic & destructive power so it may be expected that there will be concerted attempts to seize it from ISIS and equally determined attempts to hold it.
I want to be cheeky and distil your argument into one word: churn.
Churn is why the 2010 LibDem voter obsession is wrong. It's a static rather than dynamic approach to the electorate. It's a monolithic, highly simplistic, view of who voted historically, and who will do so, and how, in the present and future. Containing a grain of truth does not make it true.
YouGov and IpsosMori now have the two main parties level pegging. I'm 90%+ certain the Tories are on course for outright Government in GE2015.
Marquee Mark misunderstands David's point (or is maybe making a different one) - it's not that 2010 Labour voters are flirting with Osborne (see the polls for the negligible Lab->Con or indeed Con->Lab switching), but that they're traditionally less sure they'll bother.
Indeed some party members don't always bother to vote and see it as a social thing - I remember back in 1995 when I was a Euro-candidate, a branch of Hastings Labour Party called a routine branch meeting ON ELECTION DAY - "We enjoy our branch meetings and felt it was a shame to cancel". The Tories have the same problem. My guess is that election fever and better Labour GOTV (the absence of Tory ground war since 2010 has to be a problem) will get the vote out, but we'll see.
I think that the threat to Labour of Greens is modest in marginals, by the way (cf. Ashcroft's marginal poll on Broxtowe to see what I mean) - I know plenty of people who would quite like to vote for a party left of Labour but they too are quite politically realistic. But they can soak up 1-2%, which could be critical.
Nick: thanks for your insight too, but I just want to disagree slightly about the "Tory Ground War". I live in one of the top 10 Tory targets for 2015 and a couple of weeks ago the Tory candidate (who has set up his own website for the election) called round in person with a four-page survey form for me to fill in; it had been pre-printed with my name and address, which suggests a fair degree of organisation I would think. My parents-in-law, who live in the same constituency, received a similar visit yesterday.
Now I would readily concede that two sightings of a Tory PPC do not constitute a fully-fledged ground-war but I haven't even received any literature from any of the other candidates... Maybe the Tory ground-war is highly concentrated on the seats they need to win for a majority in GE2015, which would explain why my constituency seems to be getting a lot more attention than Broxtowe may be.
Usually, most polls show almost overwhelming support for Labour in the North, so would even significant losses to UKIP matter and have any real effect on the result?
The Midlands and Yorks & Humber where more seats are marginals may show a greater impact.
The EUROS do not provide many extra clues as both LAB and UKIP increased their vote mainly at the expense of the LDs and the Cons respectively.
So are there more shy UKIPpers for 2015 among Labour or will they return to their tribal loyalty?
If we assume a midpoint of 8.5 out of 10 then 85% of 78% = 66.3%; about the turnout in recent elections. Maybe people are being accurate about it!
Also, I wonder about past voting recall. We know that polls find more 2010 UKIP voters than expected, so weightings need adjustment. It seems intuitive that people are more accurate with recent events than distant ones, so recall of 2010 voting memory may have been more accurate in 2011 than at present.
But once again a good article by DH. All parties need to hold onto their core vote.
and isn't a good percentage of the kipper vote in Labour seats from former BNP voters, so not likely to alter majorities much?
I think the biggest threat to Labour is the lack of enthusiasm for change. That sheet of paper has been blank too long.
And for the railways?
Are we going to go back to Robin Cook’s ethical foreign policy?
What is proposed for the NHS? Are the Lansley “reforms” to be undone or what? I’d rather not, incidentally. lay reps on CCG’s as well as nurses and others would be better.
I could go on.
UKIP on zero seats is my prediction still.
Paddy Power goes 6/5 UKIP. Must be a good bet. And they permitted me a generous 60 quid.
In 1997 they got 165 seats and 30.7% of the vote
In 2001 they got 166 seats and 31.7% of the vote.
As Thomas Nashe has just mentioned, Labour's Achilles point next year will be Scotland. In 2010 there was an element of "We know he's an idiot but he's our idiot" about Brown and the Labour vote in Scotland. The following year they lost seats to the SNP they had held since WWII. Labour has not yet recovered in Scotland from 2011. The Tories in Scotland have suffered from having the most evenly spread votes so only 1 seat for 412,000 votes but 15 second places and currently Baxter is predicting 5 of those will become Tory gains.
The Scottish Tories are rising from a very low base but 20 consecutive council by-elections with increased Tory vote share all across Scotland is very encouraging. In 1979 after the last NO vote we came close to wiping the SNP out (they went from 11 to 2 seats) so who knows what may happen if 5 weeks today we are reflecting on another No vote.
2001 is simply not an example of your claim, which appears to be based on a single data point.
KW for JackW.
I think the best chance for Tory gains would be at the expense of the Lib Dems.
And UKIP contains people like Hamilton, Helmer and Bloom. They are not a revolutionary insurgent party, they are reactionaries.
UKIP are not going to take safe Labour seats in the North and Midlands by getting votes off LDs and others.
I'm not making a general point about what usually happens; I'm making one about what can happen (though if I'd wanted to, it can't be ignored that at the election after losing power, Labour lost 1.5m voters in 1955, the Tories lost 600k in 1966, Labour lost 600k in Feb 1974 (even while returning to power), and the Tories lost 1.5m in Oct 1974, in addition to the examples already cited. At every election after a party has lost power, they've lost votes too. Now, that's not a golden rule - there are too many variables for that - but it is striking.
Then there's Hague, doing things which are well regarded around the world, and even a few months previously, had been reselected by his constituency party, suddenly announces his intention to resign his seat at the next election to spend more time with his family rather than Hollywood film stars.
No, never, ever would our beloved, Old Etonian, Bullingdonian, etc. PM do anything suspicously devious to maintain his political position. It is just a far, far better thing that his friends lay down their political lives for his
Your final McARSE was a little close to the 40% line and 80% line for Shadsys bands. I have placed my final sindy bets accordingly.
A No vote will damage the SNP through a recrimination driven post mortem, and the most pro Union party may well get some bonus from the Scottish electorate freely backing the union in the first vote that they have had for independence.
Remember how the pollsters all understated Labour in 2010 and the general theory that few were going to vote for a party that was led by Brown.
You understate the bigger electoral dynamic of ANTI-CON voting which will be on a big scale. Watch the next phase of Ashcroft marginals polling.
I'm off to Holyrood for my session at the Festival of Politics.
I'll be placing a few posts on JackWs behalf, under KW for JackW, whilst he's away and using his account so Pb will be aware they are authentic. Sorry for any confusion.
KW for JackW
Personally I hope the person concerned sues the Police for a huge sum of money, which I think they have a good chance of winning. It will teach them a lesson that they should not be naming suspects before they have charged them. And they should certainly not be working with the media, advising them where they will be carrying out searches.
I know the crimes being alleged are horrible, but if we allow the Police to name suspects before charge and to actively work with the media, where do we draw the line. Why not other types of crime e.g drug dealing, burglaries, fraud ? Why does it seem that celebrities are given worse treatment ? Are the Police looking for publicity for themselves and not really trying to see if other accusers come forward.
Likewise, was it just a coincidence that earlier this year, Labour became the first opposition not to win the European elections since 1984? Yes, you could point to the Tories also finishing outside the top two for the first time ever and that would be fair on one level, but on another it would be a 'squirrel' distraction. Other election results have been similarly underwhelming, all the more so given that both other main Westminster parties are in government.
As an aside, it's not the first coalition where the large fish hasn't tried to swallow the small one: the Tories made no effort to take in the (Lloyd George) Liberal Nationals during or after the 1918-22 (or 1916-22) coalition.
In my view England could declare now and win this test. The Indians are shot. Some of their batting yesterday would have embarrassed their women's team. Binny in particular looked like he was going to get out every ball he faced.
Today, it would end the match faster if England were actually bowled out at some point. The bowling will have to be better than it was yesterday.
http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/why-women-have-a-problem-with-alex-salmond-in-four-charts--lkwmUHxeme
David's completely right.
His argument is based on the fact that lost support can go to "not voting" as well as directly to an opposing party, and that has a very real effect on both the total vote and individual constituency votes.
In which case, we can't use numbers that deliberately ignore the "did not vote" score (as the percentage ones do). It may well be the case that the Conservatives will lose more voters to "not voting" than Labour, but that doesn't mean we can ignore this effect.
For completeness, the full voting scores (including DNV as a category) for 1997 and 2001 went like this:
1997:
Con 21.9%
Lab 30.8%
LD 11.9%
Others 6.7%
DNV 28.7%>
2001:
Con 18.8%
Lab 24.2%
LD 10.8%
Others 5.6%
DNV 40.6%
Hague dropped more than 3% of the electorate in comparison to 1997. He was helped by the fact that Blair mislaid over 6% of the electorate at the same time.
(For comparison, in 1992:
Con 32.6%
Lab 26.7%
LD 13.9%
Others 4.5%
DNV 22.3%)
I don't know what will happen at a very open election in 2015. However, after the bloodbath, every party will be acutely aware of what has happened to the LibDems as the junior coalition party.
My hunch is that there is absolutely way that Nationalists will enter a Coalition with Labour, If indeed Labour are the biggest party. They will surely oppose everything from the sidelines, and look to reap a huge electoral dividend from the unpopular decisions that will be forced upon the Government. Much safer, much better politics.
My guess is -- if you're putting money on it -- minority Government, either Lab or Con.
Why would any small party put their neck in the noose vacated by the LibDems ?
"We know he's an idiot but he's our idiot" about Brown and the Labour vote in Scotland"
You really don't have a high opinion of your fellow Scots. Anyone looking for a reason why the Tories are down to sub panda numbers need look no further than your post which I suspect is typical of the Tory mindset in Scotland
"David's completely right."
It is a fact of life that Labour voters are great conservers of energy and don't bother to vote when the result is a forgone conclusion. In 1997 though it probably was they were so DESPERATE to get rid of the Tories they wouldn't take any chances. (Who could blame them after '92)
In 2001 and 2005 they were sufficiently confident that toiling down to the polling station was just not necessary. It's as simple as that
I'm not convinced by the tactical voting argument. There comes a point where people start thinking not just about who they'd like to vote against but the consequences of who they're giving their vote to, in so doing. The evidence from the polls as to the confidence the public have in them or in their leader is that once that starts happening, voters will peel off. Is it a coincidence that Labour's VI has recovered since the May elections - or put another way, it fell going into the elections (and they weren't even particularly meaningful votes).
To take another example, look at YouGov's leader perceptions:
Which would make the best PM? (12-13/8/2014)
DC - 34
EM - 20
NC - 5
DK - 41
EM characteristics (11-12/8/2014 - respondents could pick as many as they wanted):
Sticks to what he believes in: 16%
Honest: 17%
Strong: 5%
In touch with ordinary people: 20%
Good in a crisis: 4%
Decisive: 5%
A natural leader: 3%
Charismatic: 4%
The perception is of someone whose heart might be in the right place but would be pushed about and incapable. Are so many people so strongly anti-Tory that huge numbers will back Ed Miliband to be PM despite thinking all of the above (and that is what a tactical vote for Labour means, irrespective of how it's dressed up)? Or is it more likely - as has happened at real elections - that large numbers of those dissatisfied with the government will simply sit it out altogether or find another outlet for their protest?
Just to mark your cards everyone.
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft · 14m
My commentary on @MayorofLondon and the Uxbridge constituency will be on @ConHome at 11am with detailed polling at http://lordashcroftpolls.com
I'll probably do a thread on it around 2pm.
Here's my tips for today
Swansea to beat Manchester United
Crystal Palace to beat Arsenal.
I've also backed a seven fold accumulator.
Man U, Everton, Hull, Stoke, Sunderland, Spurs and Arsenal to all win.
A £10 stake should return you approx £2,000
UKIP are going to be one of the also rans, and I am happy with that.
For a politician to agree to something which would make them look totally untrustworthy, is just stupid. Whatever the merits of the new system, the Lib Dems should have taken longer to go out for a public consulation. There was no immediate need to make the change, as the government pay the universities anyway. There is just a liability created, which is debt paid back by the student over a period of time. It is quite possible that the new system will cost the government more that the old system, if the debt write offs are at a certain level.
The Lib Dems act as the whipping boys and that is how the public see them. That is why they are so low in the polls, nothing to do with coalition. If Clegg and his colleagues had been much stronger in standing up for their own position and negotiating harder, they would be doing much better. It was not as if the Tories would break the coalition, because of the fixed term parliament act.
Because of the Lib Dems fortress strategy I think they will hold onto 30+ seats, but they will lose votes in many areas, which will set them back for along time to come. Before 2010, the Lib Dems looked like they might be spreading their appeal, challenging Labour and Tories. But this has been affected by their damaged reputation.
I agree about globalization and the 1945 settlement (across Europe and beyond, not just in the UK), and I have a good piece waiting on that very subject to be written as soon as I've a quiet weekend to put it up.
I agree as well about leaders being chosen for many reasons, though those chosen for internal party ones do tend to suffer at the polls, even if all things considered, it was the least-worst option.
(Not that it was just the Tories suffering from complacency; Labour was jumping at hallucinations of the ghosts of 1992 at the same time, though in their case it was a spur rather than a reason to relax).
As for Scots Tories, how do you explain our vote has been increasing constantly since 2011?
Plenty of betting opportunities if that's the case. Zero seats for UKIP is now longer odds that 1-5 seats at betfair.
And on that waspish note, I'm off to paint a house. Have fun, all.
Can anyone point me to sources that describe how the party at constituency level plans and executes their GOTV campaign, what techniques are used to get someone to vote by post or in person and whether the plan flexes on the day based on what's happening...
Any help appreciated, cynical comments on voting fraud not required!
In 1992 there was a national determination not to allow Labour in to destroy the economy again. I suspect the same will happen again but still not convinced it will be enough for outright majority.
LOL, you are certainly persistent posting drivel from the Daily Heil. Playing to southerners is about your level.
"As for Scots Tories, how do you explain our vote has been increasing constantly since 2011?"
Thank you for your welcome.
Some weeks ago I went to a little fete in in a very pretty port in Alec Salmond's constituency up from Aberdeen and I was amazed at the number of ex pat English people. I would guess up to a quarter. Generally older some manning the 'Better Together' tents most wearing Barbour jackets.
There has clearly been a mass exodus probably probably cashing in on the imbalance in property prices between Scotland and the SE of England and of couse the scenery and the bracing East coast winds.
I think this may be where the Tory support is coming from. I also wouldn't be surprised if many of the brightest and more creative have been moving in the opposite direction possibly to get away from the narrow minded 'Little Scotlanders'
The questions from female members of the audience during the first Darling:Salmond debate were strikingly hostile towards the First Minister. It's the women, stupid.
The saucy minx has pinched a certain separatist's favourite epithet too - "turnip"! She'll rue the day.....
But today my thoughts are on Liecester City vs Everton. It will be an interesting test.
No Monica , it's the stupid vacuous women basing everything on looks etc. I note Moir and the Daily Heil was not brave enough to allow comments on her verbal diahorrea. Typical unionists , insult the person and their looks and ignore everything else , pool share and bitter together, LOL.
I should sue, must ask Financier how you go about litigation.
The charm of a turnip.
Branding 1.01
Dear Dear Monica, down to stealing quotes now, how very you. Scott and you should get hitched, what a pair of wally dugs you would make.
One thing most PBers are also not taking into account.partly because most don't suffer it, is the massive reduction in living standards for the low waged, in the public sector certainly but also private. The BoE's projection to halve [ where were they all this time ? ] expected wage growth rate shows people are really suffering. *ankers maybe raking in, but the poor sods at the bottom half are suffering. They won't be voting Tory, I can assure you and, on the day, will come out and vote anti Tory. UKIP will get some of those votes.
This will be the first election in decades when people will be worse off than 5 years ago. THanks to austerity.
Can every BT supporter please stop reminding us YES supporters of the cock-up that Salmond et al have made of the campaign. Do not intrude on private grief, thanks.
I do think Labour will shed some Brown votes. Still expect them to have most seats, though.
Cock-up or conspiracy ? Many in the Yes camp think Salmond has intentionally thrown the campaign.
Censorship !
In order to have a wage one must be in employment. People are better off on the whole in 2015 than in 2010 in stark comparison to 2010 when labour had lowered living standards in comparison to 2005.
This sort of post is why people will be turning out in droves to keep labour out ala 1992.
And when we look at France or at Japan, where we see a 1.7% contraction in GDP last quarter, we see no real alternative to living within our means. Borrowing for stimulus is an epic fail.
I do wonder on a day like this in a month like this when people are being massacred on a daily basis in the Middle East whether there could be a better way to draw attention to the vacuousness of yourself and your paper than Jan Moir has done?
TNS Sifo/GP
(if the party has a UK partner party in the European Parliament it is shown in brackets)
(+/- change from Swedish GE 2010)
Red-Green opposition bloc
Social Democrats (Lab, SDLP) 30% (-1)
Environment Party (Grn, SNP, PC) 11% (+4)
Left Party (SF) 8% (+2)
Centre-right coalition government
Moderates (n/a) 25% (-5)
Peoples' Party (LD) 7% (n/c)
----(note: 4% threshold to get back into the Riksdag)----
Centre Party (LD) 4% (-3)
Christian Democrats (n/a) 3% (-3)
Others
Sweden Democrats (UKIP) 10% (+4)
Feminist Initiative (Lab, SDLP) 2% (+2)
Ladbrokes have several Swedish markets, eg.
Next Prime Minister
Stefan Löfven (S) 1/6
Fredrik Reinfeldt (M) 3/1
Any other 33/1
All of their other markets cover the % vote for the nine main parties listed above.
" I guess a lot will depend on the manifesto that UKIP eventually comes up with"
There is much in what you say, but I think the UKIP manifesto will not be important to the people who are thinking of voting for that party. Few people will read it (does anyone who isn't paid to read any party's manifesto?) and any reports pointing out inconsistencies and items of silliness will be shrugged off. Look at the run up to the Euros earlier this year; there were a lot of stories about how awful some of the UKIP people were and how incompetent and unfit they were as a party, if it made a difference it was a very small one.
UKIP is the party for the ignored, the disenfranchised and the fed up. In many ways it is analogous to the Labour Party in its early years, it exists to give a voice to those ignored by the big parties.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2706941/He-Middle-East-not-UK-Peace-envoy-Tony-Blair-blasted-throwing-surprise-birthday-party-wife-Cheries-60th-6million-mansion-Gaza-death-toll-passes-1-000.html
"Censorship !"
Indeed. The Guardian ran an ad by the odious Elie Weisel. They used the same defence. 'Nothing to do with us guv'"
Your thesis on Labour support sounds right to me. I have said previously on here that the Conservatives will be trying to reduce motivation by stirring up apathy and uncertainty amongst Labour trending voters throughout the campaign. In fact it is already happening.
Look at the timeline of CCHQ and the stories planted in the press particularly about the top Miliband team and the ridiculous delivery of the 'summer campaign'. 'The Choice' slogan is the worst home goal for years. Choose between prosperity and common sense or geeky incompetence. Self interest or self economic harm.
A significant number of soft supporters of any party need a strong positive reason to vote. Is the Miliband team giving them one? A few glittering policy-lite announcements at the autumn conference have to overcome three years or more of those cartoons of plasticine characters which devastatingly are supported by the reality. Labour really do seem to be the Wallace and Gromit of British politics.
Jobs? Take Merseyside - the Jaguar LandRover workforce at Halewood has grown to 4,750 - treble what it was just four years ago. Don't forget all the other associated jobs that go with that. Production is 24 hours a day and 80% goes to export. In recent times more than £500m has been invested in the factory. Are the people there better or worse off when there are 3000 extra well paid jobs that have been created?
"Blair, the man you regard as Britain's classiest PM, set the gold standard for vacuity and negligence;'
Guilty
This is a very good way to put it. They support 'coalition' and then publicly trash their own coalition. I think your point is very well made. And of course in attacking their own government they drive support for the entire govt down. In effect they show themselves unsuited to the power they allegedly crave.
I personally want a tory govt, but i am happy to put up with a coalition as a next best alternative and put up with those limitations that the libdem part of it demand. The libdems have not been and have shown that they want their cake and eat it in a quite immature fashion.
But is the 'libdem' era at an end? There is surely no social democrat tendency left. At 8% the 'liberal' vote is where it belongs and the libdems should merge back with the liberals. The orange bookers really ought to join the tories.