politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why the Tories could need to be 10% ahead in England and Wa

Alanbrooke said:

Casino_Royale said:

Alanbrooke said:

Casino_Royale said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Royale, I'd guess an assumption (until recently correct) that there was nowhere else for such voters to turn. Understandable, but short-sighted and complacent.

Worth recalling the Western Empire could've seen off all external threats if it hadn't become addicted to regicide and consumed its strength in perpetual civil war. In that regard, Cameron's been a strategic failure, having presided over the splitting of the right.

The Conservatives could do with an Aurelian to stitch the Empire back together [and it'd help if they don't assassinate him].

Yes, the respect issue once more. Basically, the modernisers misdiagnosed the problems of the Conservative party's electoral appeal, learnt the wrong lessons from the 1990s New Labour "Project" and, when they applied them, they were already at least 10 years out of date anyway.

What some Conservative loyalists seem to overlook is that without necessarily changing a single current policy the leadership could have held on to far more of its original voter and activist base simply by listening to them, treating them courteously and with respect, and showing they were on our side.

But they couldn't because they weren't.

The so called modernisers had no clue what they were trying to do, They sought a clause 4 moment every month, failing to recognise Blair only threw a few bones to his target audience and one's which would have gone anyway. The Cameroons thought they had to knock the house down rather than do a spot of remodelling.

New Labour was very successful at radical constitutional, cultural and social change in the UK. Our retrospective tends to focus too much on the economic mood-music but even there although the presentation was centrist the reality was one of greatly increased public spending, just without the taxation to pay for it all.

Well one could question how successful they were - they left a constitutional mess - but the sad thing Cameron is simply continuing a lot of the policies though at a slower pace. In effect he has consolidated the Blair\Brown settlement and is merely seeking to run it more efficiently.

HE didn't have the mandate for dramatic change - but in any event the welfare and education reforms (if delivered) are what Blair was aiming at.

Fazio...
Ed Miliband.

If I were a Spurs fan, I'd slit my wrists now and die happy before the inevitable happens.

Charles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Casino_Royale said:

Alanbrooke said:

Casino_Royale said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Royale, I'd guess an assumption (until recently correct) that there was nowhere else for such voters to turn. Understandable, but short-sighted and complacent.

Worth recalling the Western Empire could've seen off all external threats if it hadn't become addicted to regicide and consumed its strength in perpetual civil war. In that regard, Cameron's been a strategic failure, having presided over the splitting of the right.

The Conservatives could do with an Aurelian to stitch the Empire back together [and it'd help if they don't assassinate him].

Yes, the respect issue once more. Basically, the modernisers misdiagnosed the problems of the Conservative party's electoral appeal, learnt the wrong lessons from the 1990s New Labour "Project" and, when they applied them, they were already at least 10 years out of date anyway.

What some Conservative loyalists seem to overlook is that without necessarily changing a single current policy the leadership could have held on to far more of its original voter and activist base simply by listening to them, treating them courteously and with respect, and showing they were on our side.

But they couldn't because they weren't.

The so called modernisers had no clue what they were trying to do, They sought a clause 4 moment every month, failing to recognise Blair only threw a few bones to his target audience and one's which would have gone anyway. The Cameroons thought they had to knock the house down rather than do a spot of remodelling.

New Labour was very successful at radical constitutional, cultural and social change in the UK. Our retrospective tends to focus too much on the economic mood-music but even there although the presentation was centrist the reality was one of greatly increased public spending, just without the taxation to pay for it all.

Well one could question how successful they were - they left a constitutional mess - but the sad thing Cameron is simply continuing a lot of the policies though at a slower pace. In effect he has consolidated the Blair\Brown settlement and is merely seeking to run it more efficiently.

HE didn't have the mandate for dramatic change - but in any event the welfare and education reforms (if delivered) are what Blair was aiming at.

You're simply saying he's finishing off Blair's agenda. What happens if you think that agenda is wrong ? Why should a natural conservative vote for a Conservative party implementing a Labour agends ?

Alanbrooke said:

Casino_Royale said:

Alanbrooke said:

Casino_Royale said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Royale, I'd guess an assumption (until recently correct) that there was nowhere else for such voters to turn. Understandable, but short-sighted and complacent.

Worth recalling the Western Empire could've seen off all external threats if it hadn't become addicted

The Conservatives could do with an Aurelian to stitch the Empire back together [and it'd help if they don't assassinate him].

Yes, the respect issue once more. Basically, the modernisers misdiagnosed the problems of the Conservative party's electoral appeal, learnt the wrong lessons from the 1990s New Labour "Project" and, when they applied them, they were already at least 10 years out of date anyway.

What some Conservative loyalists seem to overlook is that without necessarily changing a single current policy the leadership could have held on to far more of its original voter and activist base simply by listening to them, treating them courteously and with respect, and showing they were on our side.

But they couldn't because they weren't.

The so called modernisers had no clue what they were trying to do, They sought a clause 4 moment every month, failing to recognise Blair only threw a few bones to his target audience and one's which would have gone anyway. The Cameroons thought they had to knock the house down rather than do a spot of remodelling.

New Labour was very successful at radical constitutional, cultural and social change in the UK. Our retrospective tends to focus too much on the economic mood-music but even there although the presentation was centrist the reality was one of greatly increased public spending, just without the taxation to pay for it all.

Well one could question how successful they were - they left a constitutional mess - but the sad thing Cameron is simply continuing a lot of the policies though at a slower pace. In effect he has consolidated the Blair\Brown settlement and is merely seeking to run it more efficiently.

I agree with you. The constitutional reforms were half-baked, partisan and lop-sided, leading to simmering resentment. Social change more mixed: on the one hand we are more tolerant of different sexual preferences, less judgmental on gender and more accommodating of disability than we were 20 years ago. On the other hand, free speech has been eroded, as has our individual privacy and other state/citizen relationships.

Culturally, public servants now see it as their job to tell us what to do and how to live our lives, rather than act as our servants. And we have an increasingly fractured society due to the biggest disgrace of all: deliberately encouraging mass immigration as a matter of policy.

Alanbrooke said:

You're simply saying he's finishing off Blair's agenda. What happens if you think that agenda is wrong ? Why should a natural conservative vote for a Conservative party implementing a Labour agends ?

Blair had some good ideas - but didn't implement them or was cockblocked by Brown.

But tell me: what is wrong with the principle of the education reforms that Gove introduced (an extension of Adonis's plans - back closer to what he originally intended) or IDS's welfare reforms (similar to Field's thoughts, and significantly influenced by Clinton I). What would you prefer to an attempt to inculcate a sense of personal responsibility in the general population?

Alanbrooke said:

Casino_Royale said:

Alanbrooke said:

Casino_Royale said:

Alanbrooke said:

Casino_Royale said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Royale, I'd guess an assumption (until recently correct) that there was nowhere else for such voters to turn. Understandable, but short-sighted and complacent.

Worth recalling the Western Empire could've seen off all external threats if it hadn't become addicted

The Conservatives could do with an Aurelian to stitch the Empire back together [and it'd help if they don't assassinate him].

Yes, the respect issue once more. Basically, the modernisers misdiagnosed the problems of them courteously and with respect, and showing they were on our side.

But they couldn't because they weren't.

The so called modernisers had no clue what they were trying to do, They sought a clause 4 moment every month, failing to recognise Blair only threw a few bones to his target audience and one's which would have gone anyway. The Cameroons thought they had to knock the house down rather than do a spot of remodelling.

New Labour was very successful at radical constitutional, cultural and social change in the UK. Our retrospective tends to focus too much on the economic mood-music but even there although the presentation was centrist the reality was one of greatly increased public spending, just without the taxation to pay for it all.

Well one could question how successful they were - they left a constitutional mess - but the sad thing Cameron is simply continuing a lot of the policies though at a slower pace. In effect he has consolidated the Blair\Brown settlement and is merely seeking to run it more efficiently.

I agree with you. The constitutional reforms were half-baked, partisan and lop-sided, leading to simmering resentment. Social change more mixed: on the one hand we are more tolerant of different sexual preferences, less judgmental on gender and more accommodating of disability than we were 20 years ago. On the other hand, free speech has been eroded, as has our individual privacy and other state/citizen relationships.

Culturally, public servants now see it as their job to tell us what to do and how to live our lives, rather than act as our servants. And we have an increasingly fractured society due to the biggest disgrace of all: deliberately encouraging mass immigration as a matter of policy.

Yes certainly, that second half of your post, that is perhaps the most pernicious bit of Blair's legacy, the increasingly pervasisve state and the passive acceptance that this is somehow in our interests.

I'd second that. Some worrying trends.

7 goals so far in the Spurs vs Chelsea match

Just thinking:

If Cameron made the referendum question:

1. Stay in the EU
2. Have the same status as Norway or Iceland, as member of the EEA, but cease being a member of the EU
3. Leave the EU, the EEA, and negotiate a separate trade treaty with the EU/EEA

Should it be AV?

It would be really quite an exciting campaign, and I think it would also avoid the other serious danger that "out" has, which is that some of the people backing it want (2), some want (3), and some want something else altogether.

rcs1000 said:

Just thinking:

If Cameron made the referendum question:

1. Stay in the EU
2. Have the same status as Norway or Iceland, as member of the EEA, but cease being a member of the EU
3. Leave the EU, the EEA, and negotiate a separate trade treaty with the EU/EEA

Should it be AV?

It would be really quite an exciting campaign, and I think it would also avoid the other serious danger that "out" has, which is that some of the people backing it want (2), some want (3), and some want something else altogether.

If that were the question then No.2 would win easily, as a third choice that pleases most of those who want to leave the EU and those who want to have similar trade arrangements with the EU as now.

In theory if it's 40% OUT 30% IN and 30% D/K, with those questions the result I envision would be:
No.1 20%
No.2 50%
No.3 30%

Speedy said:

rcs1000 said:

Just thinking:

If Cameron made the referendum question:

1. Stay in the EU
2. Have the same status as Norway or Iceland, as member of the EEA, but cease being a member of the EU
3. Leave the EU, the EEA, and negotiate a separate trade treaty with the EU/EEA

Should it be AV?

It would be really quite an exciting campaign, and I think it would also avoid the other serious danger that "out" has, which is that some of the people backing it want (2), some want (3), and some want something else altogether.

If that were the question then No.2 would win easily, as a third choice that pleases most of those who want to leave the EU and those who want to have similar trade arrangements with the EU as now.

Although EEA membership would not scratch the immigration boil (although it clearly would the "benefits for immigrants" one), as being a member of the EEA means signing up to the four freedoms: of goods, services, capital and labour.

Charles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

Alanbrooke said:

You're simply saying he's finishing off Blair's agenda. What happens if you think that agenda is wrong ? Why should a natural conservative vote for a Conservative party implementing a Labour agends ?

Blair had some good ideas - but didn't implement them or was cockblocked by Brown.

But tell me: what is wrong with the principle of the education reforms that Gove introduced (an extension of Adonis's plans - back closer to what he originally intended) or IDS's welfare reforms (similar to Field's thoughts, and significantly influenced by Clinton I). What would you prefer to an attempt to inculcate a sense of personal responsibility in the general population?

I truly struggle to think of anything in Blair's agenda that will stand the test of time as being benefical to the nation. And that's not intended as a party political point.

As for your second point the education reforms may be something that prove of long term benefit but need I remind you Gove was politely sacked and IDS reforms are a little slow shall we say, Cameron has ignored economic reform more or less totally, something which should have been his priority from day one. Since 2011 I've been rattling on that Osborne would fail much to the annoyance of the tribal conservative butg as we enter 2015 and the election, the deficit is still huge, living standards have fallen and long overdue reforms still haven't been started.

Gove was sacked because he had become the focal point for opposition. If Morgan continues to implement the reforms then that is fine.

Welfare is slow - hence why I said "principle" as the execution leaves something to be desired. But it is hugely complex.

On economic reform there has been some progress made: I think they've been too generous on some of the moves that have eroded the tax base. But the patient is out of the ICU and into the CCU, so progress has been made.

Vote Conservative for steady incremental progress!

Funny thing is, people would probably state they'd prefer a message that blunt and honest (if it is true), but in fact would react against anything other than the usual overblown promises.

@Scrapheap_as_was
Wake you up? I was going to call for a defibrillator for you before the whistle went.

Charles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

Alanbrooke said:

You're simply saying he's finishing off Blair's agenda. What happens if you think that agenda is wrong ? Why should a natural conservative vote for a Conservative party implementing a Labour agends ?

Blair had some good ideas - but didn't implement them or was cockblocked by Brown.

But tell me: what is wrong with the principle of the education reforms that Gove introduced (an extension of Adonis's plans - back closer to what he originally intended) or IDS's welfare reforms (similar to Field's thoughts, and significantly influenced by Clinton I). What would you prefer to an attempt to inculcate a sense of personal responsibility in the general population?

I truly struggle to think of anything in Blair's agenda that will stand the test of time as being benefical to the nation. And that's not intended as a party political point.

As for your second point the education reforms may be something that prove of long term benefit but need I remind you Gove was politely sacked and IDS reforms are a little slow shall we say, Cameron has ignored economic reform more or less totally, something which should have been his priority from day one. Since 2011 I've been rattling on that Osborne would fail much to the annoyance of the tribal conservative butg as we enter 2015 and the election, the deficit is still huge, living standards have fallen and long overdue reforms still haven't been started.

Gove was sacked because he had become the focal point for opposition. If Morgan continues to implement the reforms then that is fine.

Welfare is slow - hence why I said "principle" as the execution leaves something to be desired. But it is hugely complex.

On economic reform there has been some progress made: I think they've been too generous on some of the moves that have eroded the tax base. But the patient is out of the ICU and into the CCU, so progress has been made.

All reform is slow Charles, it's a slow burn issue, which is why Osborne's performance has been such a massive disappointment. In 2011 he passed up on reform and I came to the view he was gutless and would attempt nothing meaningful. I forecast then he would miss his targets and have said so consistently for the last 4 years, he has wasted a Parliament.

Our tax code is a mess, our banks are still too big to fail and the bonfire od legislation never happened. It's not that there isn't enough to do, it's simply he hasn't done it.

SeanT said:

Charles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Charles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

On topic: Mike's logic here seems rather odd to me. Of course it is trivially true, in an arithmetic sense, that, for a given national vote share, if Labour are doing worse in one region they must be doing better in another region. However, if you start from the hypothesis that Labour's vote will collapse in Scotland, it seems to be stretching credulity to assume at the same time that they will do well in England & Wales. If they can't inspire their traditional voters in East Kilbride, can they expect to do so in Tyneside?

Don't forget that a significant part of the crash in Scotland (in vote share at least) is "catching up" with the crash that has already happened in England.

In 2010 they got 42% in Scotland vs. c. 30% in England & Wales.

True, but the point I am getting at is that there seems to be a suggestion that Labour doing badly in Scotland is somehow good news for Labour.

I think @OGH is in danger of calling this election very wrong.

It strikes me as he is searching for evidence to support his views rather than building his views on the evidence.

I think you are right.

I refer m'learned pb-ers to my prior comment on a recent thread, where Smithson Senior waxed lyrical about "the power of the Labour brand" and how it had saved them from a whipping in the last GE.

This is what I said (after pointing out that in 2010 Labour got their second lowest voteshare since the GE of 1918):


More data on "not underestimating the power of the Labour brand", as OGH describes it.

In 2010 Labour got 8,606,517 votes, and 258 seats.

In 1997 the Tories got 9,600,943 - a million MORE votes than Labour in 2010 - and just 165 seats.

If there wasn't such a pro-Labour bias in our electoral system, Labour would have won about 140-180 seats: a truly catastrophic result.

I'm afraid Our Genial Host is talking utter twaddle. There was no "power" in the Labour brand in 2010."

You forgot about turnout figures and seat sizes, turnout is down since 1997 and most Labour seats have fewer voters than average and an even lower turnout.
You should look at the swings not the numbers of voters.
Though 2015 might change, turnout goes up when the people have a real desire for change.

OldKingCole said:

rcs1000 said:

Speedy said:

rcs1000 said:

Just thinking:

If Cameron made the referendum question:

1. Stay in the EU
2. Have the same status as Norway or Iceland, as member of the EEA, but cease being a member of the EU
3. Leave the EU, the EEA, and negotiate a separate trade treaty with the EU/EEA

Should it be AV?

It would be really quite an exciting campaign, and I think it would also avoid the other serious danger that "out" has, which is that some of the people backing it want (2), some want (3), and some want something else altogether.

If that were the question then No.2 would win easily, as a third choice that pleases most of those who want to leave the EU and those who want to have similar trade arrangements with the EU as now.

Although EEA membership would not scratch the immigration boil (although it clearly would the "benefits for immigrants" one), as being a member of the EEA means signing up to the four freedoms: of goods, services, capital and labour.

Doesn't this status mean that we would have to more or less do what we were told, without any say in the decision making progress?

It will be like Devo-max.

OldKingCole said:

rcs1000 said:

Speedy said:

rcs1000 said:

Just thinking:

If Cameron made the referendum question:

1. Stay in the EU
2. Have the same status as Norway or Iceland, as member of the EEA, but cease being a member of the EU
3. Leave the EU, the EEA, and negotiate a separate trade treaty with the EU/EEA

Should it be AV?

It would be really quite an exciting campaign, and I think it would also avoid the other serious danger that "out" has, which is that some of the people backing it want (2), some want (3), and some want something else altogether.

If that were the question then No.2 would win easily, as a third choice that pleases most of those who want to leave the EU and those who want to have similar trade arrangements with the EU as now.

Although EEA membership would not scratch the immigration boil (although it clearly would the "benefits for immigrants" one), as being a member of the EEA means signing up to the four freedoms: of goods, services, capital and labour.

Doesn't this status mean that we would have to more or less do what we were told, without any say in the decision making progress?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU5mOT57ghM

'The chief anomaly in the EEA – the fact that Norway has to apply EU laws over which it has had no say – is more of a problem in theory than in practice. According to the EU, Norway has had to impose more than 5,000 EU legal acts since 1992. Yet Britain, over the same period, had to apply more than 3,000 every year. And most of the Norwegian directives are technical and trivial: the order in which to list ingredients on a ketchup bottle, the font size on a packet of chewing gum and the like. Implementing these 5,000 directives has required fewer than 100 pieces of primary legislation in the Stortinget.'
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100194407/outside-the-eu-we-should-aim-to-copy-switzerland-not-norway/

SeanT said:

I think you are right.

I refer m'learned pb-ers to my prior comment on a recent thread, where Smithson Senior waxed lyrical about "the power of the Labour brand" and how it had saved them from a whipping in the last GE.

[snip]

I'm afraid Our Genial Host is talking utter twaddle. There was no "power" in the Labour brand in 2010."

You've got this one wrong, however.

The power of the brand isn't in votes per se (although - maybe - it help saved them from a worse defeat).

The impact can be seen in the differential polling between:

Do you support policy X?
The Conservative Party has proposed policy X. Do you support it?
The Labour Party has proposed policy X. Do you support it?

The Labour brand - in my view unsupported by fact - is viewed consistently more positively than the Tories and the control arm

Charles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

Gove was sacked because he had become the focal point for opposition. If Morgan continues to implement the reforms then that is fine.

Welfare is slow - hence why I said "principle" as the execution leaves something to be desired. But it is hugely complex.

On economic reform there has been some progress made: I think they've been too generous on some of the moves that have eroded the tax base. But the patient is out of the ICU and into the CCU, so progress has been made.

All reform is slow Charles, it's a slow burn issue, which is why Osborne's performance has been such a massive disappointment. In 2011 he passed up on reform and I came to the view he was gutless and would attempt nothing meaningful. I forecast then he would miss his targets and have said so consistently for the last 4 years, he has wasted a Parliament.

Our tax code is a mess, our banks are still too big to fail and the bonfire od legislation never happened. It's not that there isn't enough to do, it's simply he hasn't done it.

The banks were on life support in 2010. I think it was right to delay - but I like what they've done with TSB, I like the concept of Williams & Glynn, I like Aldermore, Shawbrook and Metro. They need to break up the consumer banking oligopoly and they need to split off investment banking. But it needs to be done gradually. If he had started in 2010 he risked putting the system into cardiac arrest (thus, for instance, policies to support house prices: the less of two evils)

Tax code is a mess, you are right. But I suspect that is a task too complex for any chancellor.

well Charles we agree on the problems if not the solutions. I'm afraid I think blues are making too many excuses for their inaction it's one of the disheartening things about Cameronism. Really there are lots of reforms that need to be undertaken and simply putting them off only loses the nation real wealth.

I(f Cameron had any politcal nous his "detox" would have involved leaving the 50p tax rate in place for this Parliament and whacking a few big time bankers pour encourager les autres, he would have gained more votes.

kle4 said:

Charles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

Alanbrooke said:

You're simply saying he's finishing off Blair's agenda. What happens if you think that agenda is wrong ? Why should a natural conservative vote for a Conservative party implementing a Labour agends ?

Blair had some good ideas - but didn't implement them or was cockblocked by Brown.

But tell me: what is wrong with the principle of the education reforms that Gove introduced (an extension of Adonis's plans - back closer to what he originally intended) or IDS's welfare reforms (similar to Field's thoughts, and significantly influenced by Clinton I). What would you prefer to an attempt to inculcate a sense of personal responsibility in the general population?

I truly struggle to think of anything in Blair's agenda that will stand the test of time as being benefical to the nation. And that's not intended as a party political point.

As for your second point the education reforms may be something that prove of long term benefit but need I remind you Gove was politely sacked and IDS reforms are a little slow shall we say, Cameron has ignored economic reform more or less totally, something which should have been his priority from day one. Since 2011 I've been rattling on that Osborne would fail much to the annoyance of the tribal conservative butg as we enter 2015 and the election, the deficit is still huge, living standards have fallen and long overdue reforms still haven't been started.

Gove was sacked because he had become the focal point for opposition. If Morgan continues to implement the reforms then that is fine.

Welfare is slow - hence why I said "principle" as the execution leaves something to be desired. But it is hugely complex.

On economic reform there has been some progress made: I think they've been too generous on some of the moves that have eroded the tax base. But the patient is out of the ICU and into the CCU, so progress has been made.

Vote Conservative for steady incremental progress!

Funny thing is, people would probably state they'd prefer a message that blunt and honest (if it is true), but in fact would react against anything other than the usual overblown promises.

That slogan reminds of the episode "The Party Is Over" from The New Statesman, it's basis was for all the parties to try to lose the election, the Tory effort was "Poll Tax was a dreadful mistake, and we like to get rid of it, but we can't think of anything else to put in it's place, so let's try to make the best of it. Vote Conservative", the Labour effort was introducing a budget with an extra 700 billion pounds of spending, and the LD effort was putting a Hitler impersonator to say "We may be lovely chaps, but we don't know how to run a country".

SeanT said:

MarkSenior said:

SeanT said:

Charles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Charles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

On topic: Mike's logic here seems rather odd to me. Of course it is trivially true, in an arithmetic sense, that, for a given national vote share, if Labour are doing worse in one region they must be doing better in another region. However, if you start from the hypothesis that Labour's vote will collapse in Scotland, it seems to be stretching credulity to assume at the same time that they will do well in England & Wales. If they can't inspire their traditional voters in East Kilbride, can they expect to do so in Tyneside?

Don't forget that a significant part of the crash in Scotland (in vote share at least) is "catching up" with the crash that has already happened in England.

In 2010 they got 42% in Scotland vs. c. 30% in England & Wales.

True, but the point I am getting at is that there seems to be a suggestion that Labour doing badly in Scotland is somehow good news for Labour.

I think @OGH is in danger of calling this election very wrong.

It strikes me as he is searching for evidence to support his views rather than building his views on the evidence.

I think you are right.

.

I'm afraid Our Genial Host is talking utter twaddle. There was no "power" in the Labour brand in 2010."

Stop posting complete drivel .
It is completely pointless giving Labour 2010 and Conservative 1997 figures in isolation and comparing the seats got . In 2010 the Conservatives got 10.7 million votes and in 1997 Labour 13.5 million .

Hello you old beach donkey. Care to tell us what you predicted in the AV referendum? Or how you expected Greek GDP to grow faster than the UK's in 2013?

When you talk about branding - as OGH did - you are talking markets. You are talking about how many people were persuaded to buy your product. Your brand.

Only eight million people were willing to buy Brown's Labour. A million more people were willing to buy the "hated" Brand Tory under John Major. Labour's branding in 2010 was worse than Major's in 1997. That is all.

Perhaps a better perspective is that fewer people wanted to keep Labour in power in 2010 than getting rid of the Tories in 1997, which is factually and sentimentally accurate.

SeanT said:

Charles said:

SeanT said:

I think you are right.

I refer m'learned pb-ers to my prior comment on a recent thread, where Smithson Senior waxed lyrical about "the power of the Labour brand" and how it had saved them from a whipping in the last GE.

[snip]

I'm afraid Our Genial Host is talking utter twaddle. There was no "power" in the Labour brand in 2010."

You've got this one wrong, however.

The power of the brand isn't in votes per se (although - maybe - it help saved them from a worse defeat).

The impact can be seen in the differential polling between:

Do you support policy X?
The Conservative Party has proposed policy X. Do you support it?
The Labour Party has proposed policy X. Do you support it?

The Labour brand - in my view unsupported by fact - is viewed consistently more positively than the Tories and the control arm

No. I'm right. See my answer downthread.

No: you are looking at the entire package: brand, personalities and policies.

OGH and I are trying to isolate the "brand" part of the story.

An equivalent is considering New Coke/Coke Classic. The best brand in the world can't shift a sh1t product.

Political parties aren't brands, you are deciding who is the most competent to govern the nation and will most personally benefit you, not what you should wash your hair with.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/janetdaley/7436931/David-Cameron-is-selling-a-new-Tory-brand-but-Im-not-buying-it-yet.html

Charles said:

SeanT said:

I think you are right.

I refer m'learned pb-ers to my prior comment on a recent thread, where Smithson Senior waxed lyrical about "the power of the Labour brand" and how it had saved them from a whipping in the last GE.

[snip]

I'm afraid Our Genial Host is talking utter twaddle. There was no "power" in the Labour brand in 2010."

You've got this one wrong, however.

The power of the brand isn't in votes per se (although - maybe - it help saved them from a worse defeat).

The impact can be seen in the differential polling between:

Do you support policy X?
The Conservative Party has proposed policy X. Do you support it?
The Labour Party has proposed policy X. Do you support it?

The Labour brand - in my view unsupported by fact - is viewed consistently more positively than the Tories and the control arm

No the economy stabilised and Mandelson ran a very successful scare the core vote out which had been expanded due to benefits and state employment.

That differential polling just reflects the nutty inbred hatred of Conservatives the far left have.

Labour has been suffering a terminal decline since the mid noughties, they are not well regarded.

FalseFlag said:

Political parties aren't brands, you are deciding who is the most competent to govern the nation and will most personally benefit you, not what you should wash your hair with.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/janetdaley/7436931/David-Cameron-is-selling-a-new-Tory-brand-but-Im-not-buying-it-yet.html

Everything and everyone is a brand. A brand is just a word in the mind.

Good Evening PB World.

The site resolution for 2015 is :

Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister.

End of broadcast.

Charles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

SeanT said:

Charles said:

SeanT said:

I think you are right.

I refer m'learned pb-ers to my prior comment on a recent thread, where Smithson Senior waxed lyrical about "the power of the Labour brand" and how it had saved them from a whipping in the last GE.

[snip]

I'm afraid Our Genial Host is talking utter twaddle. There was no "power" in the Labour brand in 2010."

You've got this one wrong, however.

The power of the brand isn't in votes per se (although - maybe - it help saved them from a worse defeat).

The impact can be seen in the differential polling between:

Do you support policy X?
The Conservative Party has proposed policy X. Do you support it?
The Labour Party has proposed policy X. Do you support it?

The Labour brand - in my view unsupported by fact - is viewed consistently more positively than the Tories and the control arm

No. I'm right. See my answer downthread.

No: you are looking at the entire package: brand, personalities and policies.

OGH and I are trying to isolate the "brand" part of the story.

An equivalent is considering New Coke/Coke Classic. The best brand in the world can't shift a sh1t product.

Of course it can. Consider Socialism. An excellent brand shifting a shit product for over 100 years.

You can fool some of the people all of the time.

8m+ people still voted for Brown. But that sort of market share is insufficient in what was then a 2.5+ horse race.

Yes. At any rate, I agree with you (and Mike Smithson) on this -the Labour brand, compared to its competitors, remains an asset.

SeanT said:

FalseFlag said:

Charles said:

SeanT said:

I think you are right.

I refer m'learned pb-ers to my prior comment on a recent thread, where Smithson Senior waxed lyrical about "the power of the Labour brand" and how it had saved them from a whipping in the last GE.

[snip]

I'm afraid Our Genial Host is talking utter twaddle. There was no "power" in the Labour brand in 2010."

You've got this one wrong, however.

The power of the brand isn't in votes per se (although - maybe - it help saved them from a worse defeat).

The impact can be seen in the differential polling between:

Do you support policy X?
The Conservative Party has proposed policy X. Do you support it?
The Labour Party has proposed policy X. Do you support it?

The Labour brand - in my view unsupported by fact - is viewed consistently more positively than the Tories and the control arm

No the economy stabilised and Mandelson ran a very successful scare the core vote out which had been expanded due to benefits and state employment.

That differential polling just reflects the nutty inbred hatred of Conservatives the far left have.

Labour has been suffering a terminal decline since the mid noughties, they are not well regarded.

I'm not sure it's terminal, but the decline in the total Labour vote since 1997 is stark, and pronounced:

1997: 13,516,632
2001: 10,724,985
2005: 9,547,944
2010: 8,606,518

FIVE MILLION PEOPLE stopped voting Labour (or died) from 1997 to 2010.

Is Ed Miliband the man to significantly reverse this secular trend? That is the question. Given that they seem to have mislaid at least half a million Scots in the last few months, it's not looking good.

and the decline in the Conservative vote since 1992 from 14.1 million is almost as stark and I suspect after May 2015 will be even starker

SeanT said:

Stark_Dawning said:

SeanT said:

Charles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Charles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

On topic: Mike's logic here seems rather odd to me. Of course it is trivially true, in an arithmetic sense, that, for a given national vote share, if Labour are doing worse in one region they must be doing better in another region. However, if you start from the hypothesis that Labour's vote will collapse in Scotland, it seems to be stretching credulity to assume at the same time that they will do well in England & Wales. If they can't inspire their traditional voters in East Kilbride, can they expect to do so in Tyneside?

Don't forget that a significant part of the crash in Scotland (in vote share at least) is "catching up" with the crash that has already happened in England.

In 2010 they got 42% in Scotland vs. c. 30% in England & Wales.

True, but the point I am getting at is that there seems to be a suggestion that Labour doing badly in Scotland is somehow good news for Labour.

I think @OGH is in danger of calling this election very wrong.

It strikes me as he is searching for evidence to support his views rather than building his views on the evidence.

I'm afraid Our Genial Host is talking utter twaddle. There was no "power" in the Labour brand in 2010."

Mike loathes the Coalition and is desperate for a Lib-Lab alliance in May, which would, in his eyes, constitute for the Lib Dems a kind of atonement. Hence talk of the 'power of the Labour brand' and (in the past) praise of Milliard's supposed political gumption. Miliband is Mike's comfort blanket. He wants him to succeed and save the Lib Dem soul in the process.

One of the most intriguing aspects of pb is the way the very brightest people on here can become erratic or deluded, when they are emotionally involved in a political prediction.

That worries me slightly, as I have solidly predicted a Labour majority for many years, and predicted a Yes win in the IndyRef, despite not desiring the former and being viscerally opposed to the latter. If my Labour prediction goes wrong, either my emotional investment works in reverse and I predict the opposite of what I want and attempt to justify it logically, or I am just an idiot.

SeanT said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

SeanT said:

Charles said:

SeanT said:

I think you are right.

I refer m'learned pb-ers to my prior comment on a recent thread, where Smithson Senior waxed lyrical about "the power of the Labour brand" and how it had saved them from a whipping in the last GE.

[snip]

I'm afraid Our Genial Host is talking utter twaddle. There was no "power" in the Labour brand in 2010."

You've got this one wrong, however.

The power of the brand isn't in votes per se (although - maybe - it help saved them from a worse defeat).

The impact can be seen in the differential polling between:

Do you support policy X?
The Conservative Party has proposed policy X. Do you support it?
The Labour Party has proposed policy X. Do you support it?

The Labour brand - in my view unsupported by fact - is viewed consistently more positively than the Tories and the control arm

No. I'm right. See my answer downthread.

No: you are looking at the entire package: brand, personalities and policies.

OGH and I are trying to isolate the "brand" part of the story.

An equivalent is considering New Coke/Coke Classic. The best brand in the world can't shift a sh1t product.

Of course it can. Consider Socialism. An excellent brand shifting a shit product for over 100 years.

You can fool some of the people all of the time.

8m+ people still voted for Brown. But that sort of market share is insufficient in what was then a 2.5+ horse race.

Yes. At any rate, I agree with you (and Mike Smithson) on this -the Labour brand, compared to its competitors, remains an asset.

*bangs head on table*

And yet the brand did not save them in 2010 from an historically disastrous election, where they got a lower vote, and a lower VOTE SHARE, than the hated Major in 1997.

That's right, the supposedly loathed, brand-trashed John Major got a bigger SHARE of the vote - 30.5% - than Labour in 2010 - 29%.

How can that possibly be described as showing the strength of the Labour brand, unless you also admit that the Tories have a surprisingly resilient brand, and everyone has a good brand, and all shall have prizes, and the entire argument becomes embarrassingly meaningless.

People may say in polls, in various ways, that they prefer "the Labour brand", but the evidence of the last election - which is what we were discussing - implies that when it comes to actually voting, people do not prefer the Labour brand at all.

Our resident North London Intellectual fails to realise that Labour won nearly 100 (ONE HUNDRED) more seats in 2010 than socialist Johnny won in 1997.

SeanT said:

FalseFlag said:

Charles said:

SeanT said:

I think you are right.

I refer m'learned pb-ers to my prior comment on a recent thread, where Smithson Senior waxed lyrical about "the power of the Labour brand" and how it had saved them from a whipping in the last GE.

[snip]

I'm afraid Our Genial Host is talking utter twaddle. There was no "power" in the Labour brand in 2010."

You've got this one wrong, however.

The power of the brand isn't in votes per se (although - maybe - it help saved them from a worse defeat).

The impact can be seen in the differential polling between:

Do you support policy X?
The Conservative Party has proposed policy X. Do you support it?
The Labour Party has proposed policy X. Do you support it?

The Labour brand - in my view unsupported by fact - is viewed consistently more positively than the Tories and the control arm

No the economy stabilised and Mandelson ran a very successful scare the core vote out which had been expanded due to benefits and state employment.

That differential polling just reflects the nutty inbred hatred of Conservatives the far left have.

Labour has been suffering a terminal decline since the mid noughties, they are not well regarded.

I'm not sure it's terminal, but the decline in the total Labour vote since 1997 is stark, and pronounced:

1997: 13,516,632
2001: 10,724,985
2005: 9,547,944
2010: 8,606,518

FIVE MILLION PEOPLE stopped voting Labour (or died) from 1997 to 2010.

Is Ed Miliband the man to significantly reverse this secular trend? That is the question. Given that they seem to have mislaid at least half a million Scots in the last few months, it's not looking good.

Tory party
1992: 14.1 million
1997: 9.6 million
2001: 8.4 million

Or should I post votes cast?

1992: 33.6 million
1997: 31.3 million
2001: 26.4 million
2005: 27.1 million
2010: 29.7 million

JackW said:

Good Evening PB World.

The site resolution for 2015 is :

Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister.

End of broadcast.

Happy New Year Jack - good to see you back.

Economic competence is what matters, thus the Conservatives have the stronger 'brand'.

MikeK said:

Why is DODS PoliticsHome, edited by Paul Waugh become more and more like the Guardian on Line?

I'm not aware of the publication to which you refer, but when writing for the London Evening Standard, I recall that Paul Waugh was on the right of the political spectrum.

kle4 said:

SeanT said:

Stark_Dawning said:

SeanT said:

Charles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Charles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

On topic: Mike's logic here seems rather odd to me. Of course it is trivially true, in an arithmetic sense, that, for a given national vote share, if Labour are doing worse in one region they must be doing better in another region. However, if you start from the hypothesis that Labour's vote will collapse in Scotland, it seems to be stretching credulity to assume at the same time that they will do well in England & Wales. If they can't inspire their traditional voters in East Kilbride, can they expect to do so in Tyneside?

Don't forget that a significant part of the crash in Scotland (in vote share at least) is "catching up" with the crash that has already happened in England.

In 2010 they got 42% in Scotland vs. c. 30% in England & Wales.

True, but the point I am getting at is that there seems to be a suggestion that Labour doing badly in Scotland is somehow good news for Labour.

I think @OGH is in danger of calling this election very wrong.

It strikes me as he is searching for evidence to support his views rather than building his views on the evidence.

I'm afraid Our Genial Host is talking utter twaddle. There was no "power" in the Labour brand in 2010."

Mike loathes the Coalition and is desperate for a Lib-Lab alliance in May, which would, in his eyes, constitute for the Lib Dems a kind of atonement. Hence talk of the 'power of the Labour brand' and (in the past) praise of Milliard's supposed political gumption. Miliband is Mike's comfort blanket. He wants him to succeed and save the Lib Dem soul in the process.

One of the most intriguing aspects of pb is the way the very brightest people on here can become erratic or deluded, when they are emotionally involved in a political prediction.

That worries me slightly, as I have solidly predicted a Labour majority for many years, and predicted a Yes win in the IndyRef, despite not desiring the former and being viscerally opposed to the latter. If my Labour prediction goes wrong, either my emotional investment works in reverse and I predict the opposite of what I want and attempt to justify it logically, or I am just an idiot.

Or you are an unrealised Spurs fan.

I

LOVE

2015.

Full stop.

FPT
Speedy says - ''All that supposed inward investment hasn't produced any growth in manufacturing or exports of goods''

Huh?
And without it? Nissan in Sunderland produce 500,000 cars a year. Do we buy them all ourselves?
Are you trying to say that Indian investment in JLR production has not created jobs and produced massive exports?
Likewise BMW? Do you realise how many billions they have invested and how much manufacturing they have produced and exports created? Jobs both created and saved?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-attracts-highest-levels-of-inward-investment-on-record

And whilst on the topic of previous threads Mr Tyndall will have to try a lot harder if he thinks he can persuade us with his laughable notion that people who point out that a policy is ''Treating Australians and Indians the same'' are being racist because they are somehow mysteriously really saying ''predominantly white Europeans as being more worthy of being allowed into the country than predominantly non white Asians''
Its a nice try and might raise a laugh, but of course the whole scenario is a bogus one of his invention. I did not 'stop beating my wife' Mr Tyndall - I never started in the first place.
There is no shortage of Indian immigrants and no shortage of those from the USA or Canada or the ANZAC nations - whatever their colour.
No doubt if our economy collapses we can manage without any immigrants at all.

peter_from_putney said:

JackW said:

Good Evening PB World.

The site resolution for 2015 is :

Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister.

End of broadcast.

Happy New Year Jack - good to see you back.

Thank you pfp.

A very merry yuletide was had Chez JackW as indeed I hope all PBers similarly enjoyed.

Luckyguy1983 said:

SeanT said:

*bangs head on table*

And yet the brand did not save them in 2010 from an historically disastrous election, where they got a lower vote, and a lower VOTE SHARE, than the hated Major in 1997.

That's right, the supposedly loathed, brand-trashed John Major got a bigger SHARE of the vote - 30.5% - than Labour in 2010 - 29%.

How can that possibly be described as showing the strength of the Labour brand, unless you also admit that the Tories have a surprisingly resilient brand, and everyone has a good brand, and all shall have prizes, and the entire argument becomes embarrassingly meaningless.

People may say in polls, in various ways, that they prefer "the Labour brand", but the evidence of the last election - which is what we were discussing - implies that when it comes to actually voting, people do not prefer the Labour brand at all.

The success of a brand is measured in its performance relative to its competitors in the category. You don't compare Nike to how well Addidas was doing 10 years ago. The fact that Labour managed to prevent an outright Tory victory despite its cataclysmic economic performance would appear to be, to some extent, a result of the positive associations people had of Labour (and the negative ones that they had of the Tories) trumping the empirical evidence. Branding at work.

The entire 'category' of mainstream British political parties is now on the wane, and all the main parties with it. However, the fact remains that in that group, 'Labour' performs better as a brand than 'Tory'. I would have thought that was obvious.

Labour managed to retain about 20 seats more than they were expected to, and the Conservative GB poll share was about 2-3% lower than expected, denying the Conservatives a slim overall majority.

London and Scotland were particular disappointments. But Labour also did well to hold on to places like Southampton, Exeter and all the Birmingham seats.

All of that was probably due to the misfiring Conservative campaign that repeatedly shot itself in the foot from January 2010 onwards, and an increasingly professional Labour rearguard action coordinated by Peter Mandelson.

Flightpath said:

FPT
Speedy says - ''All that supposed inward investment hasn't produced any growth in manufacturing or exports of goods''

Huh?
And without it? Nissan in Sunderland produce 500,000 cars a year. Do we buy them all ourselves?
Are you trying to say that Indian investment in JLR production has not created jobs and produced massive exports?
Likewise BMW? Do you realise how many billions they have invested and how much manufacturing they have produced and exports created? Jobs both created and saved?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-attracts-highest-levels-of-inward-investment-on-record

And whilst on the topic of previous threads Mr Tyndall will have to try a lot harder if he thinks he can persuade us with his laughable notion that people who point out that a policy is ''Treating Australians and Indians the same'' are being racist because they are somehow mysteriously really saying ''predominantly white Europeans as being more worthy of being allowed into the country than predominantly non white Asians''
Its a nice try and might raise a laugh, but of course the whole scenario is a bogus one of his invention. I did not 'stop beating my wife' Mr Tyndall - I never started in the first place.
There is no shortage of Indian immigrants and no shortage of those from the USA or Canada or the ANZAC nations - whatever their colour.
No doubt if our economy collapses we can manage without any immigrants at all.

"Huh?
And without it? Nissan in Sunderland produce 500,000 cars a year. Do we buy them all ourselves?"

Britain consumes 2.5 million cars per year, car registrations only in the month of October were 172000.
Britain produces only 1.6 million cars a year.

The facts remain that Britain has suffered economically being in the EU especially the manufacturing sector, in favour of Germany.
German manufacturing exports have increased 300% since the 90's while Britain's has declined.
Our trade deficit with Germany has doubled since 1995.

http://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/explore/stacked/export/gbr/all/show/1995.2012.2/
http://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/explore/stacked/export/deu/all/show/1995.2012.2/

Now that you've been spanked, never ever again challenge me on the economy without facts.
For facts are ammunition in arguments that slice through prejudice and stupidity like a hot knife through butter.

And with that glorious victory, Goodnight.

Home ownership in Britain set to fall behind France to 64%, below the EU average of 70%, with only Germany and Austria clearly lower of EU states
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2893463/Home-ownership-Britain-set-fall-France-buy-let-surge-pushes-families-rented-properties.html

When do we expect the poll famine to be broken, so we can stop arguing about what we speculate is happening and argue about what is actually happening? Subtle difference. Sunday, I guess?

Idle prediction: the first few will be back to a near-tie.

2005: Labour won 356 seats with 9.5 million votes and an overall majority of 66.

2010: the Conservatives won 306 seats with 10.7 million votes and were 20 seats short of an overall majority.

SeanT said:

FalseFlag said:

Charles said:

SeanT said:

I think you are right.

I refer m'learned pb-ers to my prior comment on a recent thread, where Smithson Senior waxed lyrical about "the power of the Labour brand" and how it had saved them from a whipping in the last GE.

[snip]

I'm afraid Our Genial Host is talking utter twaddle. There was no "power" in the Labour brand in 2010."

You've got this one wrong, however.

The power of the brand isn't in votes per se (although - maybe - it help saved them from a worse defeat).

The impact can be seen in the differential polling between:

Do you support policy X?
The Conservative Party has proposed policy X. Do you support it?
The Labour Party has proposed policy X. Do you support it?

The Labour brand - in my view unsupported by fact - is viewed consistently more positively than the Tories and the control arm

No the economy stabilised and Mandelson ran a very successful scare the core vote out which had been expanded due to benefits and state employment.

That differential polling just reflects the nutty inbred hatred of Conservatives the far left have.

Labour has been suffering a terminal decline since the mid noughties, they are not well regarded.

I'm not sure it's terminal, but the decline in the total Labour vote since 1997 is stark, and pronounced:

1997: 13,516,632
2001: 10,724,985
2005: 9,547,944
2010: 8,606,518

FIVE MILLION PEOPLE stopped voting Labour (or died) from 1997 to 2010.

Is Ed Miliband the man to significantly reverse this secular trend? That is the question. Given that they seem to have mislaid at least half a million Scots in the last few months, it's not looking good.

It just occurred to me that Twisted Films may want to update their Downfall film in time for May, when it is likely to be even more apt: http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=iMi776jah1w

Lithuania becomes the last Baltic nation to join the euro
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30635826

The Times:

Prediction: Ed Miliband becomes prime minister of an unstable government. Second general election within a year.
Sam Coates

TheScreamingEagles said:

Edin_Rokz said:

rcs1000 said:

Speedy said:

Flightpath said:

FPT
Speedy says - ''All that supposed inward investment hasn't produced any growth in manufacturing or exports of goods''

Huh?
And without it? Nissan in Sunderland produce 500,000 cars a year. Do we buy them all ourselves?
Are you trying to say that Indian investment in JLR production has not created jobs and produced massive exports?
Likewise BMW? Do you realise how many billions they have invested and how much manufacturing they have produced and exports created? Jobs both created and saved?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-attracts-highest-levels-of-inward-investment-on-record

And whilst on the topic of previous threads Mr Tyndall will have to try a lot harder if he thinks he can persuade us with his laughable notion that people who point out that a policy is ''Treating Australians and Indians the same'' are being racist because they are somehow mysteriously really saying ''predominantly white Europeans as being more worthy of being allowed into the country than predominantly non white Asians''
Its a nice try and might raise a laugh, but of course the whole scenario is a bogus one of his invention. I did not 'stop beating my wife' Mr Tyndall - I never started in the first place.
There is no shortage of Indian immigrants and no shortage of those from the USA or Canada or the ANZAC nations - whatever their colour.
No doubt if our economy collapses we can manage without any immigrants at all.

"Huh?
And without it? Nissan in Sunderland produce 500,000 cars a year. Do we buy them all ourselves?"

Britain consumes 2.5 million cars per year, car registrations only in the month of October were 172000.
Britain produces only 1.6 million cars a year.

The facts remain that Britain has suffered economically being in the EU especially the manufacturing sector
German manufacturing exports have increased 300% since the 90's while Britain's has declined.
Our trade deficit with Germany has doubled since 1995.

http://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/explore/stacked/export/gbr/all/show/1995.2012.2/
http://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/explore/stacked/export/deu/all/show/1995.2012.2/

Now that you've been spanked, never ever again challenge me on the economy without facts.
For facts are ammunition in arguments that slice through prejudice and stupidity like a hot knife through butter.

And with that glorious victory, Goodnight.

post hoc ergo propter hoc

Like it, had to look up on Google and Wikipedia, but it now goes into my lexicon scrap book.

Whatever you do, don't google

Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catullus_16#Latin_text_and_translation

Is that your strapline for your anti-Reckless campaign in May?

Casino_Royale said:

Is that your strapline for your anti-Reckless campaign in May?

My campaign strap line will be

"Don't be Reckless and go to bed with Nigel and wake up with Ed"

Well that's the only printable one.