politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » So were there really shy Kippers?

HYUFD said:

SO Chuka in the Guardian today on where Labour went wrong.

'First, we spoke to our core voters but not to aspirational, middle-class ones. We talked about the bottom and top of society, about the minimum wage and zero-hour contracts, about mansions and non-doms. But we had too little to say to the majority of people in the middle.

Second, we allowed the impression to arise that we were not on the side of those who are doing well. We talked a lot – quite rightly – about the need to address “irresponsible” capitalism, for more political will to tackle inequality, poverty and injustice (and we must never give the appearance that we are relaxed about them). But we talked too little about those creating wealth and doing the right thing.

That’s why I’ve always argued you cannot be pro-business by beating up on the terms and conditions of their workers and the TRADE unions that play an important role representing them.'

Absolutely not a comfort zone candidate

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/labours-first-step-to-regaining-power-is-to-recognise-the-mistakes-we-made

But it was the working class votes they lost which destroyed them, the Guardian reading, BBC watching bunch turned out for Labour in London. The next Labour candidate needs to appeal to those people that they lost just now to UKIP. Chuka doesn't do that. He would destroy any remnant of SLAB and make Labour an even more inner city/metropolitan focussed organisation.

He is, IMO, the worst candidate of them all and you are applying US voting customs to the UK, but forgetting that the UK Conservatives are basically the equivalent of the US Democrats, they are both centre right parties economically and centre left socially. There is basically no room for Labour to fight on the same turf unless the Tories indulge themselves with a disaster candidate who will shift them to the right once Dave retires.

Plato said:

It was the most raised issue I heard - all spontaneous stuff. I was really quite surprised as I thought it was just a PB nerd thing.

It clearly got serious cut-through. Thank Heaven's that the Tories got a Maj so there's no chance of it now.

SquareRoot said:

The dog whistle about the SNP was a major factor. I heard two women who had voted postally talking about how terrified of the SNP having influence... Can say exactly when it was but it was a good week before the GE.

How helpful of Salmond to be taking about writing the Labour party budget.

"just a PB nerd thing"

Cough....splutter....harrumph!

It occurs to me that one of Chukka's biggest obstacles might be being the focus of attacks that have been directed at Cameron in his time against Brown and Miliband - trying to equate an ease of manner and personal charisma better than the other candidates as meaning that he also has no substance.

Now, people can argue that is genuinely the case for Chukka - that is my current impression, it will be interesting to see if he can offer more - and still in fact the case with Cameron, but merely cementing the connection that good presentation = lack of substance can be a risk whether it is true or not, although Cameron has shown it won't necessarily work.

SouthamObserver said:

Plato said:

What was the result in Galloways ex seat? I missed the details there.

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

felix said:

TGOHF said:

@ShippersUnbound: Miliband wants to emulate IDS with cabinet return under his successor: http://t.co/MC1fwnzzBp

Big mistake. His resignation speech used some of the right words but the tone was unrepentant - he will be a thorn in the side of any sensible leader they might choose and if he has any influence in the eventual winner it would not be good for Labour.

@surbiton was asking about the London result and advocating regional polls excluding London. The London results were very variable for Labour - some big swings for in the East and of course in Ilford north but also swings against Labour in the 3 north London marginals they missed. In south London the swing was also much more variable and they only won Ealing and Brentford by whiskers. I think London wide polling for a GE would be nigh on impossible to be reliable - last Thursday it was a city of many paces - which actually is no surprise for anyone who has lived there. Overall they did far less well there than the polls suggested although it was their best result overall., but I think that in part was down to demographic changes rather than a successful campaign.

In one of the most ethnically diverse constituencies in London (Harrow East) the Tories increased their majority because of Indians turning out in huge numbers. Labour's pandering to Muslims with their blasphemy laws has hurt them in at least three constituencies, but helped them pick up Ilford North and strengthen their hold on other parts of East London. If we get results down to the ward level I can imagine Ponders End, Enfield Wash and Enfield Lock were all a very deep shade of red. It is the Islamic vote which drove Labour's "recovery" in London. Divisive politics from Labour.

The Labour MP for Tower Hamlets is secular and is a woman. That has to be the future. Likewise, the woman who defeated Galloway in Bradford.

He was defeated by this woman:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11458810/Murderers-daughter-Naz-Shah-tells-why-she-is-standing-for-Parliament.html

It was a truly superb outcome. And a very hopeful one.

Just the sort of voice that Labour needs in Parliament. The scale of domestic abuse in the Asian community is a story largely untold, but does anyone think that the taxi rapists of Rotherham returned home to be dutiful husbands and fathers?

Frankly this victory was the best result of the night as far as I was concerned.

Freggles said:

Labour need to relentlessly focus group their new leadership and direction, among people who voted Labour in 1997 and Tory in 2010.

really ? People get more conservative as they get older ( more experience of real life - bills do that to you ).

So in 2020 focussing on people who are now 23 years older might not give you the result you think.

Labour could however focus on people who voted Labour in 2010 and SNP in 2015 there are more seats at stake.

Freggles said:

Patrick said:

edmundintokyo said:

I also liked Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband, so this should be considered a serious warning sign.

Really? Really? You are certifiable.

Lots of people think he's a nice guy.
But unfortunately there's still an attitude that a leader needs to be able to make convincing arm movements in an open collared shirt, not be intelligent

It really should not hard to find someone who is both, or be so good at the latter as to make the lack of the former not so much of a problem.

Hell, we have constantly heard about how phony and insincere Cameron is supposed to be, and thus that his generally agreeable style was in fact no bonus at all, but now we're supposed to buy it's too effective?

SouthamObserver said:

It was a very fair bet - you nearly won it.

Our orgy of consumption may have to be later in the year. I am not based in London and have a fair bit of travelling to do for the next couple of months. July, somewhere around London Bridge works best for me - unless you ever find yourself in Leamington, of course.

SoWo:

Not a good place to go to. Find somewhere else is my advice.

Charles said:

isam said:

SouthamObserver said:

isam said:

CarlottaVance said:

MikeK said:

One other fact that PB tories dismissed as false, was the UKIP notion that they were picking up more votes from Labour than Tories, which has been born out by the results.

PB Tories frequently pointed out that UKIP was a Labour problem too - to hoots of derision from Labour supporters....

Tim and I argued for days on end about it...he simply wouldn't believe it. Same for 'Hugh'... He thought I was a Tory boy who ran a business exploiting my staff! I wish

Shame they're not here to gloat to... Or to ask for money!

You owe me beer and lunch ;-)

Yes

Who else can honestly say they backed Ed Miliband and the Liberal Democrats to do badly and lost money doing so? Quite incredible... Although part of me loves backing unlucky losing bets... I need a vehicle for complaint

Whereabouts shall we go? I don't really work in the daytime, hence 15000 posts on here! So anyday suits me really

I've got a couple of bets with you: the 4x UKIP/Lib Dem one (which I won) and a £10 charity bet from a couple of days ago that I remember nothing about!

Can you recall the details /how do you want to settle up?

I can't remember the details but I'm assuming I lost!

The LD Ukip one... Jesus how did I lose that? Any idea how much that was for?

Let me know the amounts and your details and I'll send the money over

Anyone that lost a bet to me is free to get in touch as well by the way

peter_from_putney said:

Pulpstar said:

peter_from_putney said:

In that wonderful way one sometimes can, I've just backed Jon Cruddas to be the next Labour leader with Betfair at odds of 460 for a 3p stake ..... I therefore stand to win £13.77 (less 5% comm'n) if I'm proved right! Reasonable value I thought as he's as short as 33/1 elsewhere!
More seriously though I'd fancy backing him being elected Deputy Leader but as yet I can't find a market for this. I know HenryG is a long term fan - it would be interesting to learn his views of Cruddas' chances of landing this particular gig.

I've taken the £5 at 450, also have laid David Miliband in this market.

I think I'm due a small commission should you land this one!

Just trying to build up green on the field at this point

kle4 Indeed, being telegenic, appealing and being 'on your side' is now more important for a PM than having 'substance', they can hire advisers and appoint ministers who have that

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

murali_s said:

kle4 said:

I see Sturgeon's tactic will be that whatever Cameron offers, she will say it is not enough and demand more. Obviously at some point he will say that is going too far, and she will claim he has betrayed Scotland and that Independence has to be gone for again. Expected, but still effective.

the Tories GE campaign of fear has more or less sealed the fate of the Union.

If anything has imperilled the Union it is the mullering of the biggest Unionist party in Scotland.

Yet, somehow, this is the Tories fault?

With logic that I cannot quite follow, because the Tories attacked the soon to be hugely successful Indy party, it is their fault that that Indy party won, or at least there is an assumption that somehow the Union would be in great shape after the SNP won a landslide, if only the Tories had not attacked them.

???

The SNP were clocking between 45 and 50 points in October before the whole Vote Ed get Nicola/Salmond stuff started, and the Scottish polling proved to be very accurate. I don't think the Tory campaign made the slightest bit of difference in Scotland, but it did help win them the majority in England and Wales. What imperilled the Union was Jim Murphy and Ed Miliband. Both of them are completely and utterly useless and I still don't understand how Jim Murphy is still standing, he needs to be taken out the back and shot by whoever takes over and they need a proper SLAB leadership contest, there must be some talent there.

isam said:

Charles said:

isam said:

SouthamObserver said:

isam said:

CarlottaVance said:

MikeK said:

One other fact that PB tories dismissed as false, was the UKIP notion that they were picking up more votes from Labour than Tories, which has been born out by the results.

PB Tories frequently pointed out that UKIP was a Labour problem too - to hoots of derision from Labour supporters....

Tim and I argued for days on end about it...he simply wouldn't believe it. Same for 'Hugh'... He thought I was a Tory boy who ran a business exploiting my staff! I wish

Shame they're not here to gloat to... Or to ask for money!

You owe me beer and lunch ;-)

Yes

Who else can honestly say they backed Ed Miliband and the Liberal Democrats to do badly and lost money doing so? Quite incredible... Although part of me loves backing unlucky losing bets... I need a vehicle for complaint

Whereabouts shall we go? I don't really work in the daytime, hence 15000 posts on here! So anyday suits me really

I've got a couple of bets with you: the 4x UKIP/Lib Dem one (which I won) and a £10 charity bet from a couple of days ago that I remember nothing about!

Can you recall the details /how do you want to settle up?

The LD Ukip one... Jesus how did I lose that?

Happens to the best of us. I had a bet with a poster on Tories being less than 300 seats, when I paid up they confessed they'd really thought that was a loser at one point and had considered offering evens to settle it, but held their nerve in the end. Fortunately my flutters are only of the small variety.

viewcode said:

Can I ask a question? All the politicians (and us) are advancing their theses about why Lab lost. Has anybody considered asking the voters? I mean, going round the country, talking to people, asking them? Is anybody actually doing this?

I bet Messina / Crosby Textor are already sitting on huge amounts of data in regards to this. What worked, what didn't etc.

Slackbladder said:

viewcode said:

Can I ask a question? All the politicians (and us) are advancing their theses about why Lab lost. Has anybody considered asking the voters? I mean, going round the country, talking to people, asking them? Is anybody actually doing this?

I have a feeling labour might not like the answers...

Which is the core of the problem.

The fact Team Ed were convinced they had won right up to 10pm, when as Loud Howard revealed Tories already had a good idea they likely had over 300 early in the evening. Even Bet Fred knew....says Labour have a huge problem when it comes to having this kinda of intelligence.

MaxPB said:

HYUFD said:

SO Chuka in the Guardian today on where Labour went wrong.

'First, we spoke to our core voters but not to aspirational, middle-class ones. We talked about the bottom and top of society, about the minimum wage and zero-hour contracts, about mansions and non-doms. But we had too little to say to the majority of people in the middle.

Second, we allowed the impression to arise that we were not on the side of those who are doing well. We talked a lot – quite rightly – about the need to address “irresponsible” capitalism, for more political will to tackle inequality, poverty and injustice (and we must never give the appearance that we are relaxed about them). But we talked too little about those creating wealth and doing the right thing.

That’s why I’ve always argued you cannot be pro-business by beating up on the terms and conditions of their workers and the TRADE unions that play an important role representing them.'

Absolutely not a comfort zone candidate

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/labours-first-step-to-regaining-power-is-to-recognise-the-mistakes-we-made

But it was the working class votes they lost which destroyed them, the Guardian reading, BBC watching bunch turned out for Labour in London. The next Labour candidate needs to appeal to those people that they lost just now to UKIP. Chuka doesn't do that. He would destroy any remnant of SLAB and make Labour an even more inner city/metropolitan focussed organisation.

He is, IMO, the worst candidate of them all and you are applying US voting customs to the UK, but forgetting that the UK Conservatives are basically the equivalent of the US Democrats, they are both centre right parties economically and centre left socially. There is basically no room for Labour to fight on the same turf unless the Tories indulge themselves with a disaster candidate who will shift them to the right once Dave retires.

I agree with you 100%. He and Blair are proposing a Tory-Lite Labour party. It worked for Blair and he introduced Tory-Lite policies - student fees, PFI, marketisation of the NHS. But what's the point? You might as well vote Tory.

There is room for a party that is centre left economically and centre right socially. It would appeal to a different and substantial part of the middle. There would be a point to it, and it would be popular.

But Harriet wouldn't be happy in it and it would upset Guardian readers.

Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 11s12 seconds ago
.@SKinnock impressive #murnaghan debut. Interesting he says Lab needs to reconnect with business on ‘people, future of planet + profits'

FrancisUrquhart said:

But it’s all too common for those BBC staffers who aren’t on the North London dinner party circuit to complain about being sidelined. ‘It’s a bit like walking into a Sunday meeting of the Flat Earth Society. As they discuss great issues of the day, they discuss them from the point of view that the earth is flat. If someone says, “No, no, no, the earth is round!”, they think this person is an extremist.

Jeff Randall


And that in a nutshell was the BBC GE night coverage....like a load of flat earthers that had been shown images of Earth taken from the space station for the first time.

Really? But isn't David Dimbleby known to favour the Conservative cause? Isn't Nick Robinson also Conservative (so much so that the Conservative Party tried to recruit him as recently as 2011)?

BBC coverage may have been shambolic but save the reds under the beds stuff.

kle4 said:

FluffyThoughts said:

Jonathan said:

Free radicals?

Seriously, shortening to liberals is worth doing IMO. Surely we can assume they are democrats.

Dr Planck: Please do some research!

http://www.liberal.org.uk/

I've got it. 'The Liberal Party' is currently taken, but 'The Liberals' is still available.

Don't we have a Electoral Commisions - erm - commissioned to ensure confusion such as that is avoided?

Please report to Master SlackBaldder! C.f.:

How about the 'Liberal reform' party?

FrancisUrquhart said:

viewcode said:

Can I ask a question? All the politicians (and us) are advancing their theses about why Lab lost. Has anybody considered asking the voters? I mean, going round the country, talking to people, asking them? Is anybody actually doing this?

I bet Messina / Crosby Textor are already sitting on huge amounts of data in regards to this. What worked, what didn't etc.

But, but..Labours Superior ground game!!!!

MaxPB Completely wrong. After Thursday working class Romford, Staffordshire Moorlands, Rugby all had majorities for the Tories over 20%, Rugby was won by Wilson and Attlee, they are lost to Labour and they do not need them to win a majority. In a similar way Obama has lost working class West Virginia, which used to be solid Democrat, and the likes of Kentucky and Tennessee and Missouri which went for Clinton. Suburban Finchley, Hendon, Brighton Kemptown all had majorities for the Tories under 10%, Worcester 11%, and indeed Labour won prosperous Chester and Wirral West which were safe Tory seats in 1992. Obama also won suburban Virginia and Colorado. It is demographic change and Labour has to shift accordingly.

On the economy it is the Tories who have been most pro austerity, like the Republicans in the US, it was Obama who was preaching investment in infrastructure etc much like Labour. It was the Tories who invited McCain to their 2008 conference and the Tea Party occupies much of the same message as UKIP. The same trends apply, Labour needed the working class when the UK had a working class majority, it now has a suburban middle class one, there is no future for it in being UKIP lite, it would lose the suburban middle class and its leftwing supporters in the public sector and ethnic minorities without being able to win back voters from UKIP, some working class voters will continue to vote Labour of course, but it is not the working class Labour needs for power

FrancisUrquhart said:

viewcode said:

Can I ask a question? All the politicians (and us) are advancing their theses about why Lab lost. Has anybody considered asking the voters? I mean, going round the country, talking to people, asking them? Is anybody actually doing this?

I bet Messina / Crosby Textor are already sitting on huge amounts of data in regards to this. What worked, what didn't etc.

Do they publish?

DecrepitJohnL said:

Working class Romford: have you ever been there? Large parts are really quite posh.

Aside from the exhibition estate in Gidea Park, probably 500 houses, let me assure you Romford is not the slightest bit posh

I wonder if you have ever been there!!

HYUFD said:

MaxPB Completely wrong. After Thursday working class Romford, Staffordshire Moorlands, Rugby all had majorities for the Tories over 20%, Rugby was won by Wilson and Attlee, they are lost to Labour and they do not need them to win a majority. In a similar way Obama has lost working class West Virginia, which used to be solid Democrat, and the likes of Kentucky and Tennessee and Missouri which went for Clinton. Suburban Finchley, Hendon, Brighton Kemptown all had majorities for the Tories under 10%, Worcester 11%, and indeed Labour won prosperous Chester and Wirral West which were safe Tory seats in 1992. Obama also won suburban Virginia and Colorado. It is demographic change and Labour has to shift accordingly.

On the economy it is the Tories who have been most pro austerity, like the Republicans in the US, it was Obama who was preaching investment in infrastructure etc much like Labour. It was the Tories who invited McCain to their 2008 conference and the Tea Party occupies much of the same message as UKIP. The same trends apply, Labour needed the working class when the UK had a working class majority, it now has a suburban middle class one, there is no future for it in being UKIP lite, it would lose the suburban middle class and its leftwing supporters in the public sector and ethnic minorities without being able to win back voters from UKIP, some working class voters will continue to vote Labour of course, but it is not the working class Labour needs for power

This is the kind of thinking that got Jim Murphy elected as SLAB leader. Look at what has happened there. If Labour abandon the working classes they basically cease to exist as a political force outside of a few core cities. The Conservatives won't make the same mistake as Hague and IDS again. Chuka would be Ed mark 2, just with better presentation. He is a London intellectual who is not able to speak to the Northern core vote. Remember that the North delivered the bulk of Labour's seats where there is a massive working class vote. Abandoning them to UKIP would be a disaster, just to win 20-30 seats in the suburbs of London and Manchester. As a (now Tory member) nothing would delight me more than to see Labour commit suicide by abandoning the WWC to UKIP, but it would be bad for the country.

malcolmg said:

Dadge said:

SouthamObserver said:

kle4 said:

I see Sturgeon's tactic will be that whatever Cameron offers, she will say it is not enough and demand more. Obviously at some point he will say that is going too far, and she will claim he has betrayed Scotland and that Independence has to be gone for again. Expected, but still effective.

Yep, that is exactly how it will play out. Either her bluff gets called or Scotland becomes independent. Either way, the SNP is not going to be as popular in five years time as it is now.

Surely there'll eventually be a split in the SNP. Apparently the SNP is to the Left of Labour, but its voters aren't, at least most of them aren't. The government (and Scottish Labour, for that matter) needs to make sure that split happens and that requires a charm offensive. Cameron needs to get up there as often as possible, shaking hands, giving speeches, pretending there's another referendum next week. He might not get a good reception, but that's the point. The nicer he is and the angrier the loony nats get, the more likely that the SNP will split, or at least that it'll lose the 10-20% of additional support it needs to create a drive for a new referendum.

Cameron visiting would make it even less likely. His few visits so far are in locked rooms , secret and only to his chums, it will stay that way.

Yes - Cameron being harangued on Princes Street by a spittle flecked Nat would look terrible.

But for whom?

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

But it’s all too common for those BBC staffers who aren’t on the North London dinner party circuit to complain about being sidelined. ‘It’s a bit like walking into a Sunday meeting of the Flat Earth Society. As they discuss great issues of the day, they discuss them from the point of view that the earth is flat. If someone says, “No, no, no, the earth is round!”, they think this person is an extremist.

Jeff Randall


And that in a nutshell was the BBC GE night coverage....like a load of flat earthers that had been shown images of Earth taken from the space station for the first time.

Really? But isn't David Dimbleby known to favour the Conservative cause? Isn't Nick Robinson also Conservative (so much so that the Conservative Party tried to recruit him as recently as 2011)?

BBC coverage may have been shambolic but save the reds under the beds stuff.

Labour guest like Kinnock

That was a case of 'enough rope'.....and he duly obliged....

FrancisUrquhart said:

viewcode said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

viewcode said:

Can I ask a question? All the politicians (and us) are advancing their theses about why Lab lost. Has anybody considered asking the voters? I mean, going round the country, talking to people, asking them? Is anybody actually doing this?

I bet Messina / Crosby Textor are already sitting on huge amounts of data in regards to this. What worked, what didn't etc.

Do they publish?

LOL...what do you think?

I think Messina and probably also Crosby will publish at least the broad generalities in the months to come.

On topic, I believe there were cowed kippers rather than just shy ones. I think a lot of people with UKIP VI decided not just not to declare their intention, but ended up not voting at all. State-sanctioned contempt for a non-racist non-sectarian mainstream political party on the scale of what's happened to UKIP is something I believe to be virtually unprecedented.

HYUFD said:

MaxPB Completely wrong. After Thursday working class Romford, Staffordshire Moorlands, Rugby all had majorities for the Tories over 20%, Rugby was won by Wilson and Attlee, they are lost to Labour and they do not need them to win a majority. In a similar way Obama has lost working class West Virginia, which used to be solid Democrat, and the likes of Kentucky and Tennessee and Missouri which went for Clinton. Suburban Finchley, Hendon, Brighton Kemptown all had majorities for the Tories under 10%, Worcester 11%, and indeed Labour won prosperous Chester and Wirral West which were safe Tory seats in 1992. Obama also won suburban Virginia and Colorado. It is demographic change and Labour has to shift accordingly.

On the economy it is the Tories who have been most pro austerity, like the Republicans in the US, it was Obama who was preaching investment in infrastructure etc much like Labour. It was the Tories who invited McCain to their 2008 conference and the Tea Party occupies much of the same message as UKIP. The same trends apply, Labour needed the working class when the UK had a working class majority, it now has a suburban middle class one, there is no future for it in being UKIP lite, it would lose the suburban middle class and its leftwing supporters in the public sector and ethnic minorities without being able to win back voters from UKIP, some working class voters will continue to vote Labour of course, but it is not the working class Labour needs for power

Labour did indeed employ a fringe coalition against the core strategy. Problem is Britain has a radically different demographic profile to the US, naturally it was an approach that worked only in London. With the baby boomers declining now, Scotland gone and the wwc defecting to UKIP I do struggle to see Labour coming back for a while.

Having now got their reputation for economic competency back, the second Conservative term must focus on prosperity for all and ditch the toxic only for the rich tag.

calum said:

The only way I can see Labour and the LibDems reviving their fortunes by 2020 is by biting the bullet and merging

That is to fundamentally misunderstand their different philosophies and histories - it wouldn't be a merger - it would be an extinction - of the Liberals.

The tough thing they've got to learn is 'how do they get beyond 'protest party' '(since others have stolen their clothes....)

FrancisUrquhart said:

viewcode said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

viewcode said:

Can I ask a question? All the politicians (and us) are advancing their theses about why Lab lost. Has anybody considered asking the voters? I mean, going round the country, talking to people, asking them? Is anybody actually doing this?

I bet Messina / Crosby Textor are already sitting on huge amounts of data in regards to this. What worked, what didn't etc.

Do they publish?

LOL...what do you think?

I assume they do not. I asked the question in case I was wrong. A technique Labour would do well to emulate...

MaxPB said:

HYUFD said:

handandmouse I do not want to go over all the arguments I made yesterday again, but being smug and metropolitan did not stop Blair and Obama and Labour does not need to target the working class, they are in relative decline and moving to UKIP in many cases, but the suburban middle classes Blair won. Umunna needs to add them to the ethnic vote and public sector vote much as Obama did. Labour no longer need to win working class marginals like Rugby and Romford for a majority after Thursday, they both had big Tory majorities, they do need to win suburban Hendon, Brighton Kemptown and Worcester which had smaller majorities

Again, the UK is not the US, there aren't enough people in those groups to get Labour their majority. They need the working classes in a way the Dems don't. We don't have 1m+ Mexicans coming into the border states every year who will eventually vote Labour. Eastern Europeans are pretty evenly split, Indians are majority Conservative, Muslims will vote Labour but policies aimed at them will repel more votes than would be attracted.

There is no easy fix for Labour but abandoning the working classes to UKIP is surely not the answer. You want to turn Labour into the Lib Dems, but at their peak the Lib Dems only won 7m votes which is not enough to break the Tory hold on England.

"Indians majority Conservative"

Have you got any evidence to back up this assertion?

Slackbladder said:

John Rentoul ‏@JohnRentoul 2 mins2 minutes ago

If that's the Labour field, we have to start by saying a Tory win in 2020 looks likely.

They just don't get it - they cannot move left as England will not elect them and to move to aspiration and pro business is already taken by the conservatives - are we seeing the slow but certain demise of labour

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Dadge said:

SouthamObserver said:

kle4 said:

I see Sturgeon's tactic will be that whatever Cameron offers, she will say it is not enough and demand more. Obviously at some point he will say that is going too far, and she will claim he has betrayed Scotland and that Independence has to be gone for again. Expected, but still effective.

Yep, that is exactly how it will play out. Either her bluff gets called or Scotland becomes independent. Either way, the SNP is not going to be as popular in five years time as it is now.

Surely there'll eventually be a split in the SNP. Apparently the SNP is to the Left of Labour, but its voters aren't, at least most of them aren't. The government (and Scottish Labour, for that matter) needs to make sure that split happens and that requires a charm offensive. Cameron needs to get up there as often as possible, shaking hands, giving speeches, pretending there's another referendum next week. He might not get a good reception, but that's the point. The nicer he is and the angrier the loony nats get, the more likely that the SNP will split, or at least that it'll lose the 10-20% of additional support it needs to create a drive for a new referendum.

Cameron visiting would make it even less likely. His few visits so far are in locked rooms , secret and only to his chums, it will stay that way.

Yes - Cameron being harangued on Princes Street by a spittle flecked Nat would look terrible.

But for whom?

I'm a great advocate of Major style 'meet the people'. Cameron should take the fight to streets - street speeches from Glasgow to Liverpool and Brighton would do him no harm (to his reputation).

FluffyThoughts said:

murali_s said:

Expected. Anyway the Tories GE campaign of fear has more or less sealed the fate of the Union. Right-wing nutjobs like SeanT will again cry into their soup at the prospect of the end of the Union. You can't have it both ways...

Here endith the lesson of the protaganist "Tears-for-Tamil-Tiger-Terrorists": All weep...!

Hmm. Completely lost me - don't know what you're talking about.

My advice - find a dark room and lie down for a bit....

FrancisUrquhart said:

Slackbladder said:

viewcode said:

Can I ask a question? All the politicians (and us) are advancing their theses about why Lab lost. Has anybody considered asking the voters? I mean, going round the country, talking to people, asking them? Is anybody actually doing this?

I have a feeling labour might not like the answers...

Which is the core of the problem.

The fact Team Ed were convinced they had won right up to 10pm, when as Loud Howard revealed Tories already had a good idea they likely had over 300 early in the evening. Even Bet Fred knew....says Labour have a huge problem when it comes to having this kinda of intelligence.

Actually what seems really strange is the lack of feedback loops within the Labour operation. There is more than enough evidence out there that Labour knew what was happening on the ground, but either this information wasn't communicated to the centre or the centre didn't want to know. If Team Ed thought they were doing well until the Exit Poll then it can only because they weren't talking to the troops.

It is interesting that one of the key themes of the election (SNP controlling England) wasn't actually artificially dreamed up by the Conservatives. It was picked up, unprompted by Conservative candidates on the doorstep, fed back to Central Office and then developed into a campaign message to push. Did Labour show any serious signs of refining their campaign messages as they went along (except in a reactive, defensive sense)?

DecrepitJohnL Upminster and Epping Forest are the posher parts of Essex there, Romford is full of ex Eastend Londoners, famous for its market and greyhound racing, and represented by the populist Andrew Rosindell, it saw the biggest swing to the Tories in 2001 at a time Blair won a second landslide and was one of the few Tory gains that night, it does not typify the nation

FrancisUrquhart said:

viewcode said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

viewcode said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

viewcode said:

Can I ask a question? All the politicians (and us) are advancing their theses about why Lab lost. Has anybody considered asking the voters? I mean, going round the country, talking to people, asking them? Is anybody actually doing this?

I bet Messina / Crosby Textor are already sitting on huge amounts of data in regards to this. What worked, what didn't etc.

Do they publish?

LOL...what do you think?

I assume they do not. I asked the question in case I was wrong. A technique Labour would do well to emulate...

In all seriousness, if the Tories had any sense they would have it all tied up so they can't. But there is no guarantee they will have / that the two research companies agreed to that. If there is no restrictions, I would think if somebody has enough money, they will be able to get at least some of the data. Messina after all works purely for the money.

I assume there would be some kind of contractual relationship regarding ownership of the raw data. However, statistical summaries of the data and statements of the techniques would be useful. Even something as simple as stating what the input data was (canvassing returns?) would be useful.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Boris!

Boris is surely the big loser of the election. No longer can he be the Tories' saviour after Cameron led them to defeat in 2015, and presumably his day job as Mayor of London rules him out of ministerial office, so that when Cameron does retire in a year or two, Boris will have no Cabinet experience to offer against Osborne, May or anyone else.

I very much doubt David Cameron will retire in a year or to - he is likely to be hugely motivated by his success and needs time to resolve Europe and Scotland. I cannot see him walking away until he has succeeded in both and established himself as one of the Country's greatest Prime Ministers. He has already destroyed all relevant opposition who will take years, if at all, to recover

In my eyes this victory will have transformed him from 'the guy with a good DPM' to 'the gu

felix said:

Diane Abbott on Sky - she increased her majority in Hackney so this is where Labour need to look for how to win in the country. I think she may be onto something there. I do hope that Labour listen and follow her advice - to the letter.

I hope they take the racist's advice as well, 5 more years of Tory majority after 2020 would suit me.

murali_s said:

Hmm. Completely lost me - don't know what you're talking about.

My advice - find a dark room and lie down for a bit....

If you can forget some rantings about the fall of Jaffna it is only fair that I do the same. Why discriminate hey...?

HYUFD said:

Scotland will now get more powers and the dominant constitutional debate will move to the EU.

Either the UK votes to exit, in which case Scotland probably leaves the UK too, or it narrowly votes In, which could well give UKIP the same boost the SNP had in Scotland, especially if Cameron led the In campaign. A large In margin is the least likely outcome in my view

I suspect you are wrong:
IN VOTES % x 2015 GE Market Share
Labour voters: 70% IN. x 30.5% =21.4%
LD voters 95% IN x 7.8% = 7.4%
UKIP voters 100% out x 12.6% (12.6)%
SNP 100% IN x4.7% = 4.7%
Greens etc.. 3.8% x 90% (say) 3.4%

Sub Total 24.3% IN

Conservatives....
Share 36.9%.

To get a OUT answer, they need 65% of ALL Conservatives to vote NO..

That is unlikely in my view.. 50% Out is I suspect the best which would give (-18.9)% OUT or a net Total of 5.4% IN.


I forecast an IN vote unless the EU makes no concessions in which case the above is nonsense..

notme said:

Slackbladder said:

notme said:

So the leader of Westminster SNP will now get a designated question at every PMQs?

Should do, if not two...

I seem to remember it was one of the things in 1997 that reminded the Tories just how low they had sunk, and how irrelevant they had become, when the leader of the liberal democrats got two questions at every PMQs.

Which marginal were you in out of interest, it seems your doorstep mood music was way more in line with the reality than the polls.

HYUFD said:

MaxPB There are 8 million ethnic minority UK citizens, and that is growing, only 3 million voted UKIP on Thursday. The traditional working class represent about 14% of the population now, according to a 2013 survey, the established middle class 23% and the technical middle class, new affluent workers and emergent service workers represent the majority, while Labour already has the precariat. Even if they won back all the traditional working class Labour would be nowhere near a majority
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22007058

It is arrogance of the most condescending order to suggest that "ethnic voters" would vote on ethnicity alone. That is wrong, furthermore it is pure racism. Every individual voter is an individual, not a race. There are voters for all parties in all races and to lump them solely on their race is nothing other than racism.

MaxPB said:

HYUFD said:

MaxPB Completely wrong. After Thursday working class Romford, Staffordshire Moorlands, Rugby all had majorities for the Tories over 20%, Rugby was won by Wilson and Attlee, they are lost to Labour and they do not need them to win a majority. In a similar way Obama has lost working class West Virginia, which used to be solid Democrat, and the likes of Kentucky and Tennessee and Missouri which went for Clinton. Suburban Finchley, Hendon, Brighton Kemptown all had majorities for the Tories under 10%, Worcester 11%, and indeed Labour won prosperous Chester and Wirral West which were safe Tory seats in 1992. Obama also won suburban Virginia and Colorado. It is demographic change and Labour has to shift accordingly.

On the economy it is the Tories who have been most pro austerity, like the Republicans in the US, it was Obama who was preaching investment in infrastructure etc much like Labour. It was the Tories who invited McCain to their 2008 conference and the Tea Party occupies much of the same message as UKIP. The same trends apply, Labour needed the working class when the UK had a working class majority, it now has a suburban middle class one, there is no future for it in being UKIP lite, it would lose the suburban middle class and its leftwing supporters in the public sector and ethnic minorities without being able to win back voters from UKIP, some working class voters will continue to vote Labour of course, but it is not the working class Labour needs for power

This is the kind of thinking that got Jim Murphy elected as SLAB leader. Look at what has happened there. If Labour abandon the working classes they basically cease to exist as a political force outside of a few core cities. The Conservatives won't make the same mistake as Hague and IDS again. Chuka would be Ed mark 2, just with better presentation. He is a London intellectual who is not able to speak to the Northern core vote. Remember that the North delivered the bulk of Labour's seats where there is a massive working class vote. Abandoning them to UKIP would be a disaster, just to win 20-30 seats in the suburbs of London and Manchester. As a (now Tory member) nothing would delight me more than to see Labour commit suicide by abandoning the WWC to UKIP, but it would be bad for the country.

Why would it be bad for the country exactly?

''there's no opposition''

Left-centre parties will probably work together to undermine this government if they sense the opportunity. The DUP and UUPs are not certs to support the government either - the DUP have their own redlines e.g. The Bedroom Tax.

Given how we've seen safe seats overturned at the GE I don't think anyone can say the new Conservative seats in the South-West are an assurity to be safe seats. A large part of that depends on how the tactical vote in these areas mobilise.

alex. said:

Is Cameron DEFINITELY going before the next election? I didn't really follow it, but I never really got the impression that the whole thing was particularly planned, just his current thoughts on the future. It is very easy for someone to take the view that on balance they don't think they will carry on a stressful job some 5 years hence. Whether they feel the same way at a later occasion is another matter.

No way he can get out of what he said...besides he really doesn't enjoy the job that much.

Mr Chillax ain't going to do another GE campaign, all that stress and long hours isn't good for his skin

Slackbladder said:

notme said:

So the leader of Westminster SNP will now get a designated question at every PMQs?

Should do, if not two...

Yes, the practice established by Tony Blair was 'two for the third largest party':

One of Tony Blair's first acts as prime minister was to replace the two 15-minute sessions with a single 30-minute session at noon on Wednesdays. The allocated number of questions in each session for the Leader of the Opposition was doubled from three to six, and the leader of the third-largest party (which was the Liberal Party until 1988, after which it was the Liberal Democrats) was given two questions. The first PMQs to use this new format took place on 21 May 1997.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister's_Questions