Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For CON to have any chance the LAB share needs to erode. It
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For CON to have any chance the LAB share needs to erode. It’s looking pretty solid.
The veteran pollster who founded the MORI company all those years ago, Bob Worcester, used to contact me in the early days of PB to give me a gentle admonishment whenever he thought I focused too much on polling leads. The important thing, he would always say, was to look at the respective party poll shares.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
That's an interesting observation. I wonder how much of that is soft/protest vote, though. Of course, a protest vote could well remain until the election.
This seems to only happen when a long link or something else is too wide. Can this be fixed?
@Plato
All YouGov poll trackers can be found at:
http://yougov.co.uk/publicopinion/archive/?category=political-trackers
There are some very interesting trends
Indeed but there are nuances. The Conservative/UKIP bloc is 46% with YouGov this morning but was only 43% with Populus yesterday if memory serves. The combined Labour/LD bloc is around 50% - for most of the Thatcher/Major years, the combined Labour/LD bloc was around 52-54%.
I agree too many people are looking at the current polling through the prism of past Parliaments when you had a large disillusioned anti-Government vote which would float off to the third party and then run back at the first whiff of electoral gunpowder. This is a different environment - 40-50% of the 2010 LD vote has cleaved to Labour and shows absolutely no sign of returning (and probably won't while a) Nick Clegg is leader and b) the Party is in coalition with the Conservatives). This bloc added to the core Labour vote potentially prevents a Conservative majority Government but doesn't mean a Labour majority Government.
A much smaller tranche of disillusioned Government supporters has gone off to UKIP and I suspect many of these will return when the real election campaign starts.
One of two things needs to happen for David Cameron to remain Prime Minister after 2015 (and thus be in a position to hold his much-vaunted EU referendum) - either UKIP needs to be squeezed back to somewhere near its 2010 GE level or the current Labour bloc of core Labour and angry ex-LD voters needs to be fractured. There are small signs that both things might be happening but they need to happen and a change in a lead from 6 points to 4 points because the Conservative vote is up two and the UKIP vote down two is of no material significance.
The economy is improving slowly at the macro level - no question - but we come back to the thorny question of how does it "feel" for the average voter ? For example, I found out yesterday my fares will once again rise well in excess of inflation (and any wage increase) next year. That doesn't make me "feel" better off. It's the small things like that which are part of the economic equation for most ordinary people - not neo-Stakhanovite propaganda on car production numbers.
Curiously, what Cameron really needs is a big bustup with Clegg that Clegg appears to "win" - that would pull back LibDems from Labour and put us in trouble.
It said the amount included £1.3bn of loan repayments in the first half of 2013.
The firm did not make any further provision for PPI mis-selling.
It also saw profits boosted by a drop in customers who had fallen behind on their mortgage payments.
Underlying profit before tax for the first half of 2013 increased from £481.4m in June 2012 to £528.8m this year.
UKAR said the main driver for this was lower arrears and, as such, a reduced loan impairment charge.
The company saw the number of mortgages three or more months in arrears fall by 17% to 21,332 since the start of 2013.
It now has almost 584,000 customers, with 565,000 mortgage accounts and 212,000 unsecured personal loan accounts.
The firm said the majority of these loans continued to perform well, with more than 90% of mortgage customers up to date with their mortgage payments.
"However, we do have a significant number of customers who are finding it difficult to meet their repayments," the company said.
"In those cases, we work closely with customers to offer a range of solutions to help them manage their circumstances."
The number of properties it repossessed fell from 3,871 in the first half of 2012 to 3,550 in 2013.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23584839
The tories were solidly over 40% before the election campaign and Blair well over 50%, so I don't see a drop of in the labour figure to 32-33% as particularly unlikely particularly if the economy continues to grow between now and the election.
WRT standards of living, what is relevent is what the alternative would have been and the tories need to paint a clear picture of what would have happened under a continuing Labour government and what is likely to happen under a future one.
As practically noone is going to vote Lib Dem in these seats as they are going to soft pedal them and only target holding ~45 existing seats or so, well this is why CON is stuffed under FPTP at the next election. There will be some swingback, but not enough.
Labour to gain a majority with a 1% lead or so.
The most striking number from YouGov today was the even split between "good" and "bad" for the economy on "the cuts" -41:41 - the last time the view was evenly split was November 2010
I asked Jim Pickard of the FT who's pushing this line what the figures are from when the crash happened since 2010 wasn't Year Zero - reply came none. I do like his stuff but he's quite a lefty.
Thanks for posting the information about the Charity salaries. From 1980 up to last year, we were paying a monthly standing order to 'Save The Children". We then discovered that the CE was being paid £162,000 pa, and I calculated that those thirty years of donations (with tax relief) had only paid a month of his salary. We now give it to a smaller charity.
Since we cancelled, we've had three phone calls from them spouting the usual guff about having to buy the best people, it's the "going rate" for the job. They didn't tell me that someone else on the staff was being paid even more.
On economics, I may be an ignoramus, but I've been taking a few baby steps (probably up to a politician's level), The best way to think of the multiplier effect is to compare it with losing weight. If you cut say 500 calories from your intake, you don't see 500 calories of weight loss as your body adjusts the metabolism to a reduced intake. You may only see, say, 300 calories of benefit (why increased exercise as well is useful). In the same way, reducing spending only benefits you by a proportion because of the lost GDP.
The left, and BenM on here (congrats on the new arrival), see spending as a panacea. That surely is equivalent to saying that the way to lose weight is to eat more. Nice advice for fatties, but even they must have doubts.
"Actually it's probably the Tory vote that is soft at this stage"
Pardon? Why? They're in HMG, have to justify what they actually do not burble about what the tooth fairy would do differently in 2yrs time.
I suspect you are whistling in the dark.
Nick - your last para hypothesis is interesting, but cannot see it happening as Clegg would have to unravel too much.
On a more interesting point, and in view of their track record (especially economic), why should anyone vote Labour - is it just tribalism?
There is a strong anti-Labour bias among the posters on here - that doesn't of course translate to a pro-Conservative bias.
Go back to 2011 in the polls and you'll find the Conservatives were doing better as well than they are now. It's a feature of incoming Conservative Governments that they hold their election support for longer than incoming Labour Governments and the fall-off usually happens in the 12-36 month period. It's no surprise on that basis to see the Conservative numbers rallying from their spring nadir.
So that's not just denying yourself two pizza fests - but not eating anything instead. No wonder people don't like cutting spending as the denying phase is a genuine loss of pleasure/habit.
Chris Bryant said the other day 'this could all be sorted out by breakfast'. Really? Well if we just gave Gib to Spain I'm sure that'd just fix things perfectly - not.
More interesting is that I think we got the first glimmer of Labour's strategy for the next election.
It is to argue that whatever happens to the economy only the living standards of the rich are improving. This correlates nicely with the polling that finds the Conservatives only care about people like them
Mrs Stodge and I have benefitted hugely from this and, as many others, have paid down a lot of our outstanding mortgage debt. The worry for me is that after years of being encouraged to save, people now feel they can let go, start spending and start building up personal and consumer debt once again. When rates do go up, it will be a big shock for many who have known such a long period of relatively low rates.
I would like to think it's not deliberate policy to engineer a pre-election consumption-fuelled debt-based boom as we'll all have plenty of time to reflect on that after 2015.
I'd like to think that the next Government, of whatever stripe, will continue to see the alleviation of tax for the lower-paid as a priority and we'll see above-inflation rises in personal allowance figures.
My concern is that rising interest rates will act as a brake on economic growth and particularly when it comes to the Government getting money in which is where the public finances imploded so spectacularly in 2007-08 and later.
Mr. Roger, there will be probably be some struggle between the parties to pin 2007 or 2010 as the Year Zero for the debate. Similarly, both will want their lines to be shown to be true (or at least a valid opinion) in 2015. If living standards are rising or people feel like they are/will in the near future by then that would greatly aid the Coalition parties.
The swingback to the government theory didn't work ahead of the 2005 election. Maybe that was down to the Tories changing their leader in November 2003.
40.7 % , 35.2 %, 29. %
Pop Vote
10.7 M , 9.5M, 8.6 M
Surely its nailed on that they will find 1.5M extra voters aka 9% down the back of the sofa ?
And if anyone can bring them back its Ed Milibamd.
ONS @statisticsONS
#Production up 1.1% and #Manufacturing up 1.9% between May and June, following 3 months of 0.0% growth: bit.ly/15xCRr7
RT @World_First Want broad based recovery? All 13 categories within manufacturing recorded increase in June. 1st time happened since June 92
LAB +9. [ 8 from LD, 2 from CON, 1 to UKIP ]
CON -4 [ 3 from LD, 5 to UKIP, 2 to LAB ]
LD -13: [ 8 to LAB, 3 to CON, 2 to UKIP [ protest ]
UKIP +8 [ 1 from LAB, 2 from LD, 5 from CON ]
I agree with Edmund in Tokyo. Taking the Brown votes from GE2010, add 8 from LD, Labour at 37 looks solid.
UKIP will end up at 6%, i.e. they will lose 5 points from above, possibly all reverting back to CON.
LD transfers to CON will probably come down to 1 points, also transfers to UKIP will also come down to possibly 0 giving LD 15%
So, in the zero sum game, this is my GE 2015 scenario:
LAB 37%
CON 36%
LD 15%
UKIP 6%
There is a possibility that there could be some more Orange Booker transfer to the Tories.
That would be straight LD minus, CON plus. If LD finishes at 12/13%, the Tories will end up at 38/39%.
Thanks to FPTP, Labour biggest party but short of majority. Progressives, 50% or slightly more.
Given big jumps in retail sales & industrial output it's arguably not best day for @UKLabour to launch attack on @Conservatives over economy
Clearly they're all out busy shopping with the money they don't have to spend...
All very neat - but you haven't factored in "Ed Miliband"
At this point in the cycle Labour really should be in the mid to high 40's with vote share and 20%+ in terms of lead.
They simply aren't doing well enough, but the truth is they haven't done consistently as good as they should since Tony Blair departed.
The fact is that there is no one silver bullet for projecting elections ..... save of course for the outstanding outpourings of my ARSE.
I recognise that and others do, but I am happy that the lefties think that with the Yougov lead at 4, an ICM level and Populus halved that everything is Hunky Dory and heading for an EdM win and Lib Dems retaining 40+ seats.... Is a lad insane to think otherwise? This is not a Low point for me. Ed M may be one of their Pins Ups but he is not one of the voters Heroes.
(Paean to The Screaming Eagles)
The big cats in charities get big rises:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10224104/Exclusive-Aid-organisations-risk-bringing-charities-into-disrepute-over-pay-says-watchdog.html
While the ordinary worker feels helpless and is now worse off says Labour.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23580075
Not that it would be any better under them. Vote UKIP!
Also, it's worth watching LD > Lab switchers over time.Today's YG was on the low side, but it had 29% of 2010 LD's as DK/won't vote, and 31% of the remaining voting Labour- that equates to a c4.5 points in the polls, and the Tories get about 1.5% from 2010 LDs too. now that's on the low side (populus gave lab 6.4% and Tories c 2.5 from 2010 LDs) but in YG at least the LD> Lab transfer has been reducing. Mostly to the benefit of UKIP in recent months. Again, this could be a floor, but I'd be keeping an eye on the 2010 LD splits in case it isn't.
Therefore, the increased 3% in UKIP votes will more or less come from the Tories [ defectors from Labour will come back ]. The question is what will be the split of the LD -8/9%, I think , in net terms, virtually all will go to Labour [ +10 -2 something like that ]. I am assuming DNV ends up as same as 2010.
Tories could add if LD falls below 15%. More or less all will go to them.
A good Tory split could be:
LAB, 37%
CON 39%
LD 12%
UKIP 6%
Those Tories who are dreaming of 42% have to explain where the additional votes will come from. Because, if fewer LD lefties come over to Labour, it would only mean more votes for LD's and not for CON.
I agree the Labour base is lower than the polled in 2010. As perverse as it may seem to many, Gordon Brown will have added a fair number of votes as the safe man who steered us through the crisis and understood the economic situation better than anyone. Safety and comfort with the experienced team would have given Labour a few % in 2010.
I don't know whether that strategy will be sufficient to overcome the wishful-thinking which sadly still leads people, despite all the experience of 1997-2010, to contemplate voting Labour, but it's very clear what the strategy will be, and it looks potent: "It's taken five hard years of slog to undo the damage, we're finally now beginning to see the benefits, don't let them ruin it again"
Whether or not it is good for the country is a different point.
I wonder could she tell us what is the size of the GDP today [ after such big growths ] relative to 2010 [ compared to say the USA in the same period ] and what are the real wages compared to 2010.
I think Nick Clegg is the sticking point for many of the more leftist Lib Dems and without them they will get spanked by Labour in the north and if they can't hold their nose like you are suggesting, then they will get destroyed by the Cons in the south and we will end up with 320 for Lab and 300 for Con with just 10-20 Lib Dems in Parliament.
Looking at polls over the last few months ( mostly but not exclusively Yougov ) the % of 2010 LD voters moving to Labour has fallen from around 28-29% to around 23-24% and these voters have mostly moved to DK .
In addition, voters are much less sticky than you think. They even transfer from the LibDems to UKIP, which in policy terms is pretty bonkers.
Please remind us what happened in 1997 ? When real living standards are falling for all except the top 5% as they rake in more money thanks to a cut in the top rate of income tax, I am not sure peopel will look at GDP numbers.
when there's a severe winter blaming the weather is an excuse by the Chancellor. When the weather's good it's only due to the favourable elements that growth was achieved.
Opposition vote shares do tend to fall prior to a general election, even when a change of government is imminent - 1964, 1970, 1979, 1997 and 2010 all demonstrate this.
When things start to move they can move very rapidly: the key factor is opposition credibility. Witness the collapse of large opposition poll leads and the resurgence of government fortunes prior to the 1959, 1983, 1987 and 1992 general elections when, faced with the reality of a choice, the electorate sensed a party without a serious alternative programme for government. This, I think, will be the fate of Ed Miliband in 2015.
Some Tory voters who would have stayed at home, will possibly vote UKIP.
"I wonder could she tell us what is the size of the GDP today [ after such big growths ] relative to 2010 [ compared to say the USA in the same period ] and what are the real wages compared to 2010."
A surprising chart. Unless I'm reading it wrongly the big return to growth was under Brown. What a pity he was stopped in his tracks. The Tories haven't improved things at all since
I post many ONS stats - I can't recall you sharing them with us. You are of course perfectly able to do so.
Perhaps that's because Labourites don't like to take a longer view? How's that Triple Dip Recession going for you?
Given I've voted for all of the Big Three - I have no reason to pretend that any faults didn't exist before. Unlike those with amnesia from the Left.
Still, I'm apparently a racist, Tory, UKIP shill who some PBers create in their imaginations as a comfort blanket. Golly :^ )
Remember that great PB poster Stuart Truth.
Of course things can happen in the next 21 monhs and you need to revisit the analysis all the time.
It seems unlikely that we will see that but a faster rate of growth in Q3 than in Q2 already looks nailed on. Employment is going to increase, unemployment will gently fall, real wages will start to rise again and the deficit is going to fall significantly. I will be astonished if the deficit this financial year is not below £100bn compared with the £118bn forecast. £90bn is not impossible.
Many have pointed out that the key to governments getting reelected is competence. It is a lot easier to look competent with a growing economy, especially one that is easily the fastest growing large economy in Europe.
Some Lib Dems will return home. But some 2010 Labour voters are up for grabs too. Floating voters scared by Mandy into voting for the devil they know. Those who think 29% was some sort of core or base for Labour are kidding themselves. Our politics is just not like that any more. Less tribal, less political theory, more focus on leadership and credibility. It is inevitable in an age when the real gap between the parties on policy is barely in the MOE.
It will be very similar to Feb 1974. Labour - Tory difference will be better for LAB compared to 1974 due to better Labour vote distribution.
As a hypothetical example, you could construct a pretty big overall swingback out of the following changes (compared with what people are telling pollsters today):
Current Lab -> Con: 1%
Current Lab->LD: 4%
Current Lab->Won't vote: 2%
Current LD->Con: 0.5%
Current Don't Know/Won't vote -> Con: 2%
Current UKIP -> Con: 4%
i.e. it doesn't have to be the exact same people crossing over to give the overall effect of a significant swing.
On the current UKPR polling average (32/38/10/12) the above shifts would give:
Con 39.5
Lab 31
LD 13.5
UKIP 8
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics-and-election/next-uk-general-election/most-seats/bet-history/labour/today
Discuss
RT @UKELECTIONS2015: Survation survey Scottish voting intentions
SNP 35%
Conservatives 29.7%
Labour 27.4%
UKIP 4.3%
Lib Dems 3.5%
After all Hopi Sen wrote the other day how Labour were NOT heading for victory... (Shurely shome mishtake in my logic)
It's like *good news* - its either *unexpected and therefore an anomaly* or *news that's not good enough or the wrong sort*.
It's pathetic nit-picking. It reminds me of something my mother recounted about hers '98%, hmm - your handwriting should be clearer'...
"and the data say the rich are paying more in tax than under Labour. That's a hard sell."
That's as may be but it's difficult to argue anything other than the rich have never had it so good.
The stock market is booming and for people with money very cheap credit has never been so easy to get.
I suspect many at Groucho's are left scratching their head at talk of austerity.
By contrast of course most ordinary people are just left dreaming of the halcyon days of Blair and Brown. What people see with their eyes is never a hard sell.
1) The economy is in recovery
2) Targeted spending can now occur
3) We haven't shredded our credit rating in the process; debt service is manageable; interest rates will remain low for the foreseeable future
4) The recovery will give GO many tools to entice the electorate prior to GE2015
5) The Lab lead has narrowed and may narrow further
6) The Lab vote share has declined over time and may decline further
7) The opposition is not only absent but seems not to have a coherent narrative let alone policy (which latter we don't expect yet)
8) Er...
9) etc...
However, given still over 18 months away from the general election and Labour's lead and share is historically very poor compared to most other Parliaments at this point and given Ed Milibands own personal unpopularity against Cameron's relative popularity and given the recovering economy, and given the Lib-Dem's becoming much more "stable" in the past few months, I think it's very, very unlikely we're still be seeing Lab 38% Con 34% in May 2015.
Time will tell.
Anecdotally, speaking to my aged parents, they are switching from Labour to Tory and the best I could get by way of an explanation is they liked the vetogasm. My aged in laws live in Lincs and are switching from Lib Dem to UKIP due to not liking the large influx of Poles. All four seem to hate all politicians
Neither of these switches would be that forseeable IMHO