UK General Election - May 7th 2015

[ChrisDR68]

Ed Milliband's principal rival was his older brother David. David's reputation has risen because he was not elected, but I always thought that Ed was better at simulating normal human behaviour than David was. No doubt if David had been elected, the general opinion now would be that Ed would have been the better option.

A truly dreadful field. I would not have voted for any of them, even if I had been a Labour supporter. However, if absolutely forced to choose, I would concede that Ed was the least worst of them.

That's got to be a joke right?

Ed won because he was the more left wing candidate compared to David. That's why certain lefty trade unions recommended him in their ballots without mentioning his brother. Democratic huh? lol

Labour has a rich tradition of voting the more lefty candidate as leader. Harold Wilson won in 1963 because he aligned himself with Aneurin Bevan in the late 40's. Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock were the lefty candidates in 1980 and 1983 respectively and Jim Callaghan won in 1976 because he was seen as a friend of the unions (ironic I know).

Only when they got desperate after 4 election defeats did the Labour movement start electing "right wingers" to the party leadership (John Smith in 1992 and Tony Blair in 1994).

David would have been dull, boring and wooden (as is his personality) but I'm certain his approval ratings would have been light years ahead of Ed's right now had he won the leadership in 2010 because he looked and sounded the part of a potential prime minister. 

What appeals to the Labour movement internally is very often not what appeals to the British public as a whole.

[Phony Moderate]

That's got to be a joke right?

Rightly or wrongly, it was the narrative going around in the run-up to the election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He won for the same reason that Mitt Romney and Michael Dukakis won their respective party nomination - he was the best or least worst of an unimpressive field.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The big Labour-supporting unions are certainly not 'lefty' in Labour Party factional terms.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, because we all know that union members are not capable of researching candidates on their own terms and have to be told who to vote for...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except on those occasions when they haven't (which is quite often).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He won because he was up against a drunken idiot in the second round. He would have lost a two-way battle between himself and Callaghan. Just over two years prior to his election, Wilson lost by a 2-to-1 margin to Hugh Gaitskell.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Granted, though Heffer was obviously to the left of Kinnock.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And, as I previously said, those unions are generally not on the Labour left.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Smith had been seen as Kinnock's natural successor even when a 1992 victory looked likely. The main alternative to Smith was the then-leading moderniser Gordon Brown (though of course he did not contest). Blair, yes, although he charisma had a lot to do with it too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have you ever seen that image of him holding a banana? As for looking and sounding like a potential Prime Minister, the same could have been be said of Tony Benn.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, but there is little correlation between the faction of party leaders and their electoral successes/failures. Of Labour's three most successful post-WWII leaders, two (Wilson, Attlee) were from the left and one (Blair) from the right. Of Labour's two lowest post-WWII vote shares, one came under a left-winger (Foot) and the other a right-winger (Brown).

[politicus]

vs.

[joevsimp]

the gif in your sig is more appropriate than ever

[BundouYMB]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Link: www [dot] telegraph [dot] co [dot] uk/comment/columnists/matthewd_ancona/7969638/Labour-leadership-Ed-Miliband-jealousy-could-make-a-leader-of-David.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Link: www [dot] newstatesman [dot] com/uk-politics/2010/08/david-miliband-balls-candidate

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Link: www [dot] theguardian [dot] com/politics/2010/aug/30/david-miliband-labour-leadership-contest

Just a little reminder.

(I can't post links yet, btw, so that's why I did them that way.)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Callaghan was the leading right-wing candidate (ahead of Jenkins, Healey and Crosland) in 1976 and the voting for the last round against Foot mostly (though not entirely) split down factional lines.

As for 2010, David Miliband lost because he ran a sh!tty and complacent campaign; particularly damaging was his failure to shut up certain unpopular supporters of his (this alienated 'swing voters' like me) and his failure to put pressure on USDAW (which has a large and growing membership and which is solidly on the Right) to campaign for him in the way that the large unions backing his brother had for him.

[Clyde1998]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-would-cut-billions-from-scottish-budget-to-fund-english-tax-cuts-10076356.html

UKIP are saying that they would cut the Devolved Governments Budget (to save £8bn) by scrapping the Barnett Formula.

Using Scotland - the tax revenue in Scotland is around £53bn and the Scottish budget is £46bn. Not having everything back is fair enough - as Scotland has to pay for its share of military spending, border controls, welfare, etc.

£53bn includes 84.2% of the North Sea oil revenue (which is based on the geographic location of the oil). With a population share it was £48.1bn and without oil it was £47.6bn. Regardless of the amount of oil allocated to Scotland, there was a net loss for that year based on total spend allocated to Scotland.

However, based on the historical GERS figures, between 1980-81 (when the Barnett Forumla was introduced) and 2011-12 - Scotland's total surplus was up to nearly £150bn. This includes the debt that Scotland effectively had in 1979-80 (around £9bn). This is based on Scotland being independent (either politically or financially), having a geographic share of oil, generated the same tax and had the same expenditure. Also, as it's based on Scotland being independent, Scotland has no UK debt after 1980 allocated to it. (See section 6)

Scotland isn't subsided by the UK. The solution to the problem is giving each devolved government Full Fiscal Autonomy - and allowing each government to borrow money when it needs it.

[MaxQue]

How surprising! English nationalists hate Wales and Scotland.

[Clyde1998]

How surprising! English nationalists hate Wales and Scotland.

I think a major issue is that there is a strong view that England subsides the rest of the UK - when it doesn't. This is never countered by the media, as the biggest media sources are based in England, so people continue to believe it.

[afleitch]

How surprising! English nationalists hate Wales and Scotland.

I think a major issue is that there is a strong view that England subsides the rest of the UK - when it doesn't. This is never countered by the media, as the biggest media sources are based in England, so people continue to believe it.

I think the main issue for me is that 'who gets what' shouldn't actually matter on the basis that any sound economy is operated on moving wealth around the country and secondly, Scotland by this type of measurement is less 'subsidised' than Northern Ireland, or Wales or indeed the North East of England, the North West, Yorkshire, East and West Midlands and, taking into account the large amount of subsidy by the government for departments/civil service as well as other infrastructure schemes; London.

[Blair]

That's got to be a joke right?

Rightly or wrongly, it was the narrative going around in the run-up to the election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He won for the same reason that Mitt Romney and Michael Dukakis won their respective party nomination - he was the best or least worst of an unimpressive field.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The big Labour-supporting unions are certainly not 'lefty' in Labour Party factional terms.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, because we all know that union members are not capable of researching candidates on their own terms and have to be told who to vote for...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except on those occasions when they haven't (which is quite often).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He won because he was up against a drunken idiot in the second round. He would have lost a two-way battle between himself and Callaghan. Just over two years prior to his election, Wilson lost by a 2-to-1 margin to Hugh Gaitskell.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Granted, though Heffer was obviously to the left of Kinnock.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And, as I previously said, those unions are generally not on the Labour left.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Smith had been seen as Kinnock's natural successor even when a 1992 victory looked likely. The main alternative to Smith was the then-leading moderniser Gordon Brown (though of course he did not contest). Blair, yes, although he charisma had a lot to do with it too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have you ever seen that image of him holding a banana? As for looking and sounding like a potential Prime Minister, the same could have been be said of Tony Benn.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, but there is little correlation between the faction of party leaders and their electoral successes/failures. Of Labour's three most successful post-WWII leaders, two (Wilson, Attlee) were from the left and one (Blair) from the right. Of Labour's two lowest post-WWII vote shares, one came under a left-winger (Foot) and the other a right-winger (Brown).

I was literally just about to say this haha, you've hit the nail on the head. Brilliant Analysis.

As a labour member, there's pretty much 3 reasons why Ed Miliband won

1) He had ideas about how to reform the country, and the economy. He actually knew that after 2008 the markets had failed, and we need reform
2) He had high profile backing from across the party-not just the unions. About 45% of members and MP's voted for him.
3) David Miliband acted like he deserved the leadership-he tried to coup Brown in 2008 and backed out because Brown was despite his faults a good operator. His 2010 campaign had an air of 'clinton 2008' where he assumed that the nomination would a naturally come to him. He didn't distance himself from the blairites, he was shamefully New labour and we just faced our biggest defeat since 1918.

In regards to trade unions, they're often ironically voting on the right of the labour Party. A lot of members want to scrap Trident, but the Trade unions block it because it gives like 400 people jobs. And as said they don't simply meet in a smoke filled room, and individual members can vote as well.

Ed won in 2010, and I believe that the same could happen in 2015.

The problem with UK politics, is the crap that comes out in polling.

'The two parties are too similar... Ed Miliband is too left wing'
'I don't like Career Politicians... Ed Miliband looks weird''
'labour crashed the economy... Ed Miliband supports Austerity''

[YL]

This week's YouGov polls:

24 Feb: Con 33 Lab 33 UKIP 13 LD 8 Green 7 SNP/Plaid 4
25 Feb: Con 35 Lab 33 UKIP 14 Green 7 LD 6 SNP/Plaid 5
26 Feb: Lab 33 Con 33 UKIP 15 LD 8 Green 6 SNP/Plaid 5
27 Feb: Lab 34 Con 33 UKIP 13 LD 8 Green 6 SNP/Plaid 4
1 Mar: Lab 34 Con 34 UKIP 14 LD 8 Green 5 SNP/Plaid 4

[Phony Moderate]

Even if the campaign goes badly, Miliband can probably expect his personal ratings to rise into the low 30s (or thereabouts) by election day on the back of a 'rally around the party' effect of those 40% of Labour voters who currently say he is doing badly.

[Torie]

The LD pulls in the single digits, how many seats would they be expected to lose, and who would pick them up? LD seems to me this odd duck where in some seats, their main competitor is the Tories, and in others, the Tories are near invisible, and the race is with Labor.  It's almost schizophrenic.

[ChrisDR68]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well that's a judgement you are making and one I don't share.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was thinking mainly of Len McCluskey of Unite who I think you'll agree is pretty left wing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They sure can although putting Vote Ed leaflets in the ballot envelope still seems a little bit dodgy to me

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You seem to be saying Wilson's success in that leadership election had little to do with him aligning himself with Labour's left. A doubtful argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well I've seen polls showing only about 14% of the British people view themselves as "very left wing" so I'd imagine Tony Benn's appeal to the general public would be similarly limited despite him having been a fluent communicator.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe I'm wrong about this but almost everything that Ed says seems to be opportunistic and short term in order to court popularity for a few days. Something appears in the headlines and the next thing you know Ed makes an announcement on it (the latest being banning MP's from having second jobs).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No argument there. I still think he's the superior politician when choosing between the two though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

About two thirds of the blame for the financial crisis was with the banks themselves (and mainly American banks at that). The other third was with the last Labour government in respect to how they were regulated. As Gordon Brown changed the way they were regulated as soon as Labour was elected in 1997 he has to take the lion's share of the blame for the dangers that built up over the next 11 years (particularly the capital ratios they were required to hold in their vaults in case of a crisis occuring).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The LD pulls in the single digits, how many seats would they be expected to lose, and who would pick them up? LD seems to me this odd duck where in some seats, their main competitor is the Tories, and in others, the Tories are near invisible, and the race is with Labor.  It's almost schizophrenic.

On the first point, no one really knows. The LibDems are weirdly optimistic (insisting that their vote will only crash in places where it doesn't matter) but the excessive optimism is in their nature. I note that as recently as 1992 they had just twenty seats and that was with a much higher share of the vote (18%) than currently looks realistic. That isn't a prediction, but a reminder that there's no reason to assume that they will automatically have a large block of MPs.

As for who benefits (perhaps), then it depends where. But it's certainly true that the Tories finished second in most LibDem seats and that many of these seats were reliably Conservative before 1997. Tory hopes of a majority rest (to a considerable extent) on the idea that they can gut their coalition partners while holding their ground elsewhere.

[afleitch]

The LD pulls in the single digits, how many seats would they be expected to lose, and who would pick them up? LD seems to me this odd duck where in some seats, their main competitor is the Tories, and in others, the Tories are near invisible, and the race is with Labor.  It's almost schizophrenic.

On the first point, no one really knows. The LibDems are weirdly optimistic (insisting that their vote will only crash in places where it doesn't matter) but the excessive optimism is in their nature. I note that as recently as 1992 they had just twenty seats and that was with a much higher share of the vote (18%) than currently looks realistic. That isn't a prediction, but a reminder that there's no reason to assume that they will automatically have a large block of MPs.

As for who benefits (perhaps), then it depends where. But it's certainly true that the Tories finished second in most LibDem seats and that many of these seats were reliably Conservative before 1997. Tory hopes of a majority rest (to a considerable extent) on the idea that they can gut their coalition partners while holding their ground elsewhere.

The two steepest drops in the Liberal share occurred in 1979 and 1992 and the Liberals were shielded somewhat from loosing more than 2 seats on each occasion. In 1992 they even achieved swings towards them in many seats that would later fall to them five years later. So if we are looking at 'gentle' decline down to the high teens I would actually expect them to hold on to 2/3rds of what they have. As you say however, they are polling at a two generational low and there's a lot of confidence that we don't know is misplaces or not. There are some places where they seems to be resilient locally, their London suburban seats, Eastleigh, Lewes and fortress Westmoreland for example, so I think their ground game will be good enough to see them overperform UNS.

[Lurker]

The LD pulls in the single digits, how many seats would they be expected to lose, and who would pick them up? LD seems to me this odd duck where in some seats, their main competitor is the Tories, and in others, the Tories are near invisible, and the race is with Labor.  It's almost schizophrenic.

On the first point, no one really knows. The LibDems are weirdly optimistic (insisting that their vote will only crash in places where it doesn't matter) but the excessive optimism is in their nature. I note that as recently as 1992 they had just twenty seats and that was with a much higher share of the vote (18%) than currently looks realistic. That isn't a prediction, but a reminder that there's no reason to assume that they will automatically have a large block of MPs.

As for who benefits (perhaps), then it depends where. But it's certainly true that the Tories finished second in most LibDem seats and that many of these seats were reliably Conservative before 1997. Tory hopes of a majority rest (to a considerable extent) on the idea that they can gut their coalition partners while holding their ground elsewhere.

The two steepest drops in the Liberal share occurred in 1979 and 1992 and the Liberals were shielded somewhat from loosing more than 2 seats on each occasion. In 1992 they even achieved swings towards them in many seats that would later fall to them five years later. So if we are looking at 'gentle' decline down to the high teens I would actually expect them to hold on to 2/3rds of what they have. As you say however, they are polling at a two generational low and there's a lot of confidence that we don't know is misplaces or not. There are some places where they seems to be resilient locally, their London suburban seats, Eastleigh, Lewes and fortress Westmoreland for example, so I think their ground game will be good enough to see them overperform UNS.

But are the any reasons to believe that the Lib-Dems could have a result in the high teens (17-19%)? It's only two months from election day, and they are not even averaging half of that result in the polls.

I know that the British polls are of dubious quality (to put it kindly), but even if the Lib-Dem's support is being underestimated, they would need a pretty great campaign to get near such numbers.

[Torie]

And how much to numbers change, or individual races change, due to strategic voting in the end? How many voters engage in strategic voting?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Latest Ashcroft/Rubber Ball poll: Con 34, Labour 31, UKIP 14, Greens 7, LDem 7

(of course what's going to happen now - you can just tell - is that after a whole campaign doubtless bouncing around in all directions, his final poll will flukishly get it about right).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And how much to numbers change, or individual races change, due to strategic voting in the end? How many voters engage in strategic voting?

Here's the fun part: it is impossible to tell.

[Clyde1998]

More constituency polls are being conducted by Ashcroft in Scotland. The current suggestions are:

East Renfrewshire - Labour held (Lab at Holyrood)
Rutherglen & Hamilton West - Labour held (Lab/SNP at Holyrood)
Lanark & Hamilton East - Labour held (Lab/SNP at Holyrood)
Edinburgh West - Lib Dem held (SNP at Holyrood)
Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath - Labour held (Lab/SNP at Holyrood)
Ross, Skye & Lochaber - Lib Dem held (SNP at Holyrood)

The 'suggestions' are based on Populus (who conduct the polling) are polling people in these areas. However, Labour are also using Populus for internal polling in certain seats at the moment, so they may not emerge as Ashcroft polls.

Usual stuff should be said about local polls, but I'm going to suggest that the SNP will not be doing as well as they were in the last lot of seats polled (as these are 'no' voting areas), but they might still do quite well - especially in seats where they do well in the Scottish Parliament.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As its Monday, a new Populus: Labour 34, Con 32, UKIP 14, LDem 8, Green 5

[YL]

Labour have a candidate in Bradford West again.

[YL]

Back to the Lib Dems again.

I think one reason why a lot of people aren't expecting a total disaster for them (say well below 20) is to do with Ashcroft's polling, which on the headline figures shows them holding several seats which they might not be expected to in the wipeout scenario.

However, whatever you think of constituency polling, the way the questions are asked in the Ashcroft polls needs to be taken into account.  His polls first ask the "standard" question, "If there was a general election tomorrow, which party would you vote for?".  They then, to the same respondents, ask a second question, "Thinking specifically about your own PARLIAMENTARY constituency at the next General Election and the candidates who are likely to stand FOR ELECTION TO WESTMINSTER there, which party's candidate do you think you will vote for in your own constituency?"  (Capitals as they appear in the tables; I've no idea what this means in a phone poll.)

In many constituencies, the second question gets pretty similar answers to the first, but the Lib Dems tend to do a lot better on it, and those headline figures with them ahead are always based on this second question.  (I don't think a single Ashcroft poll conducted in the last year has put them ahead on the first question.)  Now, perhaps the second question is better, but it strikes me that asking the two questions in this way might be acting as a prompt for people considering a tactical or personal vote to answer that way, and we know that pollsters are supposed to be careful with order of questions.  So I think it's possible (but don't really have any evidence) that the Ashcroft polls might be giving the Lib Dems too much of a boost.

For example, here are the figures from Carshalton & Wallington, polled last October/November:
First question Con 30, LD 25, UKIP 22, Lab 17, Green 4
Second question LD 44, Con 22, UKIP 17, Lab 12, Green 3.
So 19% of the sample appear to have changed from something else to Lib Dem between the two questions.  Is this a boost we can really believe in?