UK General Discussion

[Leftbehind]

Apparently prominent Conservative donor Lord Ashcroft's released some polling, testing the effect of NHS candidates:

Lab 41% (+11%)
Con 36% (-1%)
Lib  9% (-14%)
changes are from the 2010 general election

Con 33% (-3%)
Lab 30% (-11%)
NHS 19% (+19%)
Lib 7% (-2%)
changes are from the above VI figures.

[Leftbehind]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17542020

[Leftbehind]

Seeing as though this thread's turned into the polling one temporarily;

Statgeek over at UKPR posted a series of graphs on the latest thread of Yougovs trends, the best being:

[Leftbehind]

Mayoral elections can f' off as well.

[Leftbehind]

We have the reverse with far too many of our schools being religious. The idea that we should be taxed to pay for your kids to receive lavish private education, while our state schools are left to rot, which we then have to send our kids to, is obvious nonsense. As WD says: nationalise the lot and abolish private schools.

No. If I want to make money by setting up a better-quality school than the government does and charging students to enter, who's to stop me from making money?

The government and the voting public who don't want you to make money from schooling?

[Leftbehind]

Well that and his (perceived) slight against her in PMQs.

In response, Cameron replied that he "does a lot of his own shopping".

[Leftbehind]

Of course.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/13/liberal-democrat-labour-ed-miliband

Something I've been consistently arguing - it's a shame but I become increasingly worried that it's only a matter of time before they're alienated again and this once in a generation opportunity will be scuppered, as the Blairites will almost certainly win out. [/pessimism]

[Leftbehind]

1987 General Election replay on BBC Parliament

Wonder how far their archive stretches back to. I really enjoyed seeing the 1970s election, I'd love for more around or before that period. Are these all being broadcast on anniversaries?

[Leftbehind]

Yeah on that basis if they stick to their anniversaries schedule then we're in for nothing until 2014, where we'll be greeted with an absolute deluge of them.

[Leftbehind]

Yeah, there's obviously that. I was mainly looking for pre-80's elections, however.

[Leftbehind]

Aye, hilarious. I'd find it hard to watch if she wasn't a Tory.

[Leftbehind]

It shocks me, but UK political parties (or at least the Lib Dems, cause that's whose website I was on) are better at capitalism than US ones.

What a wonderful testament to our god awful politics.

[Leftbehind]

What programme is that?

[Leftbehind]

I'd leave the party rather than join in with Ed Balls.  As City Minister, he was the architect of the longest, deepest recession this country has suffered in peace times. He's a disaster.  A LibDem-Lab pact with him any where near it would be a catastrophe.

I suppose the Coalition - and Osborne - have nothing to do with that, either?

To be honest that deal was never a starter for three reasons. The first was that the two parties combined didn't have a Commons majority, the second was that the LibDem leadership is rather right-wing and not especially well disposed towards the Labour Party, and the third was that large sections of Labour's grassroots regard all other parties as bourgeois (that's not the word used, of course, but it describes the mentality well enough) and so doesn't especially like dealing with them.

Slightly more cynical, but significant factors none-the-less for the PLP were that there was little incentive to cobble together an awkward coalition for what was evidently a difficult, and electorally damaging time to govern, and knowing that the nature of FPTP meant that they'd be rewarded - as the sole recipient of opposition to the counter coalition - at the next election.

You can take it right back to the beginning: their big prize was a referendum they were always likely to lose on a voting system that they didn't actually want.

They should have at the very least bound the government - the entire government - to actively campaign for a yes vote.

But still, they'd be binding the government to actively campaign for something they didn't want - nor their supporters. It was irredeemable as soon as they gave up PR.

[Leftbehind]

All bark and no bite then.

[Leftbehind]

How much has been pissed up the wall on this review, then?

[Leftbehind]

Indeed, he's devoid of any political credibility. Why the Liberal Democrats haven't ditched him yet is a mystery to me.

So the coalition contamination is restricted to him - so they can replace him just before the next election and claim a new start/different direction.

[Leftbehind]

If you read my comment with "They're doing it..." in front, you'll see my meaning, as you misunderstood my comment. They're hoping to restrict the toxicity to Clegg, in a hope they can replace him and not get crucified in the next election. Replacing him with Cable and Farron now would probably just make them unpopular as well, reinforcing an 'it's the party and not the leader' message, as they're unlikely to radically change the direction of the coalition or undo any of their past mistakes (partly thanks to Clegg leaving them in such a weak position, beholden to the Tories). 

[Leftbehind]

Why? Clegg is completely ruined in the minds of the public, but if you look at the polls, Cable is still relatively popular. The Liberal Democrats are still going to go lose a lot of seats in the next election, but with someone other than Clegg they could do slightly better.

That's why they won't replace him with Cable et al until the coalitions done with. So they can release a new social democratic manifesto in time for the electioneering period and pretend it's a clean break.

This one is good too.

Fantastic! Blows everything else out of the water, in fact.

[Leftbehind]

Labour seriously need to sort out their strategy.

Anyway, there's been a fair bit of polling over the weekend:

Survation CON 29% (-1), LAB 41% (+1), LDEM 10% (n/c), UKIP 12%.
YouGov     CON 34% (-1), LAB 43% (+2), LDEM 8% (-1), UKIP 8%.
Opinium     CON 30% (-2), LAB 42% (+2), LDEM 8% (-2), UKIP 10%.
ComRes     CON 35% (+2), LAB 39% (-3), LDEM 10% (n/c), UKIP 8%.

The YouGov also had some hypotheticals:

Under Cameron, Miliband, Clegg
LAB 41%, CON 34%, LDEM 9%, OTH 16%

Under Cameron, Miliband, Cable
LAB 39%, CON 34%, LDEM 12%, OTH 16%

Under Johnson, Miliband, Clegg
CON 38%, LAB 38%, LDEM 9%, OTH 15%

Under Johnson, Miliband, Cable
CON 39%, LAB 35%, LDEM 11%, OTH 15%

[Leftbehind]

...and behind the pack:

TNS BMRB: CON 28% (-3), LAB 44% (+1), LDEM 8% (-1), OTH 19% (+2)

[Leftbehind]

It's unsurprising really given how loyal they've all been to Clegg, although ICM seem to disagree - as ever - with YouGov's (and Opinium's) findings.

Topline figures are:
ICM: LAB 41% (+2), CON 31% (-3), LDEM 14% (-1), OTH 14% (+2)

With the Cable hypothetical producing:
LAB 38% (-3%) CON 30% (-1), LDEM 19% (+5), OTH 13% (-1)

Worth noting that the last time ICM shown a 10-point Labour lead was in 2003.

[Leftbehind]

It'll certainly be interesting to see the ICM figures without the turnout & don't-know-reallocation adjustments!

Although I tend to believe YouGov, Opinium etc with the Cable effect. Clegg is so toxic (in a way that few other past examples can compare to) that any change is likely to get them a couple of points, but not lead them to any meaningful recovery like shown in ICM (as he and his party are still significantly contaminated).

[Leftbehind]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote from Clegg in an interview to regional news.

A listen to What the World Is Waiting For is in order.

[Leftbehind]

It'll certainly be interesting to see the ICM figures without the turnout & don't-know-reallocation adjustments!

Before adjustments
LAB 44%, CON 30%, LDEM 11%, OTH 14%

After turnout:
LAB 44%, CON 31%, LDEM 11%, OTH 14%

After D/K allocation:
LAB 41%, CON 31%, LDEM 14%, OTH 13%