UK Post-Election Analysis
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:24:57 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  International Elections (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  UK Post-Election Analysis
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: UK Post-Election Analysis  (Read 11599 times)
ObserverIE
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,824
Ireland, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -1.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: May 11, 2015, 02:18:27 PM »

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32696505

Farage stays as UKIP leader after resignation rejected

Very hypocritical of him to do this.  I actually like Farage a lot and if I were in the UK I would vote UKIP (although vote CON tactically if it makes a difference.)  But this stunt will cost him a lot of good will and make him out to be yet another politician which he claims he is not.

He has always struck me as being a very obvious con-artist and flim-flam man so the non-resignation resignation surprises me not a bit.
Logged
ChrisDR68
PoshPaws68
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 395
United Kingdom
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: May 11, 2015, 02:56:42 PM »
« Edited: May 11, 2015, 05:05:17 PM by ChrisDR68 »

Been reading some of the comments under articles in the Guardian today about the election. A lot of lefties really putting the boot into the Lib Dems about their role in the coalition.

I wonder if any of them realise it's in Labour's interests to have a sizeable number of Liberal Democrat MP's in the House Of Commons as this generally lessens the number of Conservatives there?

Probably not as these are likely to be the same sort of people who criticized the Blair/Brown governments to the ends of the earth too Shocked

This is quite a good article though...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/nick-clegg-liberal-democrats-disaster-coalition  
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: May 11, 2015, 03:58:20 PM »

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32696505

Farage stays as UKIP leader after resignation rejected

Very hypocritical of him to do this.  I actually like Farage a lot and if I were in the UK I would vote UKIP (although vote CON tactically if it makes a difference.)  But this stunt will cost him a lot of good will and make him out to be yet another politician which he claims he is not.

Never understood why politicians make those promises. I doubt it wins them many votes and it boxes them in like in Farage's situation.

OTOH, it was probably the right choice for UKIP to keep him on.
Logged
Diouf
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,497
Denmark
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: May 12, 2015, 07:21:18 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-shy-english-nationalists-who-won-it-for-the-tories-and-flummoxed-the-pollsters/
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: May 12, 2015, 08:29:06 AM »

The BBC has an article about Labour's private polling, with some interesting points.

- They never said Labour were as far ahead as the public polls said in mid-term.
- They had the Tories taking the lead after the conferences last October (which is pretty much when the public polls started showing a tie).
- They showed Labour gaining early in the campaign, but falling back once the SNP attacks started.

Now, they say that what they did differently was that they asked other questions -- questions about issues, and general attitudes -- first, before the voting intention question, because they "think it gets them closer to their ballot box mindset".  Normally, this would be frowned on, and I'd certainly think it would have to have been done very carefully not to be effectively asking leading questions.

I'm still minded to look at sampling problems and turnout modelling.  Possibly their questions created a bias in the other direction and the two roughly cancelled out.
Logged
Linus Van Pelt
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,144


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: May 12, 2015, 08:20:20 PM »

An important thing to remember about polling companies is that they make most of their money doing market research for corporations, the results of which are not made public. So their economic incentive is not so much to be strictly accurate as to be recognized on the radar of people in marketing departments who are likely under time pressure and of variable mathematical sophistication.
Logged
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: May 13, 2015, 06:17:36 AM »

Would an internal poll ask many more people than a public poll? Would they be conducted over a longer period, also?
Logged
ChrisDR68
PoshPaws68
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 395
United Kingdom
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: May 13, 2015, 12:50:27 PM »
« Edited: May 13, 2015, 12:54:39 PM by ChrisDR68 »

The usual north-south divide in England is alive and well:

___________Conservative________________Labour

South..........6,233,647........45.5%.........3,500,888........25.5%
Midlands.....2,067,492........42.5%.........1,570,834........32.3%
North..........2,147,799........30.7%.........3,015,984........43.1%

Total.........10,448,938........40.9%.........8,087,706........31.6%


Votes cast in England represent 85.3% of all votes cast in Great Britain (excluding Northern Ireland).

Note that Labour's "south" figures include London. If you exclude London their vote is below 20% in southern England.
Logged
ChrisDR68
PoshPaws68
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 395
United Kingdom
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: May 14, 2015, 01:53:09 PM »

Thought this was quite funny although I suppose it's born of frustration with how the south of England votes:


"Allow the north of England to secede from the UK and join Scotland"





Living on the Wirral I'd just about be inside this New Scotland Smiley


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/manchester-set-to-become-part-of-scotland-10250453.html
Logged
Hydera
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,545


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: May 14, 2015, 03:01:39 PM »

Thought this was quite funny although I suppose it's born of frustration with how the south of England votes:


"Allow the north of England to secede from the UK and join Scotland"





Living on the Wirral I'd just about be inside this New Scotland Smiley


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/manchester-set-to-become-part-of-scotland-10250453.html


Yeah but living in the republic of Scotland and Northern England would mean having most of the unemployment and less of the wealth.....




Logged
ChrisDR68
PoshPaws68
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 395
United Kingdom
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: May 14, 2015, 03:58:36 PM »

Good thoughtful article by Martin Kettle in the Guardian today about why people voted Tory in this election and the persistent problem of the Conservative's support being underrepresented in the opinion polls over a long period in UK general elections.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/14/vital-know-why-labour-lost-more-so-why-tories-won
Logged
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: May 14, 2015, 04:08:06 PM »

I don't think I need to say anything...

Logged
ChrisDR68
PoshPaws68
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 395
United Kingdom
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: May 16, 2015, 10:47:14 AM »

John Rentoul nails it in this article about why Labour lost.

A couple of things I slightly disagree with though. It wasn't being too left wing that was the main reason for the defeat. It was the lack of credibilty due to the wrong Miliband brother winning Labour's leadership 5 years ago.

It should be noted that Labour won both general elections in 1974 on a left wing ticket. They won those elections because Harold Wilson had credibilty with the electorate (or at least more credibilty than the incompetent Ted Heath).

You don't get anywhere in UK General Elections without having a credible leader who looks and sounds like a prime minister in waiting. David Miliband had that credibility in my view. Ed did not.

The other thing he mentions is that he thinks UKIP is finished. They pretty much exist for an in-out EU referendum and we're now going to get one. That could see their popularity shoot up like it has for the SNP in Scotland during and after one has taken place so they're definitely not finished in my opinion.

Obviously this was written before Umunna withdrew from the leadership contest so his final paragraph is now redundant.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/election-2015-david-miliband-could-have-won-it-for-labour-10234473.html
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: May 17, 2015, 03:28:20 AM »

Neither Milliband had that, and the existence of yet another brother with just as bureaucratic a pedigree and also running for the leadership would have been a big nail in either Milliband's coffin.

They should have selected Ed Balls. They might not have won any more seats than they did in real life, but at least they'd have saved Morley that way.
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: May 17, 2015, 05:28:27 AM »

John Rentoul nails it in this article about why Labour lost.

A couple of things I slightly disagree with though. It wasn't being too left wing that was the main reason for the defeat. It was the lack of credibilty due to the wrong Miliband brother winning Labour's leadership 5 years ago.

It should be noted that Labour won both general elections in 1974 on a left wing ticket. They won those elections because Harold Wilson had credibilty with the electorate (or at least more credibilty than the incompetent Ted Heath).

You don't get anywhere in UK General Elections without having a credible leader who looks and sounds like a prime minister in waiting. David Miliband had that credibility in my view. Ed did not.

David Miliband is basically not that different from his brother but politically more bland.  [See also banana photo.]  Why do you find that more credible?

Would he have stopped the Scottish disaster?
Would he have attracted back former Labour voters now supporting UKIP?  [The size of this phenomenon is exaggerated by some, but it is there.]
Would he have stopped left of centre voters voting Green?
Would he have encouraged more people to actually vote?
Would he have encouraged centre to centre-right voters basically happy with Cameron to consider Labour?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not just that, but they fill niches in British politics which don't actually have that much to do with Europe.
Logged
ChrisDR68
PoshPaws68
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 395
United Kingdom
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: May 17, 2015, 05:45:10 AM »

John Rentoul nails it in this article about why Labour lost.

A couple of things I slightly disagree with though. It wasn't being too left wing that was the main reason for the defeat. It was the lack of credibilty due to the wrong Miliband brother winning Labour's leadership 5 years ago.

It should be noted that Labour won both general elections in 1974 on a left wing ticket. They won those elections because Harold Wilson had credibilty with the electorate (or at least more credibilty than the incompetent Ted Heath).

You don't get anywhere in UK General Elections without having a credible leader who looks and sounds like a prime minister in waiting. David Miliband had that credibility in my view. Ed did not.

David Miliband is basically not that different from his brother but politically more bland.  [See also banana photo.]  Why do you find that more credible?

Would he have stopped the Scottish disaster?
Would he have attracted back former Labour voters now supporting UKIP?  [The size of this phenomenon is exaggerated by some, but it is there.]
Would he have stopped left of centre voters voting Green?
Would he have encouraged more people to actually vote?
Would he have encouraged centre to centre-right voters basically happy with Cameron to consider Labour?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not just that, but they fill niches in British politics which don't actually have that much to do with Europe.

I'm sure the Labour Party's internal polling would back up my opinion of David Miliband. Labour MP John Mann told the Sunday Politics programme last week that he was told again and again and again on the doorstep that Ed was not of prime ministerial quality and that David was superior. 

Statistically Labour don't need Scotland to win a general election. They won more seats in England in 2005 despite the Conservatives winning more votes there. They wouldn't win a majority for sure (unless it's a landslide like in 1997 and 2001) but the Labour leader would end up as prime minister all the same.

With a credible leader yes fewer people would have voted Green and a lot of swing voters would have directly switched from Conservative to Labour (something that was completely lacking with Ed Miliband's leadership).

UKIP's threat in Labour seats isn't important (in terms of them still being miles behind the winning Labour candidate in second place in many seats) and would in any case have been less of an issue had Labour had a credible leader.
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: May 17, 2015, 06:10:55 AM »

I'm sure the Labour Party's internal polling would back up my opinion of David Miliband. Labour MP John Mann told the Sunday Politics programme last week that he was told again and again and again on the doorstep that Ed was not of prime ministerial quality and that David was superior.

Yes, but people saying that probably don't remember that clearly what he was actually like as a politician, they're just saying that because he's the person most often mentioned as an alternative leader in the media.  It has very little to do with how he'd actually have performed if elected leader.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

If (and I accept it's an "if") the Tories' scaremongering about SNP influence was decisive in Labour's defeat, then the Scottish disaster was important even though the SNP were likely to back Labour in a hung parliament situation.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I disagree (well, if by "credible" you mean someone like David Miliband).  If anything I suspect it would have been the other way round.  I suspect I'd have been in the Green column with him as Labour leader.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Possibly, but there isn't really much evidence either way.  I still suspect that most 2010 Tory voters were basically happy with the government, and electing David Miliband as leader wouldn't have got away from the way that the Tories, aided and abetted by the Lib Dems and Liam Byrne's sense of humour, were allowed to develop the "mess Labour left us" narrative in the immediate aftermath of the 2010 election.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not talking about UKIP actually winning Labour seats (obviously, as it didn't happen) but people who might otherwise have voted Labour voting UKIP in Lab/Con marginals.  How big a factor it was I don't know, but it was there to some extent, and while I don't have a particularly good feeling for why this type of voter votes the way they do I don't see David Miliband as the sort of Labour politician to attract them back.
Logged
ChrisDR68
PoshPaws68
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 395
United Kingdom
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: May 17, 2015, 07:22:12 AM »

I'm sure the Labour Party's internal polling would back up my opinion of David Miliband. Labour MP John Mann told the Sunday Politics programme last week that he was told again and again and again on the doorstep that Ed was not of prime ministerial quality and that David was superior.

Yes, but people saying that probably don't remember that clearly what he was actually like as a politician, they're just saying that because he's the person most often mentioned as an alternative leader in the media.  It has very little to do with how he'd actually have performed if elected leader.

I guess this is a matter of opinion and judgment but I remember thinking at the time in 2010 that Labour made a nutty decision in that leadership election and the general election result would seem to vindicate that feeling.

What you seem to be saying is that regardless of who led the Labour Party in this election they were always going to lose it. I'm not sure that's really the case. There's certainly no great love for the Conservative Party out there in the country right now.

Labour lost the popular vote by 37% to 30% UK wide. All they needed to get was a score draw (say 34% to 34%) or close to it for their leader to end up in Downing Street.

In my judgement David Miliband would have achieved at least that and probably done better on top.

Labour have now lost 4 general elections out of 5 from a position of opposition since losing power in 1979. All of them can be explained above all else by the fact that they didn't have a credible potential prime minister as leader in the eyes of the voting public:

Michael Foot
Neil Kinnock (twice)
Ed Miliband

The one and only time they've had a credible leader since Big Jim resigned in October 1980 at general election time while in opposition they ended up with a massive landslide. John Smith was also a credible leader and would also have won in 1997 but I think with a much smaller majority.

Politicians and commentators often get bogged down in issues about policy but if you don't get the right person in as leader everything else matters little.
Logged
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: May 17, 2015, 07:37:48 AM »

I wonder what the election result would have been if Ed Miliband had had the physical appearance of, say, Leonardo DiCaprio. Same policies, same style of leadership, same personality and even the same voice, but just happened to be the most telegenic party leader ever.

Labour victory of some kind, probably.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,189
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: May 17, 2015, 07:41:35 AM »

Blaming the leader seems like a shallow exercise by people unwilling to look deeper.

A good comparison is the Canadian Liberal Party. Sure Dion and Iggy were viewed as bad 'leaders' in the eye of the public, but it's clear the party's issues stem far deeper than the public presentation, which is why even when that face became sexier and younger; people are still turning from the Liberal Party.

In my case, I see no real difference in presentation between either Miliband. Both are kind of goofy oddballs, significantly curious enough to invite embarassing ridicule. People naturally gravitate towards what they can't have (which is why prematurely dead politicians normally are sanctified as 'the best PM we never had!!') so whichever brother became leader people would be shaking their heads and say 'omg the wrong brother won'.
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: May 17, 2015, 07:59:36 AM »

I guess this is a matter of opinion and judgment but I remember thinking at the time in 2010 that Labour made a nutty decision in that leadership election and the general election result would seem to vindicate that feeling.

What you seem to be saying is that regardless of who led the Labour Party in this election they were always going to lose it. I'm not sure that's really the case. There's certainly no great love for the Conservative Party out there in the country right now.

It's more that I'm saying that I think David Miliband is grossly over-rated, and that I struggle to see why he would have attracted the sorts of voters who Labour should be able to attract but didn't.  Also, what CrabCake said.

You still haven't explained why you find him more "credible" than Ed.
Logged
ChrisDR68
PoshPaws68
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 395
United Kingdom
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: May 17, 2015, 08:40:46 AM »

You still haven't explained why you find him more "credible" than Ed.

In the same way that everyone makes a judgement about someone when seeing that person on tv or in person. Based on personality, communication skills and that person's judgement on a range of issues.

Labour had a chance after Jim Callaghan resigned to now be regarded as the natural party of government in the UK.

They should have elected Denis Healey who was a heavyweight and credible leader. If he wins the leadership I don't believe the Gang Of Four leave the party and form the SDP which means the next leader in line could have been either David Owen or Shirley Williams (more likely David Owen).

That would probably have taken us all the way to Tony Blair's time followed then by David Miliband.

Had Labour followed this leadership succession I think they would have been in government the majority of the time since 1980 rather than just the 13 years of Blair/Brown.

Labour tends to obsess about idealogy (left versus right) when selecting a leader rather than consider who the voting public regards as a realistic potential prime minister who they would have confidence voting for.

Regarding Ed Miliband, here's an article from Peter Kellner the pollster from 2014 about how much more popular David's leadership would have been for Labour:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/the-trouble-with-ed-miliband 
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,189
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: May 17, 2015, 08:45:24 AM »

"Would a David Miliband-led Labour Party be heading for victory next year, rather than the close contest that seems likely? Very possibly, but we can’t be sure. Voters’ judgements about Ed are based on his performance; their views about David are based on a hypothesis. Had he won back in 2010, he would have had to grapple with many of the same problems as Ed: reviving Labour’s reputation for economic competence, navigating the tricky politics of recession and recovery, and holding together a Labour Party that has historically been fractious after losing power. We can’t be certain how well he would have done. (It’s worth remembering that David, a committed advocate of New Labour, might have provoked more internal divisions than Ed)."
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,833


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: May 17, 2015, 08:57:49 AM »

Worth noting that the British voter seems to be far more forgiving of public Labour 'splits' than public Tory ones, so there's less at stake if Labour factionalise.
Logged
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: May 17, 2015, 12:45:35 PM »

There was an 92.4% tolerance between 2014 Yes vote and 2015 SNP vote in Scotland.

Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.061 seconds with 12 queries.