Will Clegg or Huhne be able to win these voters back?
November 7th, 2007
- What can we learn from the “Supervoters”?
The above data is from yesterday’s poll and shows how votes are churning between the main three parties from those who told the firm how they voted in 2005.
In a previous post I’ve called this group the”super-voters” because those with a record of turning out at a previous general elections are, surely, much more likely to turnout at the next one?
This has never been tested before. ICM only started providing this information a year ago and ComRes and Populus have followed suit in the past few months.
The figures in the rows show how respondents say they will vote next time - the columns show how they said they voted last time.
There are two features of the above numbers that are note-worthy. Firstly that the Tories are doing substantially better than Labour at retaining their 2005 vote and in attracting support from Labour and the Lib Dems. Cameron’s party is a substantial net gainer of support - the other two are net losers.
The second point is based on how the Lib Dem support is splitting. This could be of significance depending on the outcome of the Huhne-Clegg contest. With 18% of 2005 Lib Dem voters saying they now would vote Tory
compared with only 12% saying they would vote Labour then the Tories appear much more vulnerable to any new leader bounce.
From a betting perspective Tory backers and Labour sellers on the spread markets are going to have to be ultra-careful following the announcement of the Lib Dem result on December 17th. My guess is that there will be a Lib Dem polling bounce and that the Tories will take the biggest hit.
Every time I put data like this up people say that the sub-set sizes are small. That’s a fair point but when you look at these figures in the context of others recent polls the patterns are broadly the same.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Oh yawn, not the bleedin’ Lib Dems contest again….
The problem for the LibDems though, Mike, is that no-one even knows there’s a race on. Their voices are being drowned out by the Lab-Con Punch and Judy Show.
I hear your advice on the seat spreads, though I think the way the momentum is going, Labour will be hit more by the putative LibDem revival than the Conservatives - at least until the New Year.
But what advice on the LibDem seats market? It’s been static since before Ming went. Is there value there? My best guess for the next GE is LibDems down to 38 seats, but to make money I’d have to put a large stake on that’s a bit too rich for my blood.
Also, does it wind you guys up that Gordon constantly refers to your MPs as ‘Liberals’? I know we Tories do it to you at ground level, but a leader - and PM at that - doing it is petty, insulting and unworthy.
Amusing thing on Steve Wright on Radio 2 this afternoon.
There was a bit on ridiculous laws still on the statute books, one of which is that it is illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament.
Cue joke - “I’m sure I saw Gordon Brown die on his feet yesterday afternoon!”
‘I know we Tories do it to you at ground level, but a leader - and PM at that - doing it is petty, insulting and unworthy.’
Classic tories, one rule for one…
Ridiculous post.
Applying those changes to people who voted in 2005 election gives Conservatives 10.1 m votes v Lab 8.5m v LDs 4.5m.
Shares in GB (excluding NI) would be Conservatives 38%, Labour 32%, Lib Dems 17% - a bit high on others IMO but electoral calculus would be 297 Cons, 283 Lab, 39 LDs.
Yes, TEB, there is one rule for cross-party banter at local level and another for national party leaders. I was merely asking how the activists of a party other than my own reacted to this childish nonsense perpetrated by the United Kingdom’s Head of Government. If you’re not interested, I couldn’t give a monkey’s.
Regarding the points about demographics on the last thread, there seems to be one significant element of economics that goes unnoticed: a declining population means an increasing GDP per capita. Thus if immigration was limited, and domestic birthrates continue, people would get richer - even if economic growth was static. The existing capital simply gets shared out among less people. This means people would not need to rely on a generous welfare state as they could support themselves more easily.
Of course, people could argue that an aging population means GDP growth would grow more slowly than it would if population was steady, and this effect is clearly true. However, as the return to capital is around twice that of the return to labour this effect would not be as large as the one mentioned in the first paragraph, so there’s no real problem.
Anyway, fascinating topic and I’d love to discuss further but I’m at work - so must be discreet!
2. 4. Surely Lib Dems consider the term “liberal” to have positive connotations? So why would they be insulted by that?
>electoral calculus would be 297 Cons, 283 Lab, 39 LDs.
Why don’t you quote the Mickey Mouse index? Bound to make more sense than that autistic site’s methods.
I heard there was a rule that any Parliamentarian dying while physically in Parliament is entitled to a full state funeral. So they pop them in an ambulance and don’t declare them dead till they’re away! It all seems pretty implausible.
Huhne vs Clegg. It does seem that Huhne is genuinely more left-wing than Clegg, although I know precious little of what Clegg stands for so it’s hard to tell. I don’t imagine any voters will notice the difference for some time though. In that case, there may be very little in terms of partisan new leader bounce. Plus, if the way the media is covering the contest is anything to go by, i.e. hardly at all, I don’t imagine they’ll cover the Lib Dems much more after the announcement. In that case, there won’t be a leader bounce at all. The only change will be that what Lib Dem coverage there is won’t consist entirely of rumours of plots and complaints about Ming’s age.
All in all, it may be a long time before we get much sense of what difference the new leader makes.
OT: New article on Hillary Clinton.
http://thepoliticaltipster.wordpress.com/2007/11/07/has-the-philadelphia-debate-damaged-hillary-clinton/
2. and 8. GB regularly refers to the Liberal Democrats as the “Liberal Party” which is much worse and much more inaccurate than simply “Liberals”.
Re 8. Many LDs are ex members of the SDP and the current LD party was a merger of the 2 parties. Being an old SDP man I get can not help being irritated by this.
9 The alternative Anthony Wells swingometer gives 292 C, 289 L, 39 LD, same sort of figures. The basic assumption anyway that the changes in support can be applied to the universe of 2005 voters is illustrative anyway as there are too many variables.
Interesting though how close it is to the market view on seat spreads.
Off Centre 10. I think that there will be coverage around about the time of the election, and moreover, I think that the Lib Dems are going to get more positive coverage now.
The problem for Campbell wasn’t so much this idea that he did not get coverage - he got as much if not more than most Lib Dem leaders - it was just that it was so unrelentingly negative. Furthermore, it was ‘accurately negative’ - in that it resonated with both opponents and supporters.
The Lib Dems have done the right thing. They knew after the election ‘call off’ that they couldn’t limp through to the next election with such an albatross. I don’t believe in Fuhrerprinzip anymore than the average Lib Dem, but there is definitely a link between the effectiveness of a party’s leader and their poll performance - and either of these candidates will perform better in the public eye than Ming. It may not be an ‘overnight phenomenon’ like Cameron - but by the next election they will have pulled themselves back up in the polls.
Tonight’s “Weakest Link”
Q. Which elite fighting force was founded by Sir David Stirling in 1941 ?
A. The Lib Dems ?
9.14. But looking at some of the individual seats the Lib Dems would have to lose to go down to 38-39 you get some rather implausible ones.
2 - doesn’t Cameron also talk about “the Liberals”
Personally, I like the term. I have always hated the term Lib Dem, so that is why I use LD as a shorthand.
Someone on the last thread asked what to do with his free £10 bet and someone gave him/here a very good answer on how to match his bet-
I have a friend who helps a run a website where all these free bets (and there are a lot of them) can be matched off thus guaranteeing “risk free profits”-
http://www.bettrick.co.uk/main.php
http://www.bettrick.co.uk/help_guides_matching.php
Why don’t Clegg and Huhne jointly say “we’ll only get involved in a post general election coalition with a party that has the good grace to get our name right from now on. Three strikes and you are out”?
Paul Lloyd “It may not be an ‘overnight phenomenon’ like Cameron “.
A long night for Labour, indeed, and bound to get longer.
15 “I think that there will be coverage around about the time of the election”
The election will be covered at the time when everyone is doing their Christmas shopping and having their office parties. This election will barely register with most voters. The timing was crass. If they had waited another three or four weeks, they could have started the New Year by getting plenty of coverage when nothing much else is happening. Why the undue haste?
20. Surely it’s part of the problem involved with having a long party name. “The Liberal Democrats” is just too much of a mouthful. Even the term “Conservatives” at four syllables is long enough for people to use the phrase “Tories”, even though many Conservatives dislike it.
23 - “Lib Dems”
24. See 18.
20 Why can’t the Lib Dems just be more grown-up about this? How often do they refer to the Conservarive party or its members as Tory/Tories?
23 Socrates
I tend to write ‘Conservative’ whenever I think ‘Tory’ would be misconstrued as pejorative, but whenever I ask my Conservative friends about it, they just shrug their shoulders and say ‘Tory is fine’.
27 Quite so - it’s really not that big a deal.
27. I think it generally depends on the type of Conservative. Older members and tribal conservatives don’t mind the term. But Younger, more liberal members tend to be more aware of the pejorative nature of the term among the general population and don’t want to be pigeon-holed with all the connotations.
Liberals is fine by me. Liberal Democrats is okay. Lib Dem annoys me. Liberal Democratic Party is terrible (partly for pedantic reasons).
Conservatives/Tories: what’s the difference?
The biggest variable out there is probably not what happens when we get a new leader, but what is about to happen to the economy.
“The Lord Malloch-Brown story”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/334931/the-lord-mallochbrown-story.thtml
I think it’s unlikely that, who ever the LibDem leader may be that the LibDems will get anything like 22-23% of the vote at the next general election, 20% IMHO would be impressive.
and it’s the same at ben brogan’s blog:
“Lord Malloch Brown and his luxury flat”
The word “Tories” is preferred by newspaper headline writers. Sometimes the language of headlines is different - eg. always blaze for fire; pit for mine; gems for jewels…
I am not sure the word liberal is reflecting the public mood at present. They associate it with being soft on criminals, immigration, the spread of the PC tendency in education and virtually every other current-day bete-noir. Inevitably perhaps by the word association some of this may have rubbed off against the Liberal Democrats in a damaging way. To counter this it is important the contenders focus on the distinctive Lib Dem approach to bread and butter issues rather than worry disproportionately about issues that are maybe important to the chattering classes but not necessarily the swing voters including the supervoters out there.
Evening all
I would be fascinated to be able to compare the Populus data with similar data from previous Parliaments. The LD or third party vote has always been softest and subject to the greatest churn.
In other mid-terms, the LDs have drawn support from other parties but that hasn’t stuck. To assume that the churn we have seen is fixed is ridiculous for an election that could be more than two years away.
http://tinyurl.com/26z63m
The article in the Spectator
37-thanks…
34. I remember a Five Live discussion on media terms a while back. My favourite was that the term “remonstrating with the linesman.” Can you remonstrate with anyone else?
30. To my mind “Tory” denotes a particular type of Conservative: upper class, conformist, strongly unionist and Anglican, highly disdainful and sceptical towards all attempts at change, even reformist steps.
I attempted to make this point once before but I don’t think anyone responded to it.
Sean Fear has pointed out that switches between Tory and LibDem seats have no net effect on the presumed Labour lead at the next GE. For a hung parliament to occur then Labour need to lose seats to either the Tories or the LibDems. Would not a Huhne leadership erode away the Labour lead more successfully than a Clegg leadership, even if it resulted in a lower total seat haul?
In other words the LibDems arguably have a greater chance of a NOM parliament and holding the balance of power with Huhne as leader than Cameron-lite Clegg?
Huhne results in more chance of Labour/LibDem marginals going or staying LibDem, which “counts” and less chance of Tory/LibDem marginals going LibDem which doesn’t “count”. Conversely Clegg results in more chance of the opposite.
Anyone buy this?
I wish we could have a better kind of hustings than polite interviews with the two colleague candidates; I don’t think I will bother to go to the London hustings. What we really need is to see each of them perform against political rivals.
For example yesterday we had Nick Clegg in an interview with a senior tory, a labour minister and Nick Robinson. For the first time NC had to battle his way through rival arguments and I did think he seemed a little less coherent than the other three. But a very pretty boy indeed; I just hope we don’t go from a public perception of “too old” for Ming to “too young” for Nick. I havn’t yet seen Chris Huhne in a similar debate but will look out for one.
Beth
40 Buy that if Lib Dem’s are a serious opposition party and want Labour out they have to try to take Labour seats - but that could mean losing Southern seats. Not sure though that either Clegg or Huhne are more attractive to the switchers of Cons or Labour - that needs a strong policy set targeted at the Conservative ones which would act like Iraq did rather than just an attractive leader or not.
42. But Ted if you buy the argument, then the potential loss of Southern seats is worth the risk as it entails the real prospect of power.
So we are agreed that the LibDems should be trying to
win seats off Labour. The question for the LibDem membership electorate should therefore be which of their candidates is best placed to deliver this outcome?
42 - “Buy that if Lib Dem’s are a serious opposition party and want Labour out they have to try to take Labour seats - but that could mean losing Southern seats. ”
Not so. Oust Labour MPs by appealing to Tories to do a tactical switch.
Norm @ 35 re the word liberal — the word has negative connotations in America which is where a lot of our chattering classes nick their ideas from. Whether the voter on the Clapham omnibus thinks in these terms is doubtful. Revelations in the last contest put people off but that is another matter.
43 Lib Dems tend to win prosperous seats so Huhne’s more guardianista portfolio of “progressive” headline statements (couldn’t say yet they are policies) is probably on the surface the more likely.
Clegg though has good policies around education and health, that though a bit Orange Book for the activists, especially the school teacher/educationalist part, which added to less radical green agenda are attractive to just those people in terms of their personal desires and as he’s a Lib Dem they can vote with their desires and not worry about their consciences.
Its a hard one.
44 SBS but attacking the party you want to support you doesn’t work. In 1997 it was Labour & Lib Dems v Tory so tactical voting was sensible.
Gordon continues tactical appeals to the Tories, Lib Dems attack them as much if not more than they attack Labour. Why lend your vote to the more anti-Tory party?
45. Not so. The chattering classes in the UK consider “liberal” positively - thus Cameron’s use of the term “liberal Conservative”. The word in pejorative in more working class circles who are more concerned with discipline for anti-socials in their neighbourhood, immigration etc.
The word in pejorative is the US, certainly.
re 34 and boffin for scientist, plague for disease, scandal or disgrace for anything no heterosexually missionary position. One could go on…
Northern Rock down another 7% today.
Alistair Darling seems to have taken on a fairly big commitment here
40 “I attempted to make this point once before but I don’t think anyone responded to it.”
It’s because nobody takes you seriously, StJohn.
Next time you have a good point to make, ask somebody else to make it for you. Perhaps Colin W can assist.
Or you could try changing your name. How about StPaul? You could then make pronouncements ex cathedra.
52: lol
the government’s got that twit on the 10 o’clock news defending the indefensible again. Des Browne is getting as elusive as his namesake.
I’m afraid I don’t detect a huge amount of interest in the country in either Clegg or Huhne. The Lib Dem contest got noticed last time because of the manner of Kennedy’s downfall and the sexual peccadilloes of Oaten and Hughes. I don’t think the public gives a toss this time round, frankly.
52 Doesn’t sound like PtP to me?
The ultimate Demon Eyes photo
http://www.chris2win.org/photos/16.html
56 Ted. You’re right - it doesn’t sound like PtP.
Poster at 52, if you really are PtP can you prove it?
Can you describe the main contents of the last email you sent to members of the PB entry to the “Ten To Follow” competition?
58- What if this person(supposing it is not PtP) also received the e-mail?
gracious I thought Tony Blair was smug, but seeing Ian Blair on the news there could never be a bigger smug git.
I’m only too happy for us to be called the Liberals. Like Peter and SBS, I don’t like Lib Dem. Now you know how to wind us up
59 Me. Yes - That is possible, but I have a hunch who might be involved, and they are not on the distribution list. This sort of thing has happened before on this site unfortunately.
BTW, on the other thread, how come your knowledge of the language of the Gods (i.e. Portuguese) is so good?
55: People may have made fun of Ming but at least they knew who he was.
60: He’s beaten by Livingstone’s ‘I’m glad the London Asssembly doesn’t have any powers because it’s doing something I don’t like’.
62-”This sort of thing has happened before on this site unfortunately.”
I don’t understand the point of it…
And about Portuguese:
I have been studying for a long time…
40 I don’t buy it. Whichever is most attractive to voters is probably going to be most attractive to all voters. I don’t think that Labour voters are turned on by different characteristics than Conservative (as we should now call them) voters.
Re 52. I’m pretty thick skinned, on a blog at least. I think it actually was PtP making a friendly joke and I smiled at “His Eminence” agreeing, given his likely access to ex cathedra pronouncements.
If not PtP then so what? But thanks anyway from regulars for implied concern.
56 & 58 Relax guys - ’tis me. Rest assured though that I wouldn’t take the mick out another poster if I didn’t know them quite well and/or was not entirely sure of their ability to take a joke.
And the email contained my notes of the LRC meeting, which young StJohn, as a TTF Committee member, ought to be studying right now.
66 All OK then…but does show how careful you’ve got to be when posting. Irony and humour don’t always come across as intended. I’d have been mortified if it had caused genuine offence.
I’ll be more careful in future.
There’s a lib dem to BNP switcher there, they must be either seriously screwed up or just having a laugh.
67 & 68 PtP. Thanks. All’s well that ends well.
(Hey - that sounds quite catchy. Make a good title for a book or a play. Where did I put my quill, now . . .?)
69 ukpaul. Good spot! Now THAT IS weird! You would have thought that a BNP switcher would go straight to Labour!
30. At the time of the merger some newspapers referred to the SLDP or even the SDLP.
34. slam, crisis, attack, rift, plummet, boost…
70 Yes, thank goodness, Disraeli.
Site etiquette is important. There is only post I ever wrote of which I am truly ashamed and it took none other than our old pal Roger to point out my error. I referred to a public figure as an ‘…ugly cow to boot.’ He commented that even if she didn’t read the site herself, she was sure to have friends and relatives who did and they would be offended, and hurt.
I apologised of course, but you can’t retract; the harm was done.
These days, it isn’t just for typos that I proof read.
66: St John, I was merely laughing at the comment not agreeing with the sentiment. I believe we are both on the side of the righteous your grace.
67/68 et al. Cheers Peter.
This brief diversion prompts me to observe that posters needn’t respond with high dudgeon when others disagree with or criticise them.
I know this is a recent hot potato. On the one hand it is regrettable when posters are overly vitriolic or in any way personally abusive to each other. But on the other hand you can simply ignore it? And, when on the right side of the line and well expressed it can be very funny! Now who might I be thinking of? Personally, I am only really offended if insulted by someone who I already know and respect.
But ultimately this site is fantastic and is principally supposed to be a forum for us to discuss and identify political betting opportunities. I think it’s great and wish that a few posters would have a bit more regard for Mike in ensuring that it operates smoothly without requiring him to spend time arbitrating on domestic spats. When of course he should be spending his time doing what he does best. Steering us towards political betting value.
Oh.And I wish everone, friend and foe, well, and that is that.The End.
And on that note I announce I will never post here again.
Goodbye.
76 - i dont think so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL
76/77. LOL! I don’t think so either!
73. Yeah but she was ugly…..
Go to bed Yokel.
7. “Regarding the points about demographics on the last thread, there seems to be one significant element of economics that goes unnoticed: a declining population means an increasing GDP per capita.”
Not necessarily. GDP is a function of the size of the workforce and productivity. If your workforce declines, you need productivity to go up sharply just to stay where you are. Productivity in the UK has been steadily increasing over the last decade but not fast enough to compensate for drops in the workforce.
To illustrate what can go wrong, you need only look at Japan. Their workforce has started to decline, they refuse to even consider immigration, their birth rate is about 1.1 per female (ours is circa 1.7), and they haven’t wanted to shake up their expensive state. So the only recourse they’ve allowed themselves is to increase productivity - unfortunately their productivity is way worse than ours, and unlike ours, hasn’t improved much in a decade (in 1995 our productivity was 4.5% better than theirs, now our productivity is 23% better than theirs, even though we still lag the French, Germans and Americans).
Result: Japan suffered recession most of the 90’s, and very weak growth this decade. Plus government debt is now 164% of GDP, compared to “just” 79.7% of GDP in 1994. (Our debt including PFI is about 43% of GDP, which is down from 50.8% in 1997.)
Japan illustrates the perils of simply burying your head in the sand and saying “No” to every solution on offer.
Luckily the Labour govt is on the case. The family-friendly policies (flexible working, maternity and paternity leave, child tax credit etc) are to ease the stresses of parenthood, which should mean people arn’t put off having children. The age-discrimination legislation last year was to help older people continue to work and pay tax (and the state pension age will be raised to 65). The education policies eg training to age of 18 are to help skill the workforce, without which we have no hope of improving Productivity (and though we’ve improved, we need to improve much more). And of course we will continue to stay in the EU and attract migrant labour to fill our vacancies in the short term. So we are pursuing every single solution.
Labour’s program is the only coherant one on offer. The Tories simply say “No” to everything Japanese-style, while claiming that the NHS etc is safe with them, and to my knowledge the LibDems haven’t addressed the demographic issue at all (I expect people will correct me if I’m wrong). But this thing is a biggie - it will affect the next half-century.
80. Cant, trasnatalantic phoencall arranged and am looking up some stuff on the Yankee Doodle primaries.
By the way dropped you a line, Thanks for the email.
By the way..who was the public figure?
I know, no point in answering it…
82 Got it thanks. Will answer tomorrow. Cream crackered. Off to Uncle.
Nite all.
LOL
Liberals = *N sync
Suggest new posting rules: you must be either Con or small party (Lab/Liberal/Dog Party etc)
85 - politicalbetting.com will soon become aveitbetting.com - a forum for the right to discuss the future of britain!
con gain internet
86. That Internet South or Internet North? Got split in the recent boundary review….
“Why Brown v Cameron is getting personal”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/11/08/do0802.xml
69: Not really - in the local elections we spotted people splitting their votes between BNP and each of the other parties, with a surprising number who voted for a Green candidate and a BNP candidate. Straightforward protest.
I don’t agree with stjohn about humorous abuse (and if he was a public figure and had to put up with it regularly, I’m not convinced he would either) - the problem is that it’s rarely entirely humorous in flavour, but if you complain you’re accused of not being able to take a joke. At heart there’s a dishonest slipperiness to it, as with a certain type of comedian.
89. Yeah, Jeremy Hardy, that waste of space.
“The Tories have stolen a march on the internet. It’s time for left-liberals to get organised online”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2207197,00.html
75/89. Hi Nick. I’m not a politician but I did on this occasion choose my words carefully. What I said was that “On the one hand it is regrettable when posters are overly vitriolic or in any way personal abusive to each other. But on the other hand you can ignore it? And, when on the right side of the line and well expressed it can be very funny!”
I am not excusing abuse. Nor defining it, which is a further problem. I’m simply suggesting that on a blog it can be ignored and that when well expressed and “on the right side of the line”, (which again is open to individual and difficult interpretation), it can be funny. I suppose by saying “on the right side of the line” I wouldn’t really define it as “abuse”. More insult?
This is a blog where most people choose to post anonymously and the rules of engagement reflect this. Now I appreciate for you, as someone who is well known in the public eye and is brave enough to post here as yourself, this is more awkward. But isn’t this a particular problem for public figures and doesn’t it go with the territory?
We are back to the free speech versus censorship debate. I’ve said my piece and now intend to bow out.
81. You seem to be getting confused between GDP and GDP per capita. If the population is decreasing and labour productivity remains static than GDP per capita will remain steady.
GDP per capita in Japan has been steadily improving even during the 1990s slump. Their recession was nothing to do with a declining population but the central bank’s passive response to runaway deflation after the stock market crash in the 1990s.
This is where Nick Clegg becomes a problem rather than a solution. People might think his style being similar to David Cameron is good thing as he has some youth and flair relative to his political opponents, but if Lib Dem voters see him as too similar then his advantage will fritter away.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com/
Your piece appears to be based on a misconception, Mike. My betting is that these voters who supported the Lib Dems in 2005 but have switched to the Tories or Labour, are not “Lib Dem voters” per se but either Labour voters who were sick of Tony Blair, and have now felt safe to switch back to Labour, or Tory voters who were sick of a party incapable of winning who are now switching back to a Tory Party that’s rediscovered the real world.
They were never Lib Dem supporters for keeps anyway…
78
Labour seem to be determinedly moving onto the front foot