UK General Election 2015
Discussion
FiF said:
BlackLabel said:
I'm assuming these are the stats being used by Crosby which suggest the Tories should start to poll a bit better as the election gets nearer.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2014...
Yes they may well be coupled in with work by Ashcroft. http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2014...
Problem with relying on a bounce is that is what has happened historically. Now it may well be a good guide and it happens again. This time the election map is different. Very different.
The two main parties are vulnerable, polling around 60% aggregate, occasionally lower. What's saving their skins at the moment is that of the 'other'parties no one party has garnered support sufficient to gain seats in Westminster other than in local areas favourable to their position and policies.
When one gets the support and starts to poll over 20% then Labour and Cons can look out. The party which does this may not be one currently in the contest.
I do not think that is the case & clearly neither do the main parties - which is why they have moved towards the hallowed "centre ground". They've gone there because that is where the majority of the voters are sitting. Perhaps slightly off to one side or the other but generally somewhere around the middle because there is little appetite in the wider population for anything too radical.
As such I think the fringe parties I.e specifically the likes of the Greens & UKIP etc who are perceived to be residing distinctly on one side of the spectrum or the other are working in much less "populated" spaces. On the issue of how easy it is to grow support, there also seems to be a glass ceiling into the core central ground voting population that exists somewhere around 15% - which, lo and behold is where UKIP has stalled.
I suspect that similarly the Greens may take support from Labour until they get towards that number but after that they will start to run into people with real day jobs & more realistic concerns and aspirations and so the growth in their support will also stall.
i.e draw a big circle (being the political spectrum) and fill it with dots (being the voters). IMO there will be a much greater concentration of dots in the middle and its quite difficult to get them to move much beyond a certain point towards the outer edges in any great numbers. Some will move easily, but most will not.
This is not to say the fringe parties can't have an effect on the outcome but the issue is of course that the effect they have may easily be negative in respect of their own beliefs and interests. If the Greens start splitting the Labour vote & costing them seats then they will get Tory MPs and vice versa (broadly) with UKIP & the Tories ending up delivering seats to Labour.
Our electoral system is such that it can easily deliver those outcomes (or indeed a whole mixture of stuff).
The argument for the individual voter then becomes as to whether its relevant to apply your vote to the precise outcome you want (even if you know there is little or no chance of it happening because you are part of a small minority); or whether it is better to look at the overall picture and try and engineer the best outcome you think is realistically achievable.
Guam said:
Wombat3 said:
In which case only the Tories will turn up because nobody else has the money to do it twice in a year.
Keep telling yourself that Wombat I am sure it will help 
Wombat3 said:
one fruit-loop joins some more...Wombat3 said:
Guam said:
Wombat3 said:
In which case only the Tories will turn up because nobody else has the money to do it twice in a year.
Keep telling yourself that Wombat I am sure it will help Guam said:
Wombat3 said:
Its not a matter of me "telling myself that". Even the Tories would be financially constrained but nothing like as much as the other parties. There's no doubt about that. Whether that's good as far as the democratic process is concerned depends on your viewpoint I guess.
Indeed however in these days of Social Media and "crowd sourcing" nothing is certain as the Democrats have shown with Obama, you can get funds in innovative ways now Elections really don't cost much in this country.
Scuffers said:
Wombat3 said:
one fruit-loop joins some more...I must try & figure out the distinction.....
Wombat3 said:
I think your analysis is possibly a bit simplistic & because it seems to assume that there an evenly distributed number voters (in terms of their true allegiances and preferences) across and in all parts of the political spectrum and also that the ease with which voters will switch is also uniform and even.
I do not think that is the case & clearly neither do the main parties - which is why they have moved towards the hallowed "centre ground". They've gone there because that is where the majority of the voters are sitting. Perhaps slightly off to one side or the other but generally somewhere around the middle because there is little appetite in the wider population for anything too radical.
As such I think the fringe parties I.e specifically the likes of the Greens & UKIP etc who are perceived to be residing distinctly on one side of the spectrum or the other are working in much less "populated" spaces. On the issue of how easy it is to grow support, there also seems to be a glass ceiling into the core central ground voting population that exists somewhere around 15% - which, lo and behold is where UKIP has stalled.
I suspect that similarly the Greens may take support from Labour until they get towards that number but after that they will start to run into people with real day jobs & more realistic concerns and aspirations and so the growth in their support will also stall.
i.e draw a big circle (being the political spectrum) and fill it with dots (being the voters). IMO there will be a much greater concentration of dots in the middle and its quite difficult to get them to move much beyond a certain point towards the outer edges in any great numbers. Some will move easily, but most will not.
This is not to say the fringe parties can't have an effect on the outcome but the issue is of course that the effect they have may easily be negative in respect of their own beliefs and interests. If the Greens start splitting the Labour vote & costing them seats then they will get Tory MPs and vice versa (broadly) with UKIP & the Tories ending up delivering seats to Labour.
Our electoral system is such that it can easily deliver those outcomes (or indeed a whole mixture of stuff).
The argument for the individual voter then becomes as to whether its relevant to apply your vote to the precise outcome you want (even if you know there is little or no chance of it happening because you are part of a small minority); or whether it is better to look at the overall picture and try and engineer the best outcome you think is realistically achievable.
Just one problem with all that. It seems to assume that the only parties who can adopt the centre ground are Tories and Labour with a smattering of LibDem, and that everyone else are fringe parties with somewhere out there policies. I do not think that is the case & clearly neither do the main parties - which is why they have moved towards the hallowed "centre ground". They've gone there because that is where the majority of the voters are sitting. Perhaps slightly off to one side or the other but generally somewhere around the middle because there is little appetite in the wider population for anything too radical.
As such I think the fringe parties I.e specifically the likes of the Greens & UKIP etc who are perceived to be residing distinctly on one side of the spectrum or the other are working in much less "populated" spaces. On the issue of how easy it is to grow support, there also seems to be a glass ceiling into the core central ground voting population that exists somewhere around 15% - which, lo and behold is where UKIP has stalled.
I suspect that similarly the Greens may take support from Labour until they get towards that number but after that they will start to run into people with real day jobs & more realistic concerns and aspirations and so the growth in their support will also stall.
i.e draw a big circle (being the political spectrum) and fill it with dots (being the voters). IMO there will be a much greater concentration of dots in the middle and its quite difficult to get them to move much beyond a certain point towards the outer edges in any great numbers. Some will move easily, but most will not.
This is not to say the fringe parties can't have an effect on the outcome but the issue is of course that the effect they have may easily be negative in respect of their own beliefs and interests. If the Greens start splitting the Labour vote & costing them seats then they will get Tory MPs and vice versa (broadly) with UKIP & the Tories ending up delivering seats to Labour.
Our electoral system is such that it can easily deliver those outcomes (or indeed a whole mixture of stuff).
The argument for the individual voter then becomes as to whether its relevant to apply your vote to the precise outcome you want (even if you know there is little or no chance of it happening because you are part of a small minority); or whether it is better to look at the overall picture and try and engineer the best outcome you think is realistically achievable.
As written before the reason Cons and Lab are vulnerable is because both have taken their core voters for granted, albeit in different ways.
Then they've concentrated on the centre ground to swing it their way. Only to find their core vote has deserted them. They've both said you will continue to vote tribally, this lot we're going to chase and that lot over there we don't even care what they think.
There's nothing to say that another party cannot also chase that centre position. That party doesn't seem to exist today, as I noted right at the end of my post.
It strikes me that the stance being taken is almost one that it's our right to govern. Sorry buster that no longer applies. You have to earn every vote, and Cons in particular just aren't hacking it. Labour never really did.
In particular , not that anyone is interested, I want to see both Labour and Cons kicked into touch. Not going to get it in this election but hopefully some damage done.
FiF said:
Wombat3 said:
I think your analysis is possibly a bit simplistic & because it seems to assume that there an evenly distributed number voters (in terms of their true allegiances and preferences) across and in all parts of the political spectrum and also that the ease with which voters will switch is also uniform and even.
I do not think that is the case & clearly neither do the main parties - which is why they have moved towards the hallowed "centre ground". They've gone there because that is where the majority of the voters are sitting. Perhaps slightly off to one side or the other but generally somewhere around the middle because there is little appetite in the wider population for anything too radical.
As such I think the fringe parties I.e specifically the likes of the Greens & UKIP etc who are perceived to be residing distinctly on one side of the spectrum or the other are working in much less "populated" spaces. On the issue of how easy it is to grow support, there also seems to be a glass ceiling into the core central ground voting population that exists somewhere around 15% - which, lo and behold is where UKIP has stalled.
I suspect that similarly the Greens may take support from Labour until they get towards that number but after that they will start to run into people with real day jobs & more realistic concerns and aspirations and so the growth in their support will also stall.
i.e draw a big circle (being the political spectrum) and fill it with dots (being the voters). IMO there will be a much greater concentration of dots in the middle and its quite difficult to get them to move much beyond a certain point towards the outer edges in any great numbers. Some will move easily, but most will not.
This is not to say the fringe parties can't have an effect on the outcome but the issue is of course that the effect they have may easily be negative in respect of their own beliefs and interests. If the Greens start splitting the Labour vote & costing them seats then they will get Tory MPs and vice versa (broadly) with UKIP & the Tories ending up delivering seats to Labour.
Our electoral system is such that it can easily deliver those outcomes (or indeed a whole mixture of stuff).
The argument for the individual voter then becomes as to whether its relevant to apply your vote to the precise outcome you want (even if you know there is little or no chance of it happening because you are part of a small minority); or whether it is better to look at the overall picture and try and engineer the best outcome you think is realistically achievable.
Just one problem with all that. It seems to assume that the only parties who can adopt the centre ground are Tories and Labour with a smattering of LibDem, and that everyone else are fringe parties with somewhere out there policies. I do not think that is the case & clearly neither do the main parties - which is why they have moved towards the hallowed "centre ground". They've gone there because that is where the majority of the voters are sitting. Perhaps slightly off to one side or the other but generally somewhere around the middle because there is little appetite in the wider population for anything too radical.
As such I think the fringe parties I.e specifically the likes of the Greens & UKIP etc who are perceived to be residing distinctly on one side of the spectrum or the other are working in much less "populated" spaces. On the issue of how easy it is to grow support, there also seems to be a glass ceiling into the core central ground voting population that exists somewhere around 15% - which, lo and behold is where UKIP has stalled.
I suspect that similarly the Greens may take support from Labour until they get towards that number but after that they will start to run into people with real day jobs & more realistic concerns and aspirations and so the growth in their support will also stall.
i.e draw a big circle (being the political spectrum) and fill it with dots (being the voters). IMO there will be a much greater concentration of dots in the middle and its quite difficult to get them to move much beyond a certain point towards the outer edges in any great numbers. Some will move easily, but most will not.
This is not to say the fringe parties can't have an effect on the outcome but the issue is of course that the effect they have may easily be negative in respect of their own beliefs and interests. If the Greens start splitting the Labour vote & costing them seats then they will get Tory MPs and vice versa (broadly) with UKIP & the Tories ending up delivering seats to Labour.
Our electoral system is such that it can easily deliver those outcomes (or indeed a whole mixture of stuff).
The argument for the individual voter then becomes as to whether its relevant to apply your vote to the precise outcome you want (even if you know there is little or no chance of it happening because you are part of a small minority); or whether it is better to look at the overall picture and try and engineer the best outcome you think is realistically achievable.
As written before the reason Cons and Lab are vulnerable is because both have taken their core voters for granted, albeit in different ways.
Then they've concentrated on the centre ground to swing it their way. Only to find their core vote has deserted them. They've both said you will continue to vote tribally, this lot we're going to chase and that lot over there we don't even care what they think.
There's nothing to say that another party cannot also chase that centre position. That party doesn't seem to exist today, as I noted right at the end of my post.
It strikes me that the stance being taken is almost one that it's our right to govern. Sorry buster that no longer applies. You have to earn every vote, and Cons in particular just aren't hacking it. Labour never really did.
In particular , not that anyone is interested, I want to see both Labour and Cons kicked into touch. Not going to get it in this election but hopefully some damage done.
The old UKIP (er) "abandonment of the core voter" complaint (especially aimed at the Tories as usual)
.It is of course rubbish based on the simple fact of the amount the two main parties poll. Its also risible based on the number of Tories that have stayed Tories and the number who have left to join UKIP.
The existing main parties are sitting squarely on top of the "core" of the electorate - its why they are there. The likes of UKIP & the Greens are also running around stating their case quite openly but they are not breaking through. I suggest that is simply because they absolutely do not represent the views of the core/majority of the UK electorate who are much more comfortable in the central ground.
Wombat3 said:
Scuffers said:
Wombat3 said:
one fruit-loop joins some more...I must try & figure out the distinction.....
The only commonality I can spot is that the Greens want everyone on public transport, so perhaps that's the RMT's angle; job security.FiF said:
It's not just me saying you've taken your core voters for granted, other commentators far more qualified than me have said it.
You carry on in denial. I hope Dave gets his arse handed to him. If not in this election then soon.
? You carry on in denial. I hope Dave gets his arse handed to him. If not in this election then soon.
- you* ? Who is *you* in this context?
Meanwhile a much larger number go "Yep, Ok , overall I can live with that and its probably the right way for the party to go all things considered, maybe not 100% ideal for me personally, but life is a compromise and I can understand it and live with it."
Better to get even 50% of what you want than none of it.
So which are the "core voters" ? The ones that cry enough (which is their right of course) or the much larger number who decide to stick with it?
Ya can't please all the people all the time.
Whenever I hear the Kipper complaint about how they, the true and only "core voters" (or so they seem to think) have been "abandoned" by the Tory party I am always struck by the parallel with the SNP thinking that the tail should wag the dog.
Ironically there is also a certain amount of arrogance about it too I always feel because, overall, such people are clearly a minority and therefore why is it they expect the majority (in the Tory party) to bend to their will in the uncompromising way that they do?
How about a look at my constituency? Argyll & Bute's got a lot of baggage for the SNP due to massively stupid shenanigans at the council level, so they are unlikely to pick up many votes despite Scottish Labour's implosion, a moderate majority of what appear to be mostly orange book liberals who might be pissed off with Nick Clegg but aren't likely to vote Labour or SNP. I don't see UKIP keeping their deposit, so on the basis of the 2010 results Reid might hold with a much smaller majority or lose to the Tories by a handful of votes.
Wombat3 said:
FiF said:
BlackLabel said:
I'm assuming these are the stats being used by Crosby which suggest the Tories should start to poll a bit better as the election gets nearer.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2014...
Yes they may well be coupled in with work by Ashcroft. http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2014...
Problem with relying on a bounce is that is what has happened historically. Now it may well be a good guide and it happens again. This time the election map is different. Very different.
The two main parties are vulnerable, polling around 60% aggregate, occasionally lower. What's saving their skins at the moment is that of the 'other'parties no one party has garnered support sufficient to gain seats in Westminster other than in local areas favourable to their position and policies.
When one gets the support and starts to poll over 20% then Labour and Cons can look out. The party which does this may not be one currently in the contest.
I do not think that is the case & clearly neither do the main parties - which is why they have moved towards the hallowed "centre ground". They've gone there because that is where the majority of the voters are sitting. Perhaps slightly off to one side or the other but generally somewhere around the middle because there is little appetite in the wider population for anything too radical.
dandarez said:
Wombat3 said:
FiF said:
BlackLabel said:
I'm assuming these are the stats being used by Crosby which suggest the Tories should start to poll a bit better as the election gets nearer.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2014...
Yes they may well be coupled in with work by Ashcroft. http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2014...
Problem with relying on a bounce is that is what has happened historically. Now it may well be a good guide and it happens again. This time the election map is different. Very different.
The two main parties are vulnerable, polling around 60% aggregate, occasionally lower. What's saving their skins at the moment is that of the 'other'parties no one party has garnered support sufficient to gain seats in Westminster other than in local areas favourable to their position and policies.
When one gets the support and starts to poll over 20% then Labour and Cons can look out. The party which does this may not be one currently in the contest.
I do not think that is the case & clearly neither do the main parties - which is why they have moved towards the hallowed "centre ground". They've gone there because that is where the majority of the voters are sitting. Perhaps slightly off to one side or the other but generally somewhere around the middle because there is little appetite in the wider population for anything too radical.
Those are my opinions. What's your point?
Wombat3 said:
dandarez said:
Wombat3 said:
FiF said:
BlackLabel said:
I'm assuming these are the stats being used by Crosby which suggest the Tories should start to poll a bit better as the election gets nearer.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2014...
Yes they may well be coupled in with work by Ashcroft. http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2014...
Problem with relying on a bounce is that is what has happened historically. Now it may well be a good guide and it happens again. This time the election map is different. Very different.
The two main parties are vulnerable, polling around 60% aggregate, occasionally lower. What's saving their skins at the moment is that of the 'other'parties no one party has garnered support sufficient to gain seats in Westminster other than in local areas favourable to their position and policies.
When one gets the support and starts to poll over 20% then Labour and Cons can look out. The party which does this may not be one currently in the contest.
I do not think that is the case & clearly neither do the main parties - which is why they have moved towards the hallowed "centre ground". They've gone there because that is where the majority of the voters are sitting. Perhaps slightly off to one side or the other but generally somewhere around the middle because there is little appetite in the wider population for anything too radical.
Those are my opinions. What's your point?
dandarez said:
Wombat3 said:
dandarez said:
Wombat3 said:
FiF said:
BlackLabel said:
I'm assuming these are the stats being used by Crosby which suggest the Tories should start to poll a bit better as the election gets nearer.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2014...
Yes they may well be coupled in with work by Ashcroft. http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2014...
Problem with relying on a bounce is that is what has happened historically. Now it may well be a good guide and it happens again. This time the election map is different. Very different.
The two main parties are vulnerable, polling around 60% aggregate, occasionally lower. What's saving their skins at the moment is that of the 'other'parties no one party has garnered support sufficient to gain seats in Westminster other than in local areas favourable to their position and policies.
When one gets the support and starts to poll over 20% then Labour and Cons can look out. The party which does this may not be one currently in the contest.
I do not think that is the case & clearly neither do the main parties - which is why they have moved towards the hallowed "centre ground". They've gone there because that is where the majority of the voters are sitting. Perhaps slightly off to one side or the other but generally somewhere around the middle because there is little appetite in the wider population for anything too radical.
Those are my opinions. What's your point?
Aha....
Aha.
Ha.....
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff