Is England shifting ever leftward?

[Mark Benson]

trashbat said:

nd you one in which it's not.

You claim that voter distribution is static. Let's see.

2010 - BBC results

CON: 36.1%
LAB: 29.0%
LD: 23%
UKIP: 3.1%
BNP: 1.9%

then DUP, SNP, SF, PC, SDLP adding up to 3.9%

then Green 1%

2015 prediction - Apr 20 Graun/ICM poll

CON: 34% (-2pp)
LAB: 32% (+3pp)
LD: 10% (-13pp)
UKIP: 11% (+8pp)
GREEN: 5% (+4pp)

so unless you're going to claim that most 2010 Lib Dem voters were always latent UKIP voters who have naturally ended up there, there is a shift happening. How surprising.

Don't be facetious, I'm not trying to insult you here.
Rather than picking one poll, I'd prefer the poll of polls which at least averages out any variance in the various polling agencies' predictions;

LAB 34%
CON 34%
UKIP 14%
LD 8%
GREEN 5%

2010 (CON+UKIP+BNP) = 41.1%
2015 (CON+UKIP) = 48%

2010 (LAB+LD) = 42%
2015 (LAB+LD+GREEN) = 47%

So, meaningful statistical change overall if we look at the results of all the current polling.

Edit - http://may2015.com/category/poll-of-polls/

[FredClogs]

PorkInsider said:

FredClogs said:

...we've all been sucked into the game of pretending our day to day bank balance and the things we own represent the value we give to the economy and our stake in it, they don't of course, someones value in the economy is not what they take out but what they put in..

How do you reconcile that with your deliberate avoidance of NI (so the rest of us have to pay it for you) and subsequently your avoidance of other PAYE income taxes?

FredClogs on another thread said:

I've been paying myself at the personal allowance for 10 years as advised by my chartered accountant, by not coming into NI contributions you get a NIL stamp on your record and don't need to worry about all the various ins and outs of different types of NI contributions, that's my excuse anyway, it's not taking the piss its just making an over complicated system simpler.

I have very low self esteem, that's why I hang around on the internet stalking people and making pointless pointed criticisms of everything they say. You know what I mean.

That said, just because I'm a socialist and believe in the centralisation of public services and a society democratically run for the good of the people and don't believe in the fabled "trickle down effect" it doesn't mean that I believe that the only way to contribute IN to the economy is to do it via taxation.

It's a bit of a myth that socialist and lefty run economies have a higher tax burden - the don't necessarily, socialism isn't about taking from the wealthy and successful and giving to the poor it's about enabling the labour force to take ownership and partnership in the value of the production as they are the means of production, basically it's about not being enslaved (if you'll excuse the hyperbole).

Take a look - see which of the worlds economies run a surplus or low deficits, see how those countries are run and managed (Gulf oil states aside), see what their tax burden is. Then compare with our system of loading people up with debt whilst the wealthy sail away into the sunset.

[trashbat]

Mark Benson said:

Don't be facetious, I'm not trying to insult you here.
Rather than picking one poll, I'd prefer the poll of polls which at least averages out any variance in the various polling agencies' predictions;

LAB 34%
CON 34%
UKIP 14%
LD 8%
GREEN 5%

2010 (CON+UKIP+BNP) = 41.1%
2015 (CON+UKIP) = 48%

2010 (LAB+LD) = 42%
2015 (LAB+LD+GREEN) = 47%

So, meaningful statistical change overall if we look at the results of all the current polling.

Edit - http://may2015.com/category/poll-of-polls/

Your LAB+LD one is 52%, not 42%.

Your collations (e.g. CON + UKIP) blur the picture such that it only gives you a crude split, and doesn't tell you weightings along those lines. If 40% were voting BNP, you would still be facing a headline of 'hardly any change in left/right split' as the country burned.

LDs are also not necessarily in the left camp, as is possibly evidenced by their evaporation to somewhere other than Labour & Green.

Nonetheless this is roughly what I've been describing.

[PorkInsider]

FredClogs said:

I have very low self esteem, that's why I hang around on the internet stalking people and making pointless pointed criticisms of everything they say. You know what I mean.

I'll leave you to it, safe in the knowledge that all your criticisms of anyone's remotely right-of-centre opinions are not worth the virtual paper they're written on.

[Mark Benson]

trashbat said:

Your LAB+LD one is 52%, not 42%.

Mea Culpa.

trashbat said:

Your collations (e.g. CON + UKIP) blur the picture such that it only gives you a crude split, and doesn't tell you weightings along those lines. If 40% were voting BNP, you would still be facing a headline of 'hardly any change in left/right split' as the country burned.

Nonetheless this is roughly what I've been describing.

I'd rather we didn't split along left/right lines at all, there's too much variance in policy these days to pigeonhole most of the parties.

But the question was, is Britain shifting leftwards, the answer in my opinion is no.
But nor is it shifting rightwards and the number of people who are insisting both suggest it's probably somewhere in the middle, which statistically is true (within a few percent, which can easily be accounted for, as you say because we lump all voters for a party with 'left' or 'right' and it's more nuanced than that).

Edited by Mark Benson on Wednesday 22 April 10:55

[Timmy40]

trashbat said:

Mark Benson said:

Don't be facetious, I'm not trying to insult you here.
Rather than picking one poll, I'd prefer the poll of polls which at least averages out any variance in the various polling agencies' predictions;

LAB 34%
CON 34%
UKIP 14%
LD 8%
GREEN 5%

2010 (CON+UKIP+BNP) = 41.1%
2015 (CON+UKIP) = 48%

2010 (LAB+LD) = 42%
2015 (LAB+LD+GREEN) = 47%

So, meaningful statistical change overall if we look at the results of all the current polling.

Edit - http://may2015.com/category/poll-of-polls/

Your LAB+LD one is 52%, not 42%.

Your collations (e.g. CON + UKIP) blur the picture such that it only gives you a crude split, and doesn't tell you weightings along those lines. If 40% were voting BNP, you would still be facing a headline of 'hardly any change in left/right split' as the country burned.

LDs are also not necessarily in the left camp, as is possibly evidenced by their evaporation to somewhere other than Labour & Green.

Nonetheless this is roughly what I've been describing.

The problem with all these polls is it shows what % of people intend to vote for which party, which isn't same as what % of the seats each party would get if people voted that way.

[Bluebarge]

Timmy40 said:

The problem with all these polls is it shows what % of people intend to vote for which party, which isn't same as what % of the seats each party would get if people voted that way.

This does (although, as with all polls, it won't be completely accurate)
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive...

[turbobloke]

Bluebarge said:

Timmy40 said:

The problem with all these polls is it shows what % of people intend to vote for which party, which isn't same as what % of the seats each party would get if people voted that way.

This does (although, as with all polls, it won't be completely accurate)
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive...

That's worth tracking, thanks for the link.

[longblackcoat]

turbobloke said:

Bluebarge said:

Timmy40 said:

The problem with all these polls is it shows what % of people intend to vote for which party, which isn't same as what % of the seats each party would get if people voted that way.

This does (although, as with all polls, it won't be completely accurate)
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive...

That's worth tracking, thanks for the link.

I've been watching it for a while; ratjher begs the question that if, as most of the polls semms to be suggesting, Miliband becomes the next PM, how long will the government last? I'm thinking back to 1974......

[Halb]

Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 might have a say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliamen...

[The Hypno-Toad]

It would seem so..

I have never been so depressed about an upcoming election.

I thought the electorate might look round at the general financial state of the country, might remember the mess the Socialists left last time and the way they thought it was funny (There's no money left... Good Luck!), the mess that other countries with fractured parliaments have fared, the fact that most socialist MPs have nothing in common with the people they claim to represent, Rotherham and associated scandals, Mid-Staffs, etc, etc, etc..

But no. The political agenda is being dominated by "Its all the bankers fault and we should have free money again," And that's even before you dial in the rantings of the SNP and the frankly psychopathically delusional policies of the Khmer Rouge Green Party.

I have horrible, horrible feeling that we are about to enter a time of utter anarchy, governed by parties whose main policies are based on envy and a hatred of people who care about the past & future of the country they live in. Its effects on the economy & the internal/external defence of the state do not even bear thinking about.

In a nutshell:

Bottled water, tinned food, jerry cans of diesel, Land Rover, a good shotgun, them there hills are over there.

If you can, head for them...

[longblackcoat]

Halb said:

Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 might have a say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliamen...

Well, there'd obviously have to be a (lack of) confidence vote, but that's nothing new. The difference is that the LibCon coalition is a formal one, where they agree to work together for the period.

The likely scenario in this case would be a more traditional informal alliance, where the future of the gocvernment is decided on a vote-by-vote basis, and Ed (if he's the PM) would have to get support from the SNP on one thing, some from the DUP on others etc. Given that there will almost certainly be (with apologies to the smaller parties) just three main players in Westminster this time around - Conservative, Labour & SNP - it may be the case that the essential disagreements between all of them mean another election will be not too long coming.

I'm assuming a 2nd General election by Christmas, and a Conservative win at that time - the UKIP voters will have had sod-all to show for their (almost entirely) wasted votes, and will be so terrified of the Ed-and-Fishy-Woman show that they'll vote for Cameron in their droves.

Other scenarios are available, clearly.

[Mark Benson]

longblackcoat said:

Halb said:

Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 might have a say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliamen...

Well, there'd obviously have to be a (lack of) confidence vote, but that's nothing new. The difference is that the LibCon coalition is a formal one, where they agree to work together for the period.

The likely scenario in this case would be a more traditional informal alliance, where the future of the gocvernment is decided on a vote-by-vote basis, and Ed (if he's the PM) would have to get support from the SNP on one thing, some from the DUP on others etc. Given that there will almost certainly be (with apologies to the smaller parties) just three main players in Westminster this time around - Conservative, Labour & SNP - it may be the case that the essential disagreements between all of them mean another election will be not too long coming.

I'm assuming a 2nd General election by Christmas, and a Conservative win at that time - the UKIP voters will have had sod-all to show for their (almost entirely) wasted votes, and will be so terrified of the Ed-and-Fishy-Woman show that they'll vote for Cameron in their droves.

Other scenarios are available, clearly.

I think the Ed and Fish show will limp on for the full term, or close to it. Never underestimate the desire of politicians to cling onto power, especially if they know they'll lose the power next time out.
Fixed term makes it far more likely they'll muddle along, taxing everything they can find to pay for Scotland ever more 'Progressive' (a weasel word for 'socialist') policies, knowing that the next Tory government will have to spend a lot of it's time unravelling them and 'savagely' cutting back in order to sort out the mess once again.

[longblackcoat]

Mark Benson said:

I think the Ed and Fish show will limp on for the full term, or close to it. Never underestimate the desire of politicians to cling onto power, especially if they know they'll lose the power next time out.
Fixed term makes it far more likely they'll muddle along, taxing everything they can find to pay for Scotland ever more 'Progressive' (a weasel word for 'socialist') policies, knowing that the next Tory government will have to spend a lot of it's time unravelling them and 'savagely' cutting back in order to sort out the mess once again.

Except that there are some genuinely unbridgeable policy gaps, and I can see no way that there'll be a formal alliance. The informality makes it far more likely that it will break, though I absolutely take your point about the desire to hang onto the reins of power at any cost.

[iphonedyou]

Colonial said:

I run a successful business and have solid personal finances with little debt. Debt is car which is leased through business. Can afford to buy it outright but works better for me and the business this way.

House is in the process of being bought with mortgage less than 60% of value. Also have an interest in a Greenfield development site.

I consider myself left wing.

HTH.

It doesn't, no, as a sample size of one isn't much use.

'HTH'

[Halb]

FredClogs said:

Take a look - see which of the worlds economies run a surplus or low deficits, see how those countries are run and managed (Gulf oil states aside), see what their tax burden is. Then compare with our system of loading people up with debt whilst the wealthy sail away into the sunset.

YOu got a list, or a link or something?

[Colonial]

iphonedyou said:

It doesn't, no, as a sample size of one isn't much use.

'HTH'

At least you got an answer.

Not an answer that met with your preconceived notions and allowed you to go "lefties are all lazy and live off other peoples money" but an answer none the less.

[speedy_thrills]

Interesting how few people think the Conservatives could win a majority.

There are electorates and segments of society that consistently vote Conservative (wealthy, pensioners and rural voters) but to be able to win a majority they would also have to appeal to skilled and working class people as well as young voters. Obviously measures like cutting tax rates in top income brackets, controlling rates of spending on public services or an EU referendum will not be policies non-core voters would find appealing.

So in many ways could you argue the Conservatives lack of success to be self inflicted because they don't have policies that would interest modern voters? Ideologically Britain has moved on from Thatcherism even if the party hasn't.

Most polling I've seen shows people prefer David Cameron to Ed Miliband by quite some way, you'd think on that basis and being a single term incumbent government in a recovering economy they'd have a good chance of winning. Clearly however there is something about the Conservative party (though not the leadership) the public find insidious and untrustworthy.

[iphonedyou]

Colonial said:

At least you got an answer.

Not an answer that met with your preconceived notions and allowed you to go "lefties are all lazy and live off other peoples money" but an answer none the less.

This reveals more about your own preconceptions than mine.

I wouldn't 'go' 'lefties are all lazy and live off other peoples [sic] money' until I receive the evidence I suggested I'd like to see. Your aspersions are very much your own, ta.

Left wing politicians, however - well, the evidence is there and difficult to refute.

[MGJohn]

What puzzles me watching media smoothies interviewing folks in the street, must have seen approaching a hundred such now, without exception many appear to be in some sort of denial. Maybe do not understand the appalling negative magnitude of the Nation's current financial status and such things as the Trade Deficit. It's as though such massively negative impacts do not exist, or, if they do, has little effect on them.

A few dips into my Facebook contacts again show these problems are of little concern to many particularly the younger folks. I'm convinced some actually believe those money trees exist!

Not just Public Sector types, many of those express they understand the need for cuts just as long as they do not affect them. Even conservative minded folks who appear unworried just as long as being in the EU means their next new BMW or other European product will not be more expensive. How good is that for our economy. Of course, not just those me, me, me mindset types, I can understand some business folks having concerns should the Nation ever get the chance to vote on In-Out of the EU, it's very unlikely an OUT decision will come about. It's as though many believe the Nation would be incapable of surviving outside the EU. Maybe they're right and we no longer are collectively made of the right stuff. I do not believe that but, that could be the case in reality.

I think social media has and is continuing to have massive influence on how a wide range of folks see or do nit see things.

Even the three main Political Parties do not have these serious aspects high on their list of messages to the electorate.

Whatever the result in two weeks time, I strongly suspect that once again, this Nation will get it wrong. So depressing.