Political polling

[William of Walworth]

TBH, what's the point, both main party's are joined at the hip,

You're right .

I did think Dogsauce made the point I was trying to get at the other day about competence of opposition pretty well though, he made it better than I managed as well. However Torylike Labour are (and yes, they are), they could still be doing a far better job than they are at the moment.

Nothing else to add at the moment. No point.

 

[Kaka Tim]

The tories will always be worse than labour and at the moment tory or labour is the only choice available for the government. And it does make a difference. Labour would not have introduced vile purely ideological shit like the bedroom tax or the huge increase in benefit sanctions that with have seen since 2010 - both have which have had a devastating impact on the poorest communities. If you are in a seat where the its a tory/lab marginal not voting labour helps the tories into government.
The one positive effect that the electoral process has - even within the dismal choice on offer - is to place a limit on how far they can screw us. The tories have within their ranks many rabid hyackians who really do want to sell off the NHS and privatise the whole public sector bar the cops - you won't find them within the labour party. Look at how enthuisiastically they jumped on their 2010 victory to try and push through their pet projects in health, welfare and education - think what they would do if they got in power again.
I work in a community centre in one of the poorest parts of leeds. I see desperation and destitution on a daily basis (we also the highest male suicide rate in leeds) i am in no doubt that will get worse under another tory government. I live in a solid labour seat - so i can happily vote green or TUSC - but if lived in a lab/tory marginal I feel i would be betraying the people im working with if i did anything other than trying to stop the tory scum.

 

[Mr Moose]

I didn't conflate the two but, that said, to desire the victory of a parliamentary political party would suggest some degree of implicit faith in parliamentary, representative democracy.

Now, getting back to what you said..

You still stand by that, do you? That simply by taking an interest in psephology and posting in this thread somehow equates with a desire for an electoral victory for the parliamentary Labour party in the May GE?

And this thing about their austerity being "weaker" and "easier to defeat"; what's that all about?

The reference to the 'chindits' was as an analogy to your proposition of belief; I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.

'Faith' in Parliamentary democracy feels a little strong, but Parliament is another site for struggle. It would be ludicrous to suggest no good policy or law has ever come from it even while admitting that it ensures the continuation of elite power.

I'm not really fussed in sussing anyone out on this. I think you must have mistaken my comment as some kind of slight, a reflection on the way debate takes place here. Most people I know don't want a Tory victory, however brief the relief of a Labour one would be. That doesn't mean they are naive any more than your revelation that Labour are Thatcherite is revelatory.

And when austerity is challenged my guess is that between Labour and Conservative it is Labour who would blink first. After all there is motivation for them to do so, to actually attempt be the thing they claim to be.

 

[killer b]

The examples I gave (fuck ups in hospitals, schools and prisons this week) are cases where they'd be able to attack the managerial ability of the government, not about taking a leftish position - it's 'safe' for politicians to attack the competence of the government because it doesn't require ideology or convictions, and for a lot of the population having a competent 'safe pair of hands' is more important than political differences (which are not that discernible). Shouting 'fiasco' is an effective strategy in today's politics, so it seems weird they aren't ripping into the coalition about it.

Of course the root causes of most of the fuck-ups are all the cuts which are ideological, and which labour are signed up to, but it doesn't require acknowledging that to go on the offensive.

I think it’s obvious to anyone that these points of attack are open goals, and it therefore must be obvious to the leadership and associated policy wankers of the Labour Party. So if they’re not attacking, it’s because they’ve chosen not to, not because they aren’t aware of the opportunity.

I think to write off this lack of action as incompetence is a mistake – clearly it isn’t incompetence, but a deliberate strategy decision which would benefit from further discussion and interrogation. Rolling your eyes and muttering useless wankers tells us nothing – better to ask why are they doing this?

 

[weepiper]

The tories will always be worse than labour and at the moment tory or labour is the only choice available for the government. And it does make a difference. Labour would not have introduced vile purely ideological shit like the bedroom tax .

Labour introduced the Bedroom Tax in 2008 for those of us on Housing Benefit forced to rent in the private sector. They just didn't call it that, they called it Local Housing Allowance. The bedroom eligibility rules are the same and people already claiming Housing Benefit lost benefits in exactly the same way. The Tories got the idea for the Bedroom Tax in the social sector from a pre existing Labour policy, and used it as justification for it in a classic divide and rule way ('it's only fair that social renters are subject to the same rules')

 

[brogdale]

I'm not really fussed in sussing anyone out on this. I think you must have mistaken my comment as some kind of slight, a reflection on the way debate takes place here.

I don't quite believe you all. I think there are very few of you who don't really want a Labour victory.

Yeah, right.

 

[brogdale]

Ashcroft National Poll: Con 31%, Lab 31%, Lib Dem 8%, UKIP 15%, Green 9%

Ashcroft's 'England only' numbers put the vermin 4% ahead of Labour. When the vermin failed to secure a majority in 2010 their 'England only' lead was 11.4%.

 

[DotCommunist]

Labour would not have introduced vile purely ideological shit like the bedroom tax o

they wouldn't have spun it as a strong cut, they wouldn't haveplayed it up for the tory faithful and telegraph columnists. But they'd have done similar and spunn it another way. Labour on benefits has an atrocious record.

its been just under five years and people seem to have forgotten what 'safe hands' they were with benefits and the NHS: IE not at all. It wasn't the conservatives who paid for the vile 'we're closing in on you' campaign, or outsourced 50% of NHS services to private hands. Granted the tories ARE the bigger cunts and filled with spivs, loons and the super posh, but voting wise I call a plague on both houses

 

[DotCommunist]

Labour introduced the Bedroom Tax in 2008 for those of us on Housing Benefit forced to rent in the private sector. They just didn't call it that, they called it Local Housing Allowance. The bedroom eligibility rules are the same and people already claiming Housing Benefit lost benefits in exactly the same way. The Tories got the idea for the Bedroom Tax in the social sector from a pre existing Labour policy, and used it as justification for it in a classic divide and rule way ('it's only fair that social renters are subject to the same rules')

Single person reciving HA in this region for the rent of a room in a shared house will get 57 pounds a week. Even in rougher areas thats 15 quid below market rate for a room. That shit didn't start under the tories either.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

they wouldn't have spun it as a strong cut, they wouldn't haveplayed it up for the tory faithful and telegraph columnists. But they'd have done similar and spunn it another way. Labour on benefits has an atrocious record.

its been just under five years and people seem to have forgotten what 'safe hands' they were with benefits and the NHS: IE not at all. It wasn't the conservatives who paid for the vile 'we're closing in on you' campaign, or outsourced 50% of NHS services to private hands. Granted the tories ARE the bigger cunts and filled with spivs, loons and the super posh, but voting wise I call a plague on both houses

Have you got any evidence for your claim that Labour outsourced 50% of the NHS?

 

[DotCommunist]

Have you got any evidence for your claim that Labour outsourced 50% of the NHS?

not to hand. We are talking services associated with I. E instrument cleaning, portering and so on. I'll dig out the source for the claim tomorrow. Unless you want to dispute that these things were outsourced in general like. But yeah the figure I read had 50%

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

not to hand. We are talking services associated with I. E instrument cleaning, portering and so on. I'll dig out the source for the claim tomorrow. Unless you want to dispute that these things were outsourced in general like. But yeah the figure I read had 50%

so not all NHS services then?

 

[DotCommunist]

so not all NHS services then?

you'll of course be able to point to where I said 'all' on this thread

anyway, point is they should have been kept in house. It's better for infrastructure as a whole to have a unified structure, they 'dynamism' of the markets doesn't deliver in health or rail or energy, its just pretend choice for more money and crapper service.

I am beginning to realise the NHS only becomes a political football every time there is a GE. I've only seen 4, but its becoming a recurring theme.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

you said 50% of NHS services, that suggests all services as you well know.

 

[DotCommunist]

you said 50% of NHS services, that suggests all services as you well know.

It doesn't if we consider what was under the umbrella before mass privitasing, because the service whe it was NHS was NHS so any percentage outourced counts.

But there is little point pursuing this sophist argument till I back up the figure I claimed is there.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

It doesn't if we consider what was under the umbrella before mass privitasing, because the service whe it was NHS was NHS so any percentage outourced counts.

But there is little point pursuing this sophist argument till I back up the figure I claimed is there.

I've no idea what the first part of the post says, I think you've already conceded the point about your claim for 50% outsourcing of the NHS though.

 

[DotCommunist]

I've no idea what the first part of the post says, I think you've already conceded the point about your claim for 50% outsourcing of the NHS though.

services under the NHS- outsourced- this is privtasation of the NHS. Capice

as for the rest I concede nothing.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

services under the NHS- outsourced- this is privtasation of the NHS. Capice

as for the rest I concede nothing.

nutter

 

[Kaka Tim]

The bedroom tax has been far more damaging than the rule changes on private lets - because its hit people in long term housing who are usually the most vulnerable - the disabled, people with kids etc. Plus it fatally undermines the whole principle of social housing - wrecking the whole security of tenure that it offered.

 

[DotCommunist]

nutter

Says the ex swappie

 

[DotCommunist]

The bedroom tax has been far more damaging than the rule changes on private lets - because its hit people in long term housing who are usually the most vulnerable - the disabled, people with kids etc. Plus it fatally undermines the whole principle of social housing - wrecking the whole security of tenure that it offered.

and what really helped them lose there was everyone including the media deciding to call it the bedroom tax as well. It has a much nicer sounding name, but bedroom tax is the reality and the accurate descriptor

 

[weepiper]

The bedroom tax has been far more damaging than the rule changes on private lets - because its hit people in long term housing who are usually the most vulnerable - the disabled, people with kids etc. Plus it fatally undermines the whole principle of social housing - wrecking the whole security of tenure that it offered.

*waves hand as person with kids in private let, living dependent on housing benefit for last 5 years* apparently I don't exist

 

[killer b]

quite. what an odd comment.

 

[treelover]

they wouldn't have spun it as a strong cut, they wouldn't haveplayed it up for the tory faithful and telegraph columnists. But they'd have done similar and spunn it another way. Labour on benefits has an atrocious record.

its been just under five years and people seem to have forgotten what 'safe hands' they were with benefits and the NHS: IE not at all. It wasn't the conservatives who paid for the vile 'we're closing in on you' campaign, or outsourced 50% of NHS services to private hands. Granted the tories ARE the bigger cunts and filled with spivs, loons and the super posh, but voting wise I call a plague on both houses

Who was W/P Secretary when that odious campaign started? Blunkett, Hutton, Purnell, it was a long running campaign,

oh, and Jim Murphy was Employment Secretary for some of that time.

 

[Mr Moose]

Yeah, right.

What is the matter with you? Seriously. Why such scorn?

There is no heat in the second quote. No attempt to show anyone up. Labour is a hard hope to shake however often they let you down.

 

[redsquirrel]

Ashcroft's 'England only' numbers put the vermin 4% ahead of Labour. When the vermin failed to secure a majority in 2010 their 'England only' lead was 11.4%.

One thing that's probably going to play a big role in the result is the "stickiness" of the smaller parties vote. Have you seen any analysis on this point?

Over the last couple of years the UKIP vote has proved to hold up reasonably well, and in 2010 there were a number of people who voted Labour after voting SNP at Holyrood but things could be very different this time around. My guess would be that the UKIP vote mostly holds up, the SNP takes votes off Labour in Scotland but not to quite the extent that the current polling is showning and that a lot of the Green vote goes to Labour.

 

[brogdale]

One thing that's probably going to play a big role in the result is the "stickiness" of the smaller parties vote. Have you seen any analysis on this point?

Over the last couple of years the UKIP vote has proved to hold up reasonably well, and in 2010 there were a number of people who voted Labour after voting SNP at Holyrood but things could be very different this time around. My guess would be that the UKIP vote mostly holds up, the SNP takes votes off Labour in Scotland but not to quite the extent that the current polling is showning and that a lot of the Green vote goes to Labour.

I think that's right. No, I've not seen any reports of voter 'stickiness' across the parties, but then I suppose it's only really possible to study that after the actual election numbers are known?

The 'golden rule' of psephology has traditionally been that as we get nearer to the election the numbers for the 'big two' rise at the expense of the smaller parties, but I'm not at all certain that conventional wisdom will suffice any more.

 

[brogdale]

What is the matter with you? Seriously. Why such scorn?

There is no heat in the second quote. No attempt to show anyone up. Labour is a hard hope to shake however often they let you down.

Scorn is too strong a term, but when you've told "all" who post in this thread that you don't believe them and that you know better what they "all" think, what do you expect?

Generally, this thread has been characterised by thoughtful comment and insight about the objective polling evidence of voter intent. and doesn't (IMO) gain from posting that questions the integrity of those contributing to the discussion. If anyone's been "shown up" by your post it's you.

 

[brogdale]

Looking at the rise of UKIP, (as evidenced from the NS's 'Poll of polls' graph), the period of the European Election campaign in April 2014 does genuinely appear to be something of a turning point for the nature of their support.

Until the spring of 2014 the form of the UKIP polling line appears very much as a 'mirror-image' of the vermin's, but after that campaign fluctuations in UKIP support appear to have little, if any, linkage with the blue line. The relationship over the last 10 months appears to be between the purple and red lines.

(also posted in UKIP thread)

 

[killer b]

Not really. I don't quite believe you all. I think there are very few of you who don't really want a Labour victory. If nothing else their austerity would probably be weaker, easier to defeat.

I would prefer a Labour win, if I’m honest – I retain a certain amount of tribal loyalty from a childhood spent shoving election leaflets through people’s letterboxes, and if we’ve a choice between two sets of arseholes managing our shafting, I prefer it not to be the Tories who’re doing the shafting. But so what? What relevance does that have to what we’re discussing here?