Archive for the ' General Election' Category

h1

Guest slot: Polling analysis finds Labour Loses Supporters of Brexit

Sunday, May 29th, 2016

 

Philip Walker analyses the polling and finds 3 in Every 7 of Labour’s 2015 Voters Backing Brexit Would Not Vote Labour in 2016

In the EU referendum, online and phone polls have persistently been at odds. Last week, YouGov reacted by publishing in full a set of parallel online and phone polling conducted in early May, exposing flaws in the phone sample to defend its own online method.  For polling junkies that unprecedented transparency had a further welcome consequence. A full, representative online data set of 1527 people who voted at the 2015 general election came into the public domain, allowing us map their views and link them to a host of other variables, regardless of how YouGov chose to use the data. Wikileaks could not have given us more.

YouGov’s polling data set includes 2015 general election vote, current general election voting intention, and current EU voting intention. That means we can look at the ebb and flow of each individuals’ support for each party since May 2015, and how that relates to their EU voting intention.

For Labour, this evidence should ring alarm bells. Those who voted Labour in 2015 split about 2:1 in favour of Remain over Leave. By early May 2016 that had risen to almost 3:1 for current Labour voters, thanks almost entirely to the desertion of former Labour voters backing Leave. In the sample, 42% of the 137 Leave supporters who voted Labour in 2015 would not back the party today and overall the number of current Labour voters backing Leave is 29% down on 2015.

By contrast, only 21% of the 282 Labour voters from 2015 backing Remain would not vote for the party now. Those supporters of Remain lost to Labour are almost entirely countered by new Labour supporters of Remain, including a significant tranche of former Greens whose switch of allegiance surely reflects Corbyn’s accession rather than his recent conversion to the EU cause.

Britain remains a highly Eurosceptic nation, however many might be enticed into voting for Remain with gritted teeth for fear of something even worse. YouGov found in 2014 that 61% of the electorate would favour substantially less EU integration or complete withdrawal compared to just 25% backing more integration or the status quo. For the working class (C2DE) electorate, those percentages are even more stark: 65% against 17%. Parties that seek to appeal to the working class on a Europhile platform do so at their peril.

The “Labour In” campaign, uncritically and superficially extolling the EU as the best thing since sliced bread, while dismissing out of hand concerns over EU migration, may yet bring a few of the party’s tribal supporters into the Remain camp. The polling evidence though suggests that there will be a price – that of causing more of Labour’s 2015 supporters to question their own tribal allegiance. Rather than reversing Labour’s losses to UKIP in 2015, Labour has seen further losses.

16% of the 137 Leave supporters who still voted Labour in 2015 had by May 2016 switched directly to UKIP, with another 26% switching to undecided, non-voting or other parties. No party should be content to be losing support on this scale, let alone a party in opposition to a government about to encounter the perils of mid-term. As the “Labour In” campaign gets into full swing, it could reinforce those trends by 23rd June. Just as in Scotland in 2014, Labour could end up losing significant electoral support as the price of achieving the referendum result that its MPs desire.

For all their divisions over Europe and their slide in current polling, the Conservatives are in a far better position to recover after the referendum. Conservative retention rates of 2015 supporters are only 68% for Leave and 73% for Remain, but the similarity of these suggests that much of these losses are down to the usual woes of a second year government rather than specifically due to the EU, despite the undoubted pull of UKIP now for some voting Conservative in 2015. For all its acrimony, the open debate between the wings of the party shows that the party wants to keep the door open in future for Conservative supporters of either camp. In addition, if Cameron’s successor is a prominent Leave supporter, many Conservative defectors to UKIP in 2015 and since could return in significant numbers. Do not bet against a general election before 2020 under a new Conservative leader.

There is one final statistic that should give Labour concern. 2015 voters who are undecided or who are currently inclined to no longer vote break heavily towards Leave: 39% for Leave to 28% for Remain. By turning itself into a Europhile party, Labour risks limiting its potential appeal to such swing voters to only the 61% not hostile to the EU. In contrast, by keeping a foot in both camps, the Conservatives can appeal to the full 100%.

Philip Walker

Phil Walker will be voting for Brexit and stood as a Labour candidate in Wolverhampton in the 2016 local government elections. He has previously contributed to PB as “Wulfrun Phil”.

You can access Philip’s analysis by clicking here: YouGov Apr 2016 EU Flux Values v2



h1

A post Brexit vote recession could cost the Tories the next election

Sunday, May 15th, 2016

Brexiteers are in danger of being blamed for the next recession even if it has nothing do with Brexit

On one side we have, inter alia, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, and the great and the good, from the IMF, the OECD, NIESR, The Bank of England, and their Governor, Mark Carney, who the polls suggest is political Kryptonite against Leave, forecasting Brexit as being somewhere from very bad to a visit from the Four Horsemen for the UK economy.

On the other side you have Leavers like Tory Priti Patel who said “The EU-funded IMF should not interfere in our democratic debate … It appears the chancellor is cashing in favours to [Christine] Lagarde in order to encourage the IMF to bully the British people.” Some Leavers say the Treasury’s figure that every household would lose £4,300 was a bargain, another said the ‘insecurity [of Brexit] is fantastic’, whilst another prominent Leaver said publicly he would would welcome the economic apocalypse of Brexit, and would be delighted to provide free accommodation to the Four Horsemen whilst they visited the UK*.

So the meme that Brexit is bad for the economy has been effectively seeded, and a stand alone UK recession in the short term after a Brexit vote could see that meme germinate in a way that is not optimal for the Tories, especially if a Leaver succeeds David Cameron.

In various polls, the voters generally sees Brexit as the worst option for the economy, and for them personally, than remaining in the EU, even in the polls that have Leave ahead, so it is easy to see that seed has been planted in the minds of voters.

At the last general election two of the Tory Party’s strongest assets were David Cameron and their stewardship of the economy, they will be fighting the next election without the former. A post Brexit vote recession means they could be fighting without the latter asset too. 

Sometimes perceptions matter more than the facts, Leavers shouldn’t complain, we saw it how badly the ONS report on National Insurance figures was reported this week, as this tweet  and this article show.

The events of Black Wednesday helped in part to keep the Tory Party out of power for thirteen years, and the legacy of the 2008 credit crunch has the contributed to Labour losing the last two general elections.

When the voters can blame the government for an avoidable economic disaster, they don’t forget it. They know politicians don’t have the ability to abolish boom and bust, that’s why for example the Tories didn’t lose the 1983 and 1992 general elections, which came shortly after/during recessions. 

As the mantra goes, oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them. Labour could say a post Brexit vote recession was foretold, and the Leavers ignored their warnings, even if the recession is a normal cyclical recession. 

Inadvertently the Tory Party may have salted their own electoral ground during this referendum campaign, it’s almost like if after The Third Punic War, The Roman Republic had accidentally salted Rome instead of Carthage.

TSE

*That last one isn’t true, but with the way this campaign is going with talk of armed conflict if we leave and the EU being like Hitler, it is entirely possible for someone to say something that outlandish in the remaining forty days of this campaign.



h1

If Corbyn does becomes Prime Minister he should thank those behind the Zac campaign

Sunday, May 8th, 2016

As a Muslim I was appalled at Goldsmith’s campaign, as a Tory I’m appalled that Goldsmith’s campaign makes Corbyn as PM more likely.

When your own sister criticises your campaign and praises your opponent as a good role model, when the media runs a quiz asking Who said it: Britain First or Zac Goldsmith? deep down you must know you’ve run an ignoble, divisive, and poor campaign that may have long lasting consequences. As an intelligent man, Zac Goldsmith should have seen the risks of these tactics and told his campaigning team he didn’t want to campaign like this. Last August, Goldsmith led Khan by 8% in the opinion polls, and should have stuck with the campaign strategy that saw such leads.

As we see on The Observer front page in the tweet above, it is very easy for the Tory Party to regain the mantle of the nasty party and has the potential to re-toxify the Tory Party brand, that David Cameron has worked so hard to detoxify. With David Cameron very publicly endorsing Goldsmith’s attack lines at PMQs a few weeks ago, there’s no way for the Tory Party to disassociate themselves from the campaign, and blame it on a candidate going rogue. Those Lib Dems across the country who switched to the Tories in 2015 maybe put off from voting Tory in 2020 because of this campaign. The impact of this campaign may resonate outside of London.

Unless Sadiq Khan appoints Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as his Deputy Mayor or introduces Sharia law, he can justifiably say all the Tory attack lines about him were bunkum, which ultimately could help Jeremy Corbyn in 2020.

It isn’t hard to imagine during the 2020 general election campaign, the Tories using some of the attack lines they’ve used on Khan on Corbyn. Corbyn’s rebuttal will be a very simple, they said the same about Sadiq Khan and those attacks were nonsense, and that’s even before he can cite several Tories who have publicly condemned the Tory campaign, one of whom said the campaign “probably increased our risks of suffering terrorism.”

The campaign may be a pointer to the forthcoming EU referendum, with both sides already engaging in ludicrous project fear campaigns, where it feels the choice is down to for voting for economic Armageddon if we vote to Leave or having 77 million Turks moving to the UK shortly after we vote to Remain.

Memo to both camps, tone down the hyperbole, criticise your opponents with plausible criticisms and not make it appear that victory for the other side was foretold in The Book of Revelation. A bit more hope and a little less fear please.

TSE



h1

The Michael Crick election expenses investigation could get serious for the Tories

Wednesday, May 4th, 2016

Dave’s majority could be at risk

The news that the Electoral Commission is talking to the police and CPS about Tory GE2015 election expenses in key marginal constituencies has the potential to be troubling to the party which, of course, won a majority of 12 last year.

Crick and his C4 News team retuned to the subject again last night focussing on one party police commissioner candidate who was the election agent in a marginal seat that the Tories won a year ago.

Under normal procedures objections for election expenses have to be carried out within a year of the documents being filed but it is possible to extend that which is what the Electoral Commission is asking.

It is possible that criminal proceedings could be taken but what could be really troubling is if the elections in those seats were annulled and new votes would have to take place. Cameron could feasibly lose his majority.

So far 26 seats have been looked but I understand that other might be being probed.

As well as the legal side the story fuels a narrative that the Tories didn’t win fairly.

Mike Smithson





h1

At GE2015 the big picture from online polls was that LAB was leading but CON was well ahead in phone surveys

Monday, May 2nd, 2016

A pointer to EURef polling?

With the huge split between online and phone polls that we are seeing for the referendum it is perhaps worth reminding ourselves how the two modes did during the official GE2015 campaign period.

The chart could not be more clear. Throughout the campaign the big picture from phone polls was that the Tories had the edge while with internet polls it was Labour.

    We should note that being lumped in with all the other online firms is unfair to Opinium. All but one of its GE2015 polls recorded CON leads and the other one had it as level–pegging. Amongst the latest batch of EURef polls Opinium is one of just two online firms to have IN ahead.

A guide to June 23rd? Maybe. It is interesting the punters seem more influenced by the phone surveys.

Mike Smithson





h1

From Blair to Corbyn, Livingstone, and Hitler, 19 years is a long time in politics

Sunday, May 1st, 2016

Can things only get better for Labour? Not whilst the stench of anti-Semitism swirls around the party

Nineteen years ago today, Tony Blair led the Labour Party back into government after eighteen years in opposition. 418 MPs elected, 145 gains, and a 179 seat majority. The way Labour and Corbyn are heading, they will be lucky to have 179 MPs at the next election, even before Ken Livingstone’s attempt to educate the country about Nazis for Zionism.

These sort of things can take decades for a party to recover from. Twenty-five years after the Tory Party introduced Section 28, the party will still having to deal with the legacy of that pernicious piece of legislation, if Labour don’t resolve the current perceptions of anti-Semitism swirling around the party, then it might take a similar time for the Labour Party to recover from perceptions that they are the new nasty party.

The tragedy for the Labour Party is that in less than a week there are a plethora of elections, and the events of the past week makes it harder for the Labour candidates in these elections to win. It also helps to negate any criticism Labour have of Zac Goldsmith’s campaign to be Mayor of London, as evidenced in the tweet below, which isn’t good news for Sadiq Khan nor Labour.

TSE



h1

Why the Tories could be being complacent over Jeremy Corbyn

Friday, April 15th, 2016

Alastair Meeks says predicting GE2020 is harder than the blues think

Much comment has been passed this week on David Cameron’s falling ratings.  He now ranks behind Jeremy Corbyn on favourability ratings with YouGov.  “How low he has sunk” is the usual comment, and it is true.

But as the table above shows, this is not a problem confined to David Cameron.  He actually rates better head-to-head against Jeremy Corbyn on the question “who would make the best prime minister” than either Boris Johnson or George Osborne.  Indeed, George Osborne trails Jeremy Corbyn by a considerable distance.  Three clear conclusions can be drawn:

  1. The referendum is destroying the Conservatives’ image with the public.
  2. The Conservatives believe that taking on Labour under Jeremy Corbyn is like the Oxford rowing team racing a pedalo. But that is not particularly easy to justify on present polling: Labour is edging ahead in the polls and Jeremy Corbyn is looking competitive in the leadership ratings.
  3. The Conservatives cannot just choose anyone they like as Conservative leader and expect to romp to victory.

Right now the Conservative party is fixated on the EU referendum.  It has more than two months more to rip itself apart about this.  Does anyone think that its polling is going to improve in that period?  The damage to the Conservatives’ reputation might be very long-lasting indeed.

Far from being the unspeakable against the unelectable, we might be looking at a three-legged race where both main parties voluntarily hobble themselves with introspective policy programmes and deeply unattractive leaders.  Predicting a winner might be far harder than the Conservatives currently believe.

For betting purposes the conclusion is clear: for now at least, bet against the Conservatives in any market that depends on their long term prospects.  They, and too many of their followers, are far too complacent about how match fit they will be.  It’s best to relieve them of their money before they wake up.

Alastair Meeks



h1

Alastair Meeks looking ahead to the GE2020

Sunday, April 10th, 2016

DDDC

The Tories are evens to get an overall majority in 2020. Why? asks Alastair Meeks

We’ve been here before.  We languish under a Conservative government with a tiny majority, distracted by a frenzied and incomprehensible internal argument being conducted in raised voices over the EU (a subject about which the public largely do not care), staggering from wholly avoidable crisis to wholly avoidable crisis.  The public rightly see the Conservative party as horribly divided.  Disquiet is growing about their basic competence.

The last time we were here, in the mid-1990s, the Conservatives found themselves pulverised at the next general election.  It took them a decade even to become competitive again.

Yet the markets are clearly expecting something radically different this time.  The Conservatives are evens to get an overall majority next time, with no overall majority available at 7/4 on Betfair and 6/4 elsewhere.  Why?

Lots of different reasons why the Conservatives are bombproof next time round have been floated but they fall into three broad categories.  Let’s look at each in turn.

The state of Labour

Whenever any discussion takes place about why the Conservatives, despite all their troubles, look set to cruise through the next election, sooner or later the subject of Labour’s own chaos comes up.  Jeremy Corbyn has not exactly yet achieved universal acclaim as a natural leader and a large part of his Parliamentary party is in more or less open mutiny against him (or, as the leader’s own camp would put it, “core group negative” or “hostile”).  Many Conservatives believe that they could put any of their MPs blindfolded against him and still romp to victory.

That is far too complacent.  Conservatives seem to have forgotten that last year they won only 37% of the vote against an opposition leader who did not impress the public.  They achieved that unexceptional tally with a popular and charismatic leader and a broadly united party campaigning on a disciplined (if uninspiring) prospectus.  At the next election, they will have a new leader of what may well be a divided and indisciplined party.  In 2020, the Labour party may look in worse shape than in 2015, but so will the Conservatives.  It is far from clear that the deterioration on the red side will look worse than that on the blue side.

Moreover, it overlooks the following points.

  1. Jeremy Corbyn may be replaced. Right now that doesn’t look too likely but you never know.  Almost any other Labour MP will impress as leader by comparison.  If the Conservatives look tired, feckless, divided and crazy, that new leader would probably get a remarkably good honeymoon.
  2. Labour aren’t the only moving part. It is quite possible that the referendum will give a shot in the arm to UKIP, who will be looking to hoover up Leave supporters who feel uncatered to by the major parties.  Even if UKIP don’t break the mould, there is no particular reason to assume that the Conservatives would be less affected by this than Labour.
  3. It’s entirely possible that the fallout from the Labour civil war or the Conservative referendum feuds may result in one or both parties fracturing in some way. The consequences of such a fracturing are hard to predict.

In short, if the Conservatives can’t get their act together, their divisions, their lack of direction and their lack of competence are likely to hurt them in the ballot box.

The referendum will be over on 23 June

Yes, the referendum will be over on 23 June.  It seems unlikely, however, that the arguments within the Conservative party will end on that date.  If Remain wins – by whatever margin – a substantial part of the Conservative Leavers are going to remain incandescent with their leaders over their conduct in the campaign.  Rightly or wrongly, they are going to be convinced that they were cheated and will be planning how best to sabotage government policy on the EU.  The government has a majority of just 12.  The number of irreconcilable MPs far exceeds 6 (the number is probably closer to 60).  If Remain wins, we can expect a guerrilla campaign by the Conservative right throughout this Parliament.  The divisions will not heal.

If Leave wins, the government then needs to decide what comes next.  The first “next” will almost certainly be the resignation and replacement of David Cameron and George Osborne, whose authority would have evaporated.  That would be the easy bit.  The next “next” would be to establish what to do about the exit negotiations.  Since the Leave side has not put together a prospectus, mutually contradictory reasons have been given for voting for Leave.  A choice would need to be made between prioritising freedom of trade and prioritising restricting freedom of movement.  That choice will split the Conservatives afresh between economic Thatcherites and social Conservatives.  That split could be more agonising than the existing one.  The Conservatives have split twice before over free trade.  Could they make it a hat trick?

Either way, the Conservatives are going to carry on quarrelling for the foreseeable future.  Worse than that, the public are going to carry on noticing.

Boundary changes

Many Conservatives gleefully note that the Boundary Commission is due to draw up new boundaries for a smaller 600 seat Parliament, believing that this is likely to favour them substantially, particularly given that it will be based on the new electoral register (which is thought to have fewer registered voters in previously Labour areas).  So it might, if it happens.  But the government needs to get the relevant legislation through Parliament.  It has a wafer thin majority in the House of Commons and is a minority in the House of Lords.  If Conservative backbenchers of a right wing Leave persuasion feel that the boundary changes might be used for internal party control purposes, they might sabotage the legislation.  The House of Lords is likely to reject the legislation so the House of Commons will need two bites at the cherry.  There has to be a substantial chance this legislation fails.

Conclusion

Conservative divisions aren’t going away.  As a result, they are likely to remain directionless and ministers will be distracted from their day jobs, increasing the chances of further mistakes and adding to the appearance of incompetence.  With a wafer thin majority that may well not be bolstered by boundary changes, the Conservatives look nothing like an even money bet for an overall majority.  Lay them, or better still take the 6/4 on no overall majority (Labour might get an overall majority but if that comes into play there will be time to rebalance your book later).  Those odds should be at least the other way around.

Alastair Meeks