Craig, why do you assume that Ed will be so dreadful in the election debates? The people who run Labour's focus groups find almost unanimously that when swing voters in their groups see Ed for about two minutes they just think 'oh god, not that weirdo intellectual with the Marxist dad again'. If they see him for a little longer - say, about twenty minutes - they start to soften up and think 'actually, he's not as bad as we thought'. A TV debate of about ninety minutes with the reduced expectations that Ed will doubtless have going into it will almost certainly have him coming out of it well - especially as he gets far better reviews when he does Q&As and debates rather than speeches, where he normally comes off stilted and inauthentic.

 

Granted, having to rely on the TV debates going ahead to change perceptions of Ed isn't really a sign of strength on Labour's part.

 

And what the hell at Cameron being 'by far the best orator in politics today'?! :lol: He's hardly bloody OBAMA! Especially when you consider the 'best orator in politics today' likely would've won more than one and a half election debates (losing the first, drawing the second with Clegg and winning the third). And when even by the standards of the Westminster media (which almost universally favours Cameron over Ed) he doesn't even win PMQs most of the time - it tends to be a dull draw with him just insulting Ed. Hardly the sort of thing that voters will go wild for if he repeats it in the debates.

Yes, obviously the pension announcement was to keep the pensioners happy - but you need them already Craig, you are effectively preaching to the already converted! The key issue here though is can you not see how reckless and potentially damaging the 'triple-lock' could be for the public finances? The deficit that the coalition seem so ever so keen to remove, to "Balance the books by 2015... er, wait, 2018.. er wait, never".

 

Pensions spending is already at 27% of total spending at £139bn and the state pension cost to the taxpayer will rise unsustainably without action being taken - inevitably rising about 100% of national income and leading to a huge problem in the next 10-15 years as the number of pensioners continues to outstrip the growth in the number of employees.

 

Ironically the best way of supplementing the pensions deficit is to encourage more immigrants to live, work and pay their taxes in the UK, but of course that would defect more voters to UKIP (from Tory). Behind the scenes it seems Osborne is losing favour with his peers- not surprising given that Osborne isn't up to the job, and his policies are making things much worse, and that the only reason that he is there is because he is a good 'pal' of 'call me Dave's.

Edited January 7, 201411 yr by Doctor Blind

Craig, why do you assume that Ed will be so dreadful in the election debates? The people who run Labour's focus groups find almost unanimously that when swing voters in their groups see Ed for about two minutes they just think 'oh god, not that weirdo intellectual with the Marxist dad again'. If they see him for a little longer - say, about twenty minutes - they start to soften up and think 'actually, he's not as bad as we thought'. A TV debate of about ninety minutes with the reduced expectations that Ed will doubtless have going into it will almost certainly have him coming out of it well - especially as he gets far better reviews when he does Q&As and debates rather than speeches, where he normally comes off stilted and inauthentic.

 

Granted, having to rely on the TV debates going ahead to change perceptions of Ed isn't really a sign of strength on Labour's part.

 

And what the hell at Cameron being 'by far the best orator in politics today'?! :lol: He's hardly bloody OBAMA! Especially when you consider the 'best orator in politics today' likely would've won more than one and a half election debates (losing the first, drawing the second with Clegg and winning the third). And when even by the standards of the Westminster media (which almost universally favours Cameron over Ed) he doesn't even win PMQs most of the time - it tends to be a dull draw with him just insulting Ed. Hardly the sort of thing that voters will go wild for if he repeats it in the debates.

 

On the UK stage i would say Cameron is the best public speaker, not on Obama level but certainly the best imho since Michael Heseltine for the tory party and not far off Blair level

 

Ed is going to be about the same as Gordon Brown in the debates imho, he just hasn't got the delivery

Yes, obviously the pension announcement was to keep the pensioners happy - but you need them already Craig, you are effectively preaching to the already converted! The key issue here though is can you not see how reckless and potentially damaging the 'triple-lock' could be for the public finances? The deficit that the coalition seem so ever so keen to remove, to "Balance the books by 2015... er, wait, 2018.. er wait, never".

 

Pensions spending is already at 27% of total spending at £139bn and the state pension cost to the taxpayer will rise unsustainably without action being taken - inevitably rising about 100% of national income and leading to a huge problem in the next 10-15 years as the number of pensioners continues to outstrip the growth in the number of employees.

 

Ironically the best way of supplementing the pensions deficit is to encourage more immigrants to live, work and pay their taxes in the UK, but of course that would defect more voters to UKIP (from Tory). Behind the scenes it seems Osborne is losing favour with his peers- not surprising given that Osborne isn't up to the job, and his policies are making things much worse, and that the only reason that he is there is because he is a good 'pal' of 'call me Dave's.

 

Pensioners deserve a good standard of living in their old age, the state pension is already too low, should be £200 a week

 

 

Taking into account the likelyhood of continued growth all the time between now and next election, protest voters returning to the fold from UKIP, incumbency effect for existing tory mp's and Ed being a terrible orator in the election tv debates i think the result will be

 

Tory 39%

Labour 31%

Lib Dem 12%

UKIP 9%

Others 9%

 

 

It's been shown a million times that Labour stand to gain almost as much from a UKIP decline as the Tories, so how exactly you expect them to lose almost a quarter of their current polling figures I have no idea.

 

If I were being cynical:

 

Labour 36%

Tories 32%

UKIP 12%

Lib Dems 11%

Others 9%

 

According to Electoral Calculus that gives a seat breakdown according to universal swing of (Craig's in brackets):

 

Labour 346 (266)

Tories 253 (340)

Lib Dems 23 (16)

Others 28 (28)

 

Oh good, I've been waiting for an excuse to do a detailed prediction!

 

As of now, I would predict the next election to be something like this:

 

Labour 37%

Conservatives 34%

UKIP 13% (which I think would probably get a few MPs)

Lib Dems 10% (I still maintain people are overestimating them)

 

 

Small majority for Labour of about 25-30. Even I don't think a Labour landslide is at all possible, because opinions anti-Labour feeling is too entrenched for that to happen. But equally anti-Tory opinion is too entrenched for them to get a majority UNLESS turnout is pitiful and they get in by default.

Craig, why do you assume that Ed will be so dreadful in the election debates? The people who run Labour's focus groups find almost unanimously that when swing voters in their groups see Ed for about two minutes they just think 'oh god, not that weirdo intellectual with the Marxist dad again'. If they see him for a little longer - say, about twenty minutes - they start to soften up and think 'actually, he's not as bad as we thought'. A TV debate of about ninety minutes with the reduced expectations that Ed will doubtless have going into it will almost certainly have him coming out of it well - especially as he gets far better reviews when he does Q&As and debates rather than speeches, where he normally comes off stilted and inauthentic.

 

Granted, having to rely on the TV debates going ahead to change perceptions of Ed isn't really a sign of strength on Labour's part.

 

And what the hell at Cameron being 'by far the best orator in politics today'?! :lol: He's hardly bloody OBAMA! Especially when you consider the 'best orator in politics today' likely would've won more than one and a half election debates (losing the first, drawing the second with Clegg and winning the third). And when even by the standards of the Westminster media (which almost universally favours Cameron over Ed) he doesn't even win PMQs most of the time - it tends to be a dull draw with him just insulting Ed. Hardly the sort of thing that voters will go wild for if he repeats it in the debates.

 

The last bit is crucial imo. As I've said before, the Conservatives' tactic of just insulting Ed Miliband will backfire badly in the debates I think. The last debates, and the reactions from the panels of swing voters, showed what people hate the most is when politicians get into slanging matches. Cameron's best asset at the moment is that, on a personal level, people think he's a nice guy and "statesmanlike" (even though they think he's out of touch and they don't like his policies); if he spends the debates just barking "you're weak! you're rubbish!" at Ed Miliband then even that asset is gone.

The last bit is crucial imo. As I've said before, the Conservatives' tactic of just insulting Ed Miliband will backfire badly in the debates I think. The last debates, and the reactions from the panels of swing voters, showed what people hate the most is when politicians get into slanging matches. Cameron's best asset at the moment is that, on a personal level, people think he's a nice guy and "statesmanlike" (even though they think he's out of touch and they don't like his policies); if he spends the debates just barking "you're weak! you're rubbish!" at Ed Miliband then even that asset is gone.

And you JUST KNOW that Craig would call it as a win *.*

Oh good, I've been waiting for an excuse to do a detailed prediction!

 

As of now, I would predict the next election to be something like this:

 

Labour 37%

Conservatives 34%

UKIP 13% (which I think would probably get a few MPs)

Lib Dems 10% (I still maintain people are overestimating them)

Small majority for Labour of about 25-30. Even I don't think a Labour landslide is at all possible, because opinions anti-Labour feeling is too entrenched for that to happen. But equally anti-Tory opinion is too entrenched for them to get a majority UNLESS turnout is pitiful and they get in by default.

With uniform swing that'd give a majority of 32.

 

What are you defining as a majority, 100 or more? That's completely out of the question I agree, but I can see it touching 50 if inflation stays high enough for people to be still feeling the pinch in a big way.

On the UK stage i would say Cameron is the best public speaker, not on Obama level but certainly the best imho since Michael Heseltine for the tory party and not far off Blair level

No he's really not. I keep saying this, but there is a very good reason the SNP have a majority. Both Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon wipe the floor with Camoron without even trying. I saw Nicola speak just yesterday and she was incredible. Great delivery, passionate and very funny. The lights in the hall turned off a couple of times and she took that in her stride joking about it each time. During the Q&A session she gave honest answers to every question. Not ONCE did she do what Cameron and Osbourne are experts at and answer with something unrelated, another question, or just not answering in the slightest.

Very interesting report on Newsnight before, saying the Tories might introduce a huge increase in the minimum wage.

 

That would be a masterstroke if it happens, since Labour, as predicted, completely blew the opportunity to make something of their pathetically timid "policy" on the living wage.

It would be a masterstroke. Particularly as it's the exact kind of policy Conservative modernisation was supposed to go for - reassuring voters that the Tories aren't just out to screw less well-off people for the sake of fetishising those up top. It doesn't help that it's very much a 'Nixon goes to China' policy though - only a Tory government could get away with doing that without much criticism. Not that I don't think increasing the minimum wage is something that a Labour government shouldn't just grit its teeth and do anyway, but Osbourne has far more leeway to do this without business screaming the house down.

 

As it goes though, I imagine most leaders who'd made a big song and dance of youth unemployment would be pretty averse to a compulsory living wage policy estimated to increase it by 300,000 (or rather reduce the demand for about 300,000 low skilled low pay young workers). It's OK to go for a policy like that at a time when the economy's booming and most employers can manage. Going for something for the sake of election message clarity when you can alleviate any poor consequences by adding nuance (like, say, differentiating between employer profits, or encouraging less well-off employers through tax credit share returns) is something that makes pretty irresponsible politics IMO.

It would be a masterstroke. Particularly as it's the exact kind of policy Conservative modernisation was supposed to go for - reassuring voters that the Tories aren't just out to screw less well-off people for the sake of fetishising those up top. It doesn't help that it's very much a 'Nixon goes to China' policy though - only a Tory government could get away with doing that without much criticism. Not that I don't think increasing the minimum wage is something that a Labour government shouldn't just grit its teeth and do anyway, but Osbourne has far more leeway to do this without business screaming the house down.

 

Again though, this is where I disagree that that would even be a problem. I actually think howls of outrage from business leaders would make it more popular if anything. So many New Labour people, led by Ed Balls (who is getting closer to Dan Hodges levels of catastrophically bad political judgement by the day, the latest example being his cringeworthy response to Osborne's cuts thing yesterday), seem to think business leaders are still treated as gods by the general public, when actually, they're almost twice as distrusted than trusted. Ed Miliband having the balls to stand up to them and ignore their howls of outrage would do far more for his PR image than gratuitously insulting trade union leaders would do (who are, according to that poll, more trusted than business leaders even among the public at large, let alone among Labour supporters).

Small businesses should be exempt from the increased minimum wage, last thing we need is a load of small businesses closing down

 

Plus the minimum wage should be regional to reflect the cost of living, much higher in London than say Newcastle or Liverpool where everything is much cheaper

Small businesses should be exempt from the increased minimum wage, last thing we need is a load of small businesses closing down

 

Plus the minimum wage should be regional to reflect the cost of living, much higher in London than say Newcastle or Liverpool where everything is much cheaper

It's a shame no one's thought of that yet.

It's a shame no one's thought of that yet.

 

Again as long as small businesses are exempt then why not, if it is going to get welfare budget down by less reliance on in work benefits it is less of my tax money shelled out

Small businesses should be exempt from the increased minimum wage, last thing we need is a load of small businesses closing down

 

Plus the minimum wage should be regional to reflect the cost of living, much higher in London than say Newcastle or Liverpool where everything is much cheaper

 

Again, this was all said about the minimum wage, and it turned out it wasn't true then either. Besides, the argument that it would hold back the economy would cut little ice with most people I think - this is what I was talking about in the previous post, the idea that the elites have got together and decided certain things are out of the question solely "for the greater good" of the economy is one of the biggest things that's driving disillusionment with politics, and UKIP's rise. As an example, look at that documentary on immigration yesterday, it showed a huge number of people who recognise immigration is good for the economy STILL want it to be cut. People have little time for the argument that we should decide what happens to this country purely on the basis of what makes numbers on a spreadsheet look the best.

 

**

 

By-election coming up in Wythenshawe and Sale East in Trafford after the sitting Labour MP died. They had a 19% lead last time over the Conservatives so it SHOULDN'T be too difficult. From what I know of the area, I'm not sure it's particularly fertile territory for UKIP either; it's suburban and relatively affluent, whereas UKIP do best in rural and working class places.

Edited January 8, 201411 yr by Danny

Again, this was all said about the minimum wage, and it turned out it wasn't true then either. Besides, the argument that it would hold back the economy would cut little ice with most people I think - this is what I was talking about in the previous post, the idea that the elites have got together and decided certain things are out of the question solely "for the greater good" of the economy is one of the biggest things that's driving disillusionment with politics, and UKIP's rise. As an example, look at that documentary on immigration yesterday, it showed a huge number of people who recognise immigration is good for the economy STILL want it to be cut. People have little time for the argument that we should decide what happens to this country purely on the basis of what makes numbers on a spreadsheet look the best.

 

**

 

By-election coming up in Wythenshawe and Sale East in Trafford after the sitting Labour MP died. They had a 19% lead last time over the Conservatives so it SHOULDN'T be too difficult. From what I know of the area, I'm not sure it's particularly fertile territory for UKIP either; it's suburban and relatively affluent, whereas UKIP do best in rural and working class places.

 

Even if 1 small business goes under it is one too many and at least 1 more person needing benefits

 

Tesco, Asda, Vodafone, NEXT etc, no excuse not to pay a living wage, they can easily afford it, but a small business should not be forced to pay it

Small businesses should be exempt from the increased minimum wage, last thing we need is a load of small businesses closing down

 

Plus the minimum wage should be regional to reflect the cost of living, much higher in London than say Newcastle or Liverpool where everything is much cheaper

We are not the united states of america. We should not have a two tier system in place that places people working for small firms at a disadvantage. Everyone should pay the living wage and small business should get help from the government to pay the extra through reduced employment taxes and tax credits.

 

You fail to overlook the fact that small businesses will be force to pay the higher rate regardless to actually get staff. The scaremongering like 'business will close down' happened when the minimum wage was first introduced and amounted to jack shit. So kindly drop that unsubstantiated nonsense.

Even if 1 small business goes under it is one too many and at least 1 more person needing benefits

I wouldn't hear you complain if one person got their house repossessed because their pathetic wage wasn't enough to pay their bills. Or even thousands.

 

Wythenshawe & Sale East is only down the road from me, Paul Goggins was my nearest Labour MP. I'd assume it will be a fairly comfortable win with UKIP second, although the Tories will do better than in some of the by-elections over the last eighteen months. It's a mix between suburban lower middle class in Sale and what used to be Europe's biggest council estate in Wythenshawe, so there's a bit more of a base for the two Coalition parties than in the likes of South Shields.

After writing a long-arse article which during research involved parsing the difficulties that the Conservatives face in winning the next election, I have considered and am now certain enough that I'm going to place this foolhardy bet sixteen months out from the election:

 

I bet Craig that the Conservatives will not win an overall majority in 2015. If they once again do not win an overall majority, Craig is to change his name permanently to Dunning-Kruger :D

 

If they do win an overall majority, I will do likewise. (But that will probably be the least of my concerns if that happens.)