Misleading question because it doesn't include the most popular option, "I don't care whether the deficit is reduced or not" http://imgsrv2.tennisuniverse.com/wtaworld/images/smilies/angel.gif

 

It's the equivalent of asking whether someone would prefer to have Tories or UKIP in government (not asking about Labour), then concluding that a landslide win for the Tories on that question means that the public overwhelmingly want them.

Edited December 17, 201410 yr by Danny

One would presume that if the 'NO MORE CUTS AT ANY COST' option were so popular then there'd be more of a preference for the tax rise options, or Don't Know.

 

In any case, the poll you cited last time had a 39-36 advantage for prioritising the deficit over not.

One would presume that if the 'NO MORE CUTS AT ANY COST' option were so popular then there'd be more of a preference for the tax rise options, or Don't Know.

 

In any case, the poll you cited last time had a 39-36 advantage for prioritising the deficit over not.

 

Not really? I never said huge tax rises would be popular! Even though I personally would have no problem with them.

Edited December 17, 201410 yr by Danny

Not really? I never said huge tax rises would be popular! Even though I personally would have no problem with them.

I never claimed you did, but if the revulsion at spending cuts was so pronounced you'd at least expect there to be more of a preference for them than tax rises - or more to the point, more people to go for the Don't Know option if they were so committed to the deficit not being an issue.

Now even the Progress Tendency's messiah Dan Hodges thinks "Red Ed" isn't being left-wing enough on spending cuts:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/e...-word-cuts.html

Edited December 19, 201410 yr by Danny

Funny that, most of them hate him! He may be the only man alive with less goodwill towards Ed than you, the number of contortions he goes through to find the worst possible interpretation of a Labour statement these days.

 

And you really didn't understand what Dan was saying, given going on about Tory cuts taking us back to the 30s is pretty much what Ed will probably be doing for the next five months - hence it's hardly 'ED'S NOT BEING LEFT WING ENOUGH'.

Funny that, most of them hate him! He may be the only man alive with less goodwill towards Ed than you, the number of contortions he goes through to find the worst possible interpretation of a Labour statement these days.

 

And you really didn't understand what Dan was saying, given going on about Tory cuts taking us back to the 30s is pretty much what Ed will probably be doing for the next five months - hence it's hardly 'ED'S NOT BEING LEFT WING ENOUGH'.

 

Eh? I must've missed this, because far as I've seen they've not been saying that at all -- they said they were going to vote for Tory spending plans and their "deficit reduction timetable" in Parliament! Or are we really sticking with message of "it's possible to make the same size cuts but have them be nice fluffy Labour cuts rather than nasty Tory cuts"?

 

Hodges is spot on (not something I thought I'd ever say) when he says that NO-ONE is ever going to believe Labour will "balance the books" so it's pointless saying they will and alienating the many people worried about the idea of yet more spending cuts while also not winning over anyone on the other side. And he's also right when he says going full-on anti-cuts would actually give them some sense of purpose and would give voters the excuse they're looking for to vote Labour -- there will have been so many people in recent years thinking "I want to vote Labour because generally I like them more than the Tories, but they're just not giving me any reasons why I should". (Which goes for avowedly left-wing people as well as more disinterested "centre-ground" people who only respond to clear-cut messages from politicians.)

Edited December 19, 201410 yr by Danny

This is interesting - the British Election Study have asked where Scottish voters perceive the parties on a left-right spectrum (0 being ultra left, 10 ultra-right). The SNP are at 3.9, Labour are at 4.1. Not the best piece of evidence for the idea that the SNP's success is because of them being a left-wing vanguard and Labour's failure is because they aren't.

Not quite as interesting as the survation poll from the other day showing SNP support above 50% more than double the labour figure. Under the Westminster poll yesterday the new leader would even lose his seat!

Assuming universal swing, that is. In practice under landslides it rarely ends up that way - increases in support are likely more concentrated in already existing SNP/independence strongholds.

 

We'll know how it's playing out anyway once Ashcroft starts doing individual constituency polls in Scotland after the new year.

This is interesting - the British Election Study have asked where Scottish voters perceive the parties on a left-right spectrum (0 being ultra left, 10 ultra-right). The SNP are at 3.9, Labour are at 4.1. Not the best piece of evidence for the idea that the SNP's success is because of them being a left-wing vanguard and Labour's failure is because they aren't.

See this is where I wish they'd tell us the median and the standard deviation for both. Would be helpful to see whether a minority saying one or the other was incredibly left or right wing was throwing the average out.

 

More boring speculation in the Times about Labour pursuing a decapitation strategy in Sheffield Hallam. National party didn't give the slightest toss about it until the Ashcroft poll and it's still not going to get the attention that a lot of less winnable target seats will.

Assuming universal swing, that is. In practice under landslides it rarely ends up that way - increases in support are likely more concentrated in already existing SNP/independence strongholds.

 

We'll know how it's playing out anyway once Ashcroft starts doing individual constituency polls in Scotland after the new year.

 

You're right that universal swing won't apply, in that it's probably going to be even worse for Labour - the SNP's heartlands voted against independence, so there's only so much further support can rise there (in fact it might even fall in a few of the seats they hold), meaning the increase will be concentrated in the pro-independence Glasgow and Central Belt.

 

More boring speculation in the Times about Labour pursuing a decapitation strategy in Sheffield Hallam. National party didn't give the slightest toss about it until the Ashcroft poll and it's still not going to get the attention that a lot of less winnable target seats will.

 

Starting to feel a bit better about the bet I put on it -- if Labour gets a majority, I think they should take it.

 

Though as ever, that's assuming Labour have policies that appeal to decent people in places like Sheffield, rather than tailoring their policies to snotty Tories in the likes of St Albans who only care about themselves.

Edited December 23, 201410 yr by Danny

Though as ever, that's assuming Labour have policies that appeal to decent people in places like Sheffield, rather than tailoring their policies to snotty Tories in the likes of St Albans who only care about themselves.

It's a constituency full of wealthy public sector workers. It's Sheffield as you think of it only by name.

It's a constituency full of wealthy public sector workers. It's Sheffield as you think of it only by name.

 

I know, but even "wealthy" people in northern cities tend to be more compassionate than people in southern shires. Would it be fair to say Sheffield Hallam is becoming "Guardianised" in the way that Liverpool Wavertree and Manchester Withington are (despite both being wealthy on the face of it)?

For as long as we use first past the post, parties will continue to target their policies at a small number of constituencies.

I know, but even "wealthy" people in northern cities tend to be more compassionate than people in southern shires. Would it be fair to say Sheffield Hallam is becoming "Guardianised" in the way that Liverpool Wavertree and Manchester Withington are (despite both being wealthy on the face of it)?

It's more that you're more likely to back an urban-based party if you live in an affluent urban area rather than a rural one, nothing to do with some kind of compassion geography.

 

For as long as we use first past the post, parties will continue to target their policies at a small number of constituencies.

I can't see it surviving this election. Unfortunately (a small proportion of) the electorate have already rejected the least problematic alternative system.

It's more that you're more likely to back an urban-based party if you live in an affluent urban area rather than a rural one, nothing to do with some kind of compassion geography.

 

It's largely "self-selection" bias to do with the ages of the people living there. I don't know about Hallam (even I have my limits to how much I talk about places I don't know much about :P ), but in Withington and Wavertree, the people who voted Tory 30-40 years ago have moved out and retired to genteel Cheshire villages or wherever, while the younger people who've replaced them there hate the Tories like most northerners under 40 do, no matter how wealthy they get.

I can't see it surviving this election. Unfortunately (a small proportion of) the electorate have already rejected the least problematic alternative system.

Bring on DUAL-MEMBER STV *.*

I want the Scottish/Welsh voting system -- we keep the good bits of the current system (i.e. decent constituency MPs with firm stances will still get elected, not bland inoffensive people that AV would've thrown up), but it still gives you a proportional outcome.

To be honest I doubt 'bland inoffensive people' would've benefited that much from AV - they'd have probably been defined much more by their party than by being inoffensive in an AV choice, and bland inoffensive people are about the last types of candidates who'd get any benefit from candidate consideration, if only because the majority of voters still do so on presidential/party lines rather than on the basis of a local candidate, and those that do decide on a local candidate decide on the basis of strong impressions rather than somebody being inoffensive.

 

But it's all conjecture anyway.