The Fourth Lectern - A 2010 Election TL

AndyC

AndyC

Donor
Politicalbetting.com, 24th April 2010

Mixed Messages from OCM and ComRes

Code: 
[FONT=Courier New]ICM Sunday Telegraph          23rd April    19th April[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][COLOR=#1f497d]Conservatives[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Courier New]                    25           31[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][COLOR=red]Labour[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Courier New]                           24           31[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][COLOR=#ffc000]Lib Dems[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Courier New]                         21           18[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][COLOR=#5f497a]UKIP[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Courier New]                             20           13[/FONT]
Code: 
[FONT=Courier New]ComRes S. Mirror/IoS          24th April    20th April[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][COLOR=red]Labour[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Courier New]                           24           28[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][COLOR=#5f497a]UKIP[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Courier New]                             23           18 [/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][COLOR=#1f497d]Conservatives[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Courier New]                    22           30[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][COLOR=#ffc000]Lib Dems[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Courier New]                         21           17  [/FONT]
But UKIP and the Lib Dems progress with both

So our first two polls for tomorrow's Sunday papers are out and provide mixed messages for the blues, but good news for the purples and yellows.
For the key developments are that the UKIP bubble hasn’t burst and the lift from the first debate is being sustained – and that the Lib Dems are no longer being squeezed.
​
Cameron will feel very uncomfortable with the ComRes 22% share - that’s getting very low indeed and there must be concern that supporters could switch to Tim Congdon’s party in wholesale fashion.

UPDATED – YouGov and MORI report in with very different messages

Code: 
[FONT=Courier New]YouGov Daily Poll - S. Times   24th April    223rd April[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][COLOR=#ffc000]Lib Dems[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Courier New]                         25           22[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][COLOR=#5f497a]UKIP[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Courier New]                             23           21[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][COLOR=#1f497d]Conservatives[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Courier New]                    22           25[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][COLOR=red]Labour[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Courier New]                           22           24[/FONT]
Code: 
[FONT=Courier New]MORI- News of the World       23rd April    19th April[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][COLOR=red]Labour[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Courier New]                           25           27[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][COLOR=#1f497d]Conservatives[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Courier New]                    24           29[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][COLOR=#5f497a]UKIP[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Courier New]                             21           18 [/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][COLOR=#ffc000]Lib Dems[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Courier New]                         20           16[/FONT]
Who's first and who's fourth - Labour or the Lib Dems?

646 Comments to “Mixed messages from ComRes and ICM”

1. Tories in a right state with Comedy Results – but I definitely believe ICM over them!
Ceefax

2. UKIP ahead of the Tories? That’s Cameron’s own fault for being such a gaylording ponceyboots over the Lisbon referendum.
TomK

3. Does anyone have any clue how these would turn into seats? gbpaul

4. So how come the Tories are still going down? Didn't they win the second debate? ROFL
Gibber

5. So no Lib Dem squeeze coming up - Tory squeeze instead. From three directions at the same time!
Mark Junior

6. ComRes: Roguey McRogue from Rogueland.
TedP

7. So why are UKIP still going up? It's not like Congdon did another stormer, but the Congasm continues.
The Howling Hawks

...

22. Gibber at 4: Let me guess - Lib/Lab majority!?
Tom Sykes

...

29. THH at 7 - because Congdon just needed to stay credible. The damage was already done.
gbpaul

...

37, Tom at 22 – would the Lib Dems really want to go in with Labour, especially if Labour had been rejected by the electorate?
Robert Nastravi

…

55. Actually, I reckon Cable would want to go in with Labour and Clegg with the Tories – ironically because Brown would never let a Lib dem into the Treasury and Cameron would hate to have a europhile like Clegg in the Foreign Office. I don’t know which way Huhne would prefer to jump, which is probably for the best.
bodily

…

77. TedP – even if it’s a rogue, it can change the narrative. One or two more with UKIP ahead of the Tories, and the Tories could get squeezed.
Tom Sykes

…

421. UPDATE - YouGov and MORI report in. YouGov have Labour just behind the Tories in fourth place before rounding
Mike Smithson

422. Yougov and MORI? WTF? I mean, seriously, WTF?
TomK

423. And there’s that second UKIP lead over the Conservatives I was talking about.
Tom Sykes

424. YouGov you are seriously shitting me!
The Howling Hawks

425. Lib Dem lead? Labour fourth? If the ComRes was rogue, whatinhell is this?
gbpaul

…
 
Last edited:

The Red

Yeah this is going to be chaotic to say the least, I tried to put the results of those polls into Electoral Calculus, and although this result will be inaccurate that's Labour having the most seats but UKIP gain around 60-100 seats...

The whole election night of this TL is going to be very exciting indeed!
 
iainbhx

iainbhx

Chaotic isn't the word for it, this is the FPTP Twilight Zone.

I just put all those polls into UK-Elect, I set it to no tactical voting, one round of calculations and combined swing (UNS+Ratio 50:50). Exactly the same configuration for all 4 polls.

ICM

Lab 281 Con 215 LDm 92 UKIP 32

ComRes

Lab 209 Con 143 UKIP 102 LDm 99

YouGov

UKIP 166 LDm 163 Lab 161 Con 126

MORI

Lab 320 Con 205 LDm 88 UKIP 3
 
AndyC

AndyC

Donor
From an interview with election expert James Cortiss on News 24, 27th April, 2010

Interviewer: A lot of people are asking why no-one seems to know what actual result the polls are pointing to. Electoral experts keep saying that it's almost impossible to know how many seats the four parties will get from these polls and therefore who is going to win. If it's a hung Parliament - as looks increasingly probable - which combinations might be on the cards. Professor Cortiss, could you tell us why?

JC: Well, it’s down to our electoral system, usually called by the misleading name “First Past the Post”. It’s comparatively easy to forecast results in a 2-way contest, such as in the Fifties and Sixties, where a Uniform Swing applied to the results usually got answers to within a handful of seats.

Int: But things started going wrong for that in the Seventies and Eighties, then?

JC: Yes. As soon as a third party comes along, it gets more complicated. Things were okay for a while on the predictability front until the third party started “clumping” its support in targeted seats – an ever-changing number of seats started to fail to follow the Uniform Swing. Add to that the fact that Labour and the Conservatives have their core votes react in different ways at different levels of support and we have a recipe for things to get more chaotic.

Int: More chaotic?

JC: Fundamentally unpredictable. By the last few elections predictions needed so many extra parameters – whether the seat was urban or rural, where in the country it was, what was the demographic composition of the electorate …

Int: “Demographic composition”. I’m afraid you’ll have to explain.

JC: How many young people versus middle aged people and older people, white collar workers versus unemployed versus professionals, ethnic profiles – even the sexuality profile of the people living there.

Int: And doing this makes it predictable?

JC: To a degree. Even incumbency – whether the sitting MP is standing again or not – and the marginality of a seat comes into it. From the published opinion polls, you’re still doing well to get an error of less than fifty seats or so. Within thirty is excellent.

Int: Fifty seats!?

JC: Yes. Bear in mind that a majority is double the number of seats you have past the threshold of 325, a near landslide majority of ninety could be mispredicted as a hung Parliament. Or vice versa.

Int: Woah. That’s a big error margin.

JC: Yes – well, that’s assuming all of the errors go in one direction, which actually isn’t as improbable as it sounds. The exit polls that have been developed should be far, far more accurate, though, as they contain measurements and allowances for all of those factors. We aim to get within five seats. Except this year.

Int: A fourth party.

JC: Exactly. Moreover, one where we have minimal background on whether or not the support is concentrated or spread out – the demographic breakdown of their support is less easy than we’d thought. There’s now even a sizeable student vote to the UKIP surge due to the proposed return to a student grant plus “Student Vouchers”. They’ve got considerable support from ex-Conservative and ex-Labour supporters and even in some regions, many ex-Lib Dems. This could cause considerable and unpredictable local clumping of support.

Int: Can you tell us anything useful.

JC: At current levels of support, almost anything could happen. If UKIP’s support is fairly uniform, like the Alliance vote in the Eighties – and this is the most likely scenario – UKIP could get lots of second places but very few wins. If they’ve stolen “clumps” of votes in the right places, they could clean up. Either way, a key question would be how will they affect the support of the other parties? I’d hate to guess. There’s an argument to say that Labour should hold on best – but some analyses shows that a lot of the surge is coming from white working class voters, who are behind a lot of Labour’s strongholds. The Conservatives, of course, are losing considerable support to UKIP, but is it in their heartlands? And there is far more overlap between the Lib Dem vote and the UKIP vote than the Lib Dems would like to admit – the so-called “protest vote”. It’s almost impossible to say.

Int: Any chance of a UKIP win?

JC: Not unless they get a decent overall lead. Say into the thirties. There have been two polls showing UKIP in the lead with 25% of the vote - that wouldn't be nearly enough for them. Most likely scenario is that they split the right-wing vote and let Labour through the middle. And a word of warning – I wouldn’t expect today's polls to be very close to the final result.

Int: Thank you, Professor Cortiss.

The lights fade and they take off their microphones

JC: How was that?

Int: Not bad – a bit technical, maybe, but it should do.
 
AndyC

AndyC

Donor
Well, I've been changing names a bit on the pbc front, so I thought maybe I should slightly fictionalise some of the other characters. Not the main political players, of course, but someone independent like John Curtice, certainly. Especially seeing as something's going to come out about this interview in a future update.
 
AndyC

AndyC

Donor
From: No longer singing the Blues, by Jenny Rodgers

Steve Hilton: The week between the second and third debates was the one where we had to change tack. We’d been concentrating on selling our positive messages – the Big Society, the Invitation to the People of Britain – and using them to fight Labour. We’d tried brushing UKIP off as a distracting irrelevance, but they kept growing. Despite David’s excellent performance in the second debate – using “square” themes in the background at CCHQ was a master-stroke on my part, I thought, and I don’t think David even noticed. Subliminal messages are always the best. But Congdon’s Party kept growing even stronger. All the analyses showed them hitting us worse than the other parties, our positive messages weren't working - so we knew we had to change direction. That’s when I had my brainwave.

Andy Coulson: I’ve occasionally viewed Steve’s “good ideas” with some scepticism, but this one was a doozy. He understood that the best story is often one close to the truth. If you can use the truth to carry your message, it can get easier to sell, because independent experts will back you up. If you can play your cards right, you can get independent experts to sell your line for you. Our line was “vote for us, not UKIP, if you want to kick Brown out of Downing Street”. Or in poster terms, “Vote Purple, get Brown”. But we needed to unleash that after the ground was prepared, and we had very little time. We’d found out that the Beeb and Sky were fascinated by the dynamics of the polls-to-seats conversions and realized that they’d be asking experts to explain.

So Steve simply contacted each of the experts shortly before they went on and asked them to tell us in CCHQ how badly we’d be hit by the UKIP surge. Each of them told us what we already knew and explained in detail that we’d be worst hit and that votes for Congdon would probably let Labour through the middle. After he’d ensured that this was prominent in their minds before they were questioned, he thanked them politely and watched the interviews.

It worked. Every one of them stressed independently and without being asked (asking them directly to do this would have had “negative outcomes”, as Steve would say) that UKIP votes would help Labour. It prepared the ground for us perfectly and we launched the “Vote Purple, Get Brown” campaign on the morning before the third debate.
 
AndyC

AndyC

Donor
From politicalbetting.com, morning of 29th April 2010

“Will the last ditch Tory campaign save the Blues’ blushes?”

Vote Purple Get Brown.

Was it just bad luck that this was released just as today’s Harris poll for the Metro shows UKIP in first place? Can CCHQ’s anti-UKIP campaign work – or is it too late?

Code: 
[FONT=Courier New]Harris/Metro  28 April   25 April[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][COLOR=DarkOrchid]UKIP             [/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Courier New]24         22
[/FONT] [FONT=Courier New][COLOR=Red]Labour           [/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Courier New]23         24
[/FONT] [FONT=Courier New][COLOR=Blue]Conservatives    [/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Courier New]22         24
[/FONT] [FONT=Courier New][COLOR=SandyBrown]Lib Dems [/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Courier New]        22         23 [/FONT]
And the Lib Dems continue to resist the squeeze.


433 Comments to “Will the last-ditch Tory campaign save the Blues’ blushes?”

1. Isn’t the answer always “No”?
gbpaul

2. They’re right though, aren’t they?
The Howling Hawks

3. Guys – UKIP in the lead? Aren’t we missing the point?
Petra the Puntress

4. What does UNS say on these figures?
TomK

5. Although I must admit the temptation is huge, they are, sadly, completely correct. To vote UKIP right now would be to let Labour back in. Unless UKIP peak up past 30%, of course, then all bets are off. Let’s see what tonight’s debate brings.
Sam Far

6. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
TedP

7. Sleazy broken Tories – and Labour – on the slide. The only hope is to vote Jacobite!
JamesW
 
AndyC

AndyC

Donor
Just prior to the third and final debate, Gordon Brown failed to remove his microphone after a walkabout in Rochdale:

"GB: That was a disaster. Sue should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that?
JF: I don't know, I didn't see her.
GB : Sue’s I think. Just ridiculous...
JF : What did she say?
GB : Everything, she was just a sort of bigoted woman who said she used to be Labour. I mean, it's just ridiculous. Sue pushed her up towards me."

Frantic damage limitation from the Labour Party failed to quell outrage from the media, giving Brown a terrible day’s preparation for the debate.

From: No longer singing the Blues by Jenny Rodgers

Steve Hilton: Well, the final debate went quite well for us, until the summing-up statement. Our focus groups had given David some ammunition and advice, and he was definitely in the lead at the end of the debate. Congdon flopped due to his bad start, according to the on-screen “worm”, Brown didn’t do too badly and Huhne was flatfooted by Brown’s summing-up. A very dangerous gamble for Labour, but I suppose they had to roll the dice.

Andy Coulson: It must have been Mandelson. God knows how he convinced Brown to do it – without the Bigot-gate thing, there’s no way he’d have agreed. He had to be desperate – that could so easily have backfired. He’d seen how the Liberals were building support in the polls – the “I agree with Chris” thing in the first debate looked bloody silly now; he was leaking white working class votes to UKIP and had lost some to us, so it was their only hope. Seize the high ground on the “progressive consensus” side of things. And, incidentally, shaft us as much as they could in the process by making UKIP as much our problem as possible. I reckon that may well have been the clinching factor for Brown.
 
Last edited:

thevaliant

What with Iain's 'Balls' TL (sadly slowed at the moment) and now this one, I'm really enjoying the ATL 2010 election threads coming at the moment.

Keep up the good work and keep mentioning PB!
 
AndyC

AndyC

Donor
thevaliant - many thanks!
The Balls timeline and the For Want of A Debate timeline were the ones that inspired me to write one (well, they brought me to AH.com in the first place, thanks to stodge posting the details on PB).

PB will get at least a couple more entries as we get closer to polling day, I promise.

(No one seems to have yet noticed that the main book on the election that I'm quoting was - in this timeline - written by Morus. I figured he wouldn't mind being the impartial author of the definitive record)
 
AndyC

AndyC

Donor
From A Highly Unusual Election, by Greg Callus

The final debate was surprisingly infertile ground for Tim Congdon. After starting brightly with a first question on how each party would fund their proposals to tackle the deficit, an audience member called out the question as to how UKIP would pay for their manifesto if their EU exit referendum failed. Despite the question potentially breaking the debate rules – unsolicited interjections were strictly off-limits – Congdon started answering before Dimbleby could cut off the interjection. To be fair, ignoring the question would have been damaging in any case.

His reply was unconvincing and it overshadowed the rest of the debate, to Cameron’s benefit. Lasting for two hours instead of ninety minutes like the previous debates, it had been extended to cope with the extra time consumed by having four instead of three protagonists. There had been complaints that a number of important questions had not been covered in the earlier debates due to time running out; this was not to happen in the final debate.

The remaining topics covered – taxation, banking, housing, industry, immigration and benefits abuse - should have been ideal territory for Congdon, but the earlier awkward question cast a long shadow. Nevertheless, Congdon played his hand as well as he could under the circumstances. The biggest event, however, came in the summing up. Gordon Brown had the final word and he used it to stunning effect, with an unconditional offer of Coalition to the Liberal Democrats. He emphasised that even if he obtained a majority, there would be at least two seats in Cabinet reserved for Lib Dems.

His statement that it came down to a fight between the progressive elements and the reactionary ones, that it was really between Labour and the Lib Dems on one side and the Tories and UKIP on the other – and that UKIP were showing signs of gaining a large hold over any minority Conservative administration – was totally unexpected. On the face of it, it legitimised the Lib Dem cry for votes as well as UKIP’s, but at a deeper level and in the language being rolled out by Conservative posters, it was saying “Vote Brown, get Yellow/Red”.

It was a huge gamble, but opinion polls in the final week showed that former Lab-Lib switchers were being tempted back strongly. Even the Bigot-gate incident helped in this – a number of liberal-leaning bloggers commented that the apology was the most unwelcome part about the entire incident and it made actually made Brown look a more appealing figure to some on the liberal left. By legitimising UKIP as an influence on the Conservatives should UKIP seats be delivered at the election, it also provided a backhanded encouragement for the right wing vote to split.

“We have made mistakes, and these have often been illiberal ones. We urge progressive voters to give us a chance in tandem with the Liberals. Please ensure that the Conservative/UKIP alternative is kept out of office. Chris will, I’m sure, keep his options open, and rightly so, but we all know that it will come down to Labour and the Lib Dems against the Conservatives and the quickly growing forces of UKIP. We know that right-leaning voters will give enough support to UKIP to get a strong hold over the potential right-wing Government and I truly feel that this would be bad for this country which I love. Vote for Labour, and you will get a Labour/Lib Dem Government”
 

The Red

Brown's played a bit of a blinder here, even if it's just because he's caused the other three parties to have a collective stroke!

By the way, how are UKIP doing in the campaign outside the debates, I guess they can't have much more money than OTL?
 

Alberto Knox

Perhaps the most terrifying thing in this TL is that it now seems Brown might stay in power after 2010...

Excellent work by the way Andy. Just recently discovered this TL and have been enjoying it immensely. Keep up the good work.
 
AndyC

AndyC

Donor
The Red said:
Brown's played a bit of a blinder here, even if it's just because he's caused the other three parties to have a collective stroke!

By the way, how are UKIP doing in the campaign outside the debates, I guess they can't have much more money than OTL?
Click to expand...

You're right - Wheeler has made some more money available, and as they can reasonably assume that they won't lose anywhere near the number of deposits that they'd have orignially budgetted for, they can increase the ground war somewhat, but only in some areas. It's mainly an "air war" campaign based on higher media attention and the debates.

My rationale for the Brown offer is that the existence of the threat to the Tory right from UKIP means that as well as gambling on retaining as much Lib Dem tactical voting as possible and even getting (hopefully) some Lib Dem-Labour swappers, the polarising effect of the offer could really screw the Tories. Which would be enough to take him past the threhold of high caution that he often displayed. As with Andy Coulson, I assume the hand of the Prince of Darkness taking an "insurgency" opportunity that's presented itself.
 
AndyC

AndyC

Donor
Alberto Knox said:
Perhaps the most terrifying thing in this TL is that it now seems Brown might stay in power after 2010...

Excellent work by the way Andy. Just recently discovered this TL and have been enjoying it immensely. Keep up the good work.
Click to expand...

Alberto - many thanks. There are still a couple of twists left before polling day, as well :)
 
Meadow

Meadow

Just caught up with this. Excellent! A very believable set of circumstances and yet another indictment of the debate system in the UK. Not shoehorning Farage back into the leadership was a mature decision on your part, it's been good to explore Congdon and, if UKIP do end up a major parliamentary party now to see what Nigel will do from the backbenches (or the sidelines, if Bercow holds).

It's outcomes like this that make me pray that the TV debate experiment is over. It didn't work in 2010, and in all three 2010 ATLs on the board we've seen skewed outcomes, crazy polling and voters given the wrong idea of what they're voting for. That's got to count for something, even if it is fiction! ;)
 
AndyC

AndyC

Donor
Thanks, Meadow.

While reading up on it, I was surprised to find such a credible potential leader of UKIP in the running. Whatinhell were UKIP thinking of?

"With Nigel stepping down for his quixotic campaign against Bercow ..."

"Good work, Nigel!"

"... we have a vacancy. In this election which will be dominated by the economy, shall we put forward a respected and credible economist from the Thatcher/Major era who was known as "One of the Treasury Wise Men" or an inarticulate hereditary upper-class peer who know one's ever heard of?"

"Stupid question! The Peer, of course."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top