Bollitics: VT General Election Poll #6 - Leaders Debate 3

[tonyh29]

BBC Article from 2005

John Curtice, professor of politics at Strathclyde University, said tactical voting played an "important" role in the last two elections.

(that would be 97 and 2001 )

People who vote tactically are those who like both the Liberal Democrats and Labour and hate the Conservatives. There were lots of those in 1997 and 2001 - the polling evidence is that there are far fewer of them now," he said

Guardian 2001 talking about 97

All sides now agree that in 1997 deliberate switching by anti-Tory voters from Labour to the Liberal Democrats, or vice versa, succeeded in grabbing seats the Conservatives had only held thanks to a divided opposition.

In 1997, the country wanted to rid itself of the Conservatives: determination to achieve that end was so great, voters paid attention to leaflets and polls showing what they had to do in their constituency

some stat web site

The evidence tends to suggest that the Tories suffered the most from tactical voting

of course there will be websites that counter this view but since when was anything ever cut and dried ...

[tonyh29]

maybe it just proves that 65% of people don't ever want a tory govt and are willing to vote for a lesser evil to ensure such an outcome.

which by your logic on the latest poll suggests that 72% don't want the lib dems and 73 % don't want Labour so the point was ?

[Gringo]

some stat web site

The evidence tends to suggest that the Tories suffered the most from tactical voting

of course there will be websites that counter this view but since when was anything ever cut and dried ...

That was the first one I found on google as well..to give the full quote...

Why did Labour win?

Labour benefited by:

• Internal reforms, for example, some reduction in trade union power; One Member One Vote

• John Smith’s death in 1994 allowed creation of New Labour by the more modernising Blair - notably, abandonment of Clause IV in 1995

• Rapid centralisation of party and presentation around leader and spin-doctors at Millbank election headquarters and a highly polished campaign

• Abandonment of traditional socialist - or even social democratic - principles and acceptance of market economics, low inflation and interest rates, cuts in taxation, spending and welfare. Pre-election commitment to maintain existing tax levels for a five-year term and present spending levels for two years, ‘welfare to work’, tough law and order especially for juvenile offenders. Difficult for the Conservatives to criticise what were, largely, their own policies

• Desire for power, combined with growing party discipline, largely silenced left-wing Labour dissidents. The campaign was hit by no major blows from the extreme left which could have de-stabilised the election effort. Europe was not an obviously contentious issue as it was for the Tories.

• New, radical proposals for constitutional reform

Lack of ‘clear blue water’ between the two main parties threatened to squeeze the Liberal Democrats but - despite a lower vote than in 1992 - they won over twice as many seats due to careful targeting of their limited resources and skilful tactical voting by anti-Conservative voters.

From the above, it is safe to conclude that Labour will win the next election. It is a safe bet……………or is it ?

One of the main things that came out of the 1997 election was voter volatility. If it happened in 1997, then it could happen in 2001. The number of people who changed support from the 1992 election to the 1997 election has been as high as 23% by NOP. This is an increase of 2% from the 1987 election. If this trend is continued, as many as 25% may change their voting allegiance in 2001.

In 1997, Labour had very strong representation amongst the 18 to 29 years old age group. If this group feels significantly let down by the last 5 years of Labour government, it could turn against Blair. In the 5 years from 1992 to 1995, the Tories lost 18% support among this group while Labour won 19% from this group.The evidence tends to suggest that the Tories suffered the most from tactical voting

The Tories suffered in 1997 from the electoral system. If the Tories had got the number of seats that their percentage of votes in each constituency represented, then the overall Labour majority would have been cut to 131 - still very large from a Parliamentary perspective. Likewise, the LibDems success would have been cut to 28 seats rather than 46. But the support for the Tories is concentrated primarily in the south, whereas support for the Labour Party has expanded away from the traditional areas associated with the Labour Party. But expansion can always lead to contraction and tactical voting in 1997 might not repeat itself in 2001.

It doesn't really look like tactical voting does it - the website talks about volatile voting patterns. Out of 7 reasons given for the bliar victory, the seventh was "skilful tactical voting by anti-Conservative voters."

I refer back to my previous vote. 65% of people voted to ensure the end of the tory govt.

If we move to 2005 with the lib-dems strongest showing for decades - so obviously no tactical voting, still the tories lost.

So in 1997 and 2001 labour would have won without tactical voting and in 2005 they did just that.

The hope is that in 2010 that tactical voting will for the first time make a real difference and force a constitutional change and rob the blue and red tories of their pretend opposition and result in the people being offered a more real choice between really different parties.

Live in hope.....

[Gringo]

maybe it just proves that 65% of people don't ever want a tory govt and are willing to vote for a lesser evil to ensure such an outcome.

which by your logic on the latest poll suggests that 72% don't want the lib dems and 73 % don't want Labour so the point was ?

You were the one suggesting all the other parties were ganging up on the poor tories with their nasty tactical voting.

[tonyh29]

feel free to ignore the other examples given :-)

I recall there were lists in some newspapers in 97 that even told people how to vote in order to remove the local conservative MP ..of course other factors come into play unpopular government etc it was never suggested that tactical votes are the sole reason for winning / losing an election but one of the websites suggested the labour majority would have been about 48 seats less without the tactical voting... That may (or may not ) have had an impact on their time in office and what laws they could have passed

if you look at a seat like Rochdale with a majority of 192 it wouldn't take a lot of tactical voting to take that seat from labour .. And if that sort of tactical vote happens in enough seats that will make the difference

[TheDon]

I think we'd have seen tactical voting now if there was actually a credible alternative.

The problem isn't that people don't want to get Labour out, it's that they genuinely don't see an alternative worth bringing in instead.

[PauloBarnesi]

I think they can.

Its time to reintroduce the European Beaver and make it the dominant issue

[Jon]

Was listening to that Tory Boy political commentator on GMTV this morning. Andrew someone?

Anyhow, he does occassionally come up with some good ppoins, and his best one in ages was about Brown, and saying how the public in general just found him weird. With hsi crazy fake smile and insincere nature.

He'll be turning offf middle england in his droves, whilst Clegg is perhaps turning them on (to excuse the phrase). Labour will still have its core, as will the Conservatives, but for me it is Clegg picking up much of this middle ground support, as suggested by the polls.

The Blair 97 voters appear to be drifting over to the lib dems.

[wiganvillain]

In the "Spin" room in the aftermathof last night Paddy Asdown made (to me at least) a pertinent point about Debate 3.

As usual Gordo attacked Cameron, but Cameron attacked Clegg (generally speaking)

Could "Dave" be that worried about "wasted" votes

[Jon]

In the "Spin" room in the aftermathof last night Paddy Asdown made (to me at least) a pertinent point about Debate 3.

As usual Gordo attacked Cameron, but Cameron attacked Clegg (generally speaking)

Could "Dave" be that worried about "wasted" votes

of course he could.

Little point attacking labour. That horse has bolted.

Green Dave needs to get votes off the Lib Dems.

he is genuinely worried about their surge of support, stealing some targeted tory seats as it will.

[PauloBarnesi]

Was listening to that Tory Boy political commentator on GMTV this morning. Andrew someone?

Anyhow, he does occassionally come up with some good ppoins, and his best one in ages was about Brown, and saying how the public in general just found him weird. With hsi crazy fake smile and insincere nature.

He'll be turning offf middle england in his droves, whilst Clegg is perhaps turning them on (to excuse the phrase). Labour will still have its core, as will the Conservatives, but for me it is Clegg picking up much of this middle ground support, as suggested by the polls.

The Blair 97 voters appear to be drifting over to the lib dems.

With Brown for years he was the dour Scot; nothing wrong with that IMO, just not particularly voter friendly. As soon as he became PM, someone must have had a word, because all of a sudden he’s trying to become voter friendly (the interview with Morgan springs to mind). Both of the public school boys, are quite clearly much more voter/media friendly. Didn’t Cameron work at a PR agency??

Parties have always been aware of image and spin; Look at images of 19th C vote friendly Joseph Chamberlain, Didn’t he have an orchid every day in his buttonhole? But obviously its much more professional.

Clegg will be picking up alot of voters who voted Labour in 97, and now Lib Dems in 2010. People who read the Guardian, go abroad to France, like a fine wine, etc....

[Jon]

Clegg will be picking up alot of voters who voted Labour in 97, and now Lib Dems in 2010. People who read the Guardian, go abroad to France, like a fine wine, etc....

yup.

that is what Green Dave is afraid off.

[TrentVilla]

Clegg will be picking up alot of voters who voted Labour in 97, and now Lib Dems in 2010. People who read the Guardian, go abroad to France, like a fine wine, etc....

yup.

that is what Green Dave is afraid off.

He is afraid of people who go on holiday to France and like fine wine? wow. I can't even begin to think of a name for that phobia...

[wiganvillain]

PauloBarnesi wrote:

Clegg will be picking up alot of voters who voted Labour in 97, and now Lib Dems in 2010. People who read the Guardian, go abroad to France, like a fine wine, etc....

Definately counts Tony out then

[PauloBarnesi]

PauloBarnesi wrote:

Clegg will be picking up alot of voters who voted Labour in 97, and now Lib Dems in 2010. People who read the Guardian, go abroad to France, like a fine wine, etc....

Definately counts Tony out then

I wonder what the offspring of Tony will turn out like? Will they be true blues, or go over to the dark side.. (and I don’t mean the Armoury Show)

[bickster]

Clegg will be picking up alot of voters who voted Labour in 97, and now Lib Dems in 2010. People who read the Guardian, go abroad to France, like a fine wine, etc....

yup.

that is what Green Dave is afraid off.

He is afraid of people who go on holiday to France and like fine wine? wow. I can't even begin to think of a name for that phobia...

bickophobia obviously (he says through the fug of the morning after a bottle of 2006 Grand Cru St Emillion and is looking at options for his second week in Frnace this summer )

And yes I probably am voting a Kurious Oranj

[PauloBarnesi]

bickophobia obviously (he says through the fug of the morning after a bottle of 2006 Grand Cru St Emillion and is looking at options for his second week in Frnace this summer )

And yes I probably am voting a Kurious Oranj

Still feeling the effects? Purchased from Lidl?

And why aren’t you voting for the Beaver?????

[PauloBarnesi]

Well worth buying Private Eye this week.

[bickster]

I'll have a look at it after Time for a swim though methinks

[kidlewis]

David Cameron never answers the question. Why?

Can only assume that he knows the vast majority of us won't like the answers. Unless the tory spin boys want to give us another reason.

no one is giving answers on the deficit because if they all came clean, everyone wouldn't vote, because everyone would see tax rises left right and center and go 'forget that' and not vote.

The public say they just want to know the truth and be told, but as soon as they are told they would start 'booing and hissing'.

Public: Tell us the truth

Captain: truth is we hit an iceberg and only some of you are going to be alright.

Public: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!

that is basically what it would amount to. Constructive criticism from the public would go out the window.

Also in terms of the deficit, cable said it came about through the banking crisis and recession, surely there was already a deficit before this crisis began? and if so what was it? and if so, what assets did the government have to try and offset it?