matgb: Linkspam for 14-5-2008

(21 comments) - (Post a new comment)

	aaronace 2008-05-14 01:55 pm UTC (link)
	I read some of the Terry Goodkind books, but put them down for good when one of the opening chapters featured a demon chicken of doom... Bawk! (Reply to this) (Thread)

	matgb 2008-05-14 02:01 pm UTC (link)
	I think I got to book three or four before I gave up (a friend had the first before the second was released and kept lending them to me). I have a worrying tendency to leave my critical faculties at the door when it comes to pulp entertainment, and I just didn't notice how bad it was until I tried to reread the first book. I know better now. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

rho
2008-05-17 10:10 am UTC (link)

Having read the whole series from start to end (I have a crippling character flaw whereby I find it difficult to stop reading something half way through a series, no matter how awful), I can confirm that they only get much, much worse as they progress.

One particular "highlight" was when he spent about 30 to 40 pages on graphic depictions of rape, torture, murder and even cannibalism, just to prove how very, very bad these mean and bad people were. All with completely non-subtle commentary about how they were bad because they were religious communists.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	matgb 2008-05-17 06:12 pm UTC (link)
	I think that mayve been where I stopped reading, I definitely got to the third or possibly 4th book before just giving up. But I know what you mean about completiny series—I've only just stopped myself from buying the most recent of Anderson's Hidden Empire stuff, nice idea, so badly written—should've known really. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	dainul 2008-05-14 02:17 pm UTC (link)
	I loved that reported ufo sighting. "There's a flying object heading towards the airport! It must be aliens!"... obviously. (Reply to this)

strictlytrue
2008-05-14 02:20 pm UTC (link)

Looking at various sources and I was reminded of this result - is it possible Labour's headed for a wipeout of these proportions unless they sort themselves out?

I don't really see why; even the most pessimistic - or optimistic, depending on your point of view - projections I've seen based on the local election results don't give Cameron more than a majority of 100. I suspect that both the Tories and Labour have a bedrock of about 120 seats each that they'll have until the end of the world.

I don't, however, rule out an inversion of 1997 and a big Tory landslide. Politics is far less tribal than it was even then, and voters far more inclined to choose whichever party they feel will bring them the most advantage.

Edited at 2008-05-14 02:20 pm UTC

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	davegodfrey 2008-05-14 03:17 pm UTC (link)
	I also do not expect Li-Dem core voters to go over to the Tories as many did in 1997- or as happened with the NDP in Canada. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	matgb 2008-05-14 04:24 pm UTC (link)
	I also do not expect Li-Dem core voters to go over to the Tories Already happening :-( I've been looking at the mayoral votes, quite depressing really. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	davegodfrey 2008-05-14 04:37 pm UTC (link)
	How much of that is to do with confusion over the voting system? What is happening outside of London? Is the same level of tactical voting likely to happen as in 1997? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

matgb
2008-05-14 05:02 pm UTC (link)

How much of that is to do with confusion over the voting system?

Some, and some of it (looking at the constituency results for the GLA as well) is because of it.

Is the same level of tactical voting likely to happen as in 1997?

No, but a lower level is. Of course my long stated opinion that virtually every vote is in part a tactical vote effects this as well—if you're a small-state 'liberal capitalist' growing up in Sheffield, do you become a no-hope Tory, or a right wing Lib Dem? If you're a liberal socialist growing up in Torbay, do you waste your time with Labour? I didn't.

"Tactical" voting is just an acceleration of a natural process within FPTP and other single member constituencies anyway.

There's a lot of evidence it was happening in London, especially Camden, at the last London locals ('06) but the analysis isn't in for the most recent results yet (I hope it's being done by MVC if not I'l harass them).

(Reply to this) (Parent)

strictlytrue
2008-05-14 04:56 pm UTC (link)

Already happening :-( I've been looking at the mayoral votes, quite depressing really.

I'm not sure how that would translate nationally - Boris may well have appealed to LD voters as a way to dislodge Ken, but I suspect that the LDs will hold on to more of their constituencies than people think in 2010. They didn't too badly in the last round of local elections, after all.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

matgb
2008-05-14 05:06 pm UTC (link)

I suspect that the LDs will hold on to more of their constituencies than people think in 2010.

Oh, absolutely, the notional results based on poll extrapolations are always off, Lib Dems know how to fight and hold seats—I've no doubt they'll lose some to the Tories as Cameron is resurgent, but not as many as the polls predict—part of my "wipeout" scenario sees the gaining many many more seats from Labour, and while I don't think it's likely, I suspect they'll be up to 80+ at the next GE minimum, mostly from success in places like Sheffield and Liverpool.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	strictlytrue 2008-05-14 05:44 pm UTC (link)
	I suspect they'll be up to 80+ at the next GE minimum, mostly from success in places like Sheffield and Liverpool. I think the LDs will have to fight hard to make any net gains, but I agree with you - they know how to fight and hold seats, and I don't think Cameron will eat into their number of seats as much as many suggest. (Reply to this) (Parent)

matgb
2008-05-14 05:24 pm UTC (link)

I suspect that both the Tories and Labour have a bedrock of about 120 seats each that they'll have until the end of the world

I'm not actually sure that's anymore the case—it's not that people will desert Labour to vote elsewhere, more that the core vote simply won't turnout at all—FPTP accentuates swings like this. Example:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/seat-profiles/bassetlaw
120th safest Labour seat.

Notional 2005 Results:
Labour: 25057 (51%)
Conservative: 16932 (34.5%)
Liberal Democrat: 6828 (13.9%)
Other: 304 (0.6%)
Majority: 8126 (16.5%)

If of the 25000 that voted Labour last time, 10% swith Tory and 10% stay at home, then it's a clsoe marginal. If the Tories squeeze a 1000 of those Lib Dem votes, it's a lost seat.

Tories have finally learnt how to do vote squeeze campaigning (look at the barchart graphic, I got there via a google ad from an email alert mentioning the Lib Dems, very targetted), so that's not actually a difficult thing to acheive.

From what I can see, losing 10% of those that voted Labour last time and having another 10% stay home isn't beyond the realm of possibility.

Which, frankly, scares me. I jokingly said at the time Claire Short was expelled from the PLP that they'd missed the point, she was calling for a campaign for people to vote for Labour when she wanted a hung Parlt. It's increasingly looking like that was more of a prediction :-(

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

strictlytrue
2008-05-14 05:43 pm UTC (link)

I think you're underestimating one important thing - Labour supporters, even though they may be disappointed, hate the Tories. They'll stay at home for council elections or Euros, but when the spectre of a Tory Government arises, they'll vote Labour, particularly in heartland seats.

I expect turnout to go up in 2010 - mostly through previously disillusioned Tory voters coming back into the light, but also from a smaller number of Labour voters who didn't bother in 2005 turning out to try and stop the Tories. (Just as Ken got more votes this year than in 2004 but was overtaken by Boris.)

I think this wipeout theory is spectacularly unlikely, to be honest.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

matgb
2008-05-14 06:25 pm UTC (link)

I think you're underestimating one important thing - Labour supporters, even though they may be disappointed, hate the Tories.

I think you're overestimating how much this remains true. I know that the numbers I'm putting up are hyperbole and very unlikely (I like to look at extreme results sometimes to check the maths, electoral calculus for example is completely useless currently as it assumes all Lib Dems vote anti-Tory, which is no longer the case).

In '92 and '97, the Tories in some areas made the mistake of playing on fear/hatred of Labour from the winter of discontent and similar (I can remember my grandmother saying things like "they let the bodies rot in the streets", etc). In Crewe and Nantwich, and also in London, Labour has made the mistake of going negative and attacking "Tory toffs", and that simply doesn't wash anymore. Anyone 10 or less in '97 simply doesn't remember or fear the Tories anymore.

I know people locally to me here (in Yorkshire) who are now as anti-Labour as I was anti-Tory in '97. There is and remains an anti-Tory core, but it's shrinking increasingly, and unless the campaigners and strategists learn from this (and quickly), then the landslide is more likely, not less.

With you completely that turnout will go up—I'm in the middle of researching a post on turnout currently, the link between how safe a seat is to how high the turnout is is stark, and the more competetive the election itself the more likely people are to vote. That's where I got some of the data from.

Wipeout is unlikely, but Tory landslide isn't currently, and landslides are bad regardless of who gets them. A Cameron landslide with his current unreconstructed backwoods would be worse.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

strictlytrue
2008-05-14 06:38 pm UTC (link)

In Crewe and Nantwich, and also in London, Labour has made the mistake of going negative and attacking "Tory toffs", and that simply doesn't wash anymore. Anyone 10 or less in '97 simply doesn't remember or fear the Tories anymore.

Perhaps, but younger people don't tend to vote in such large numbers. There are plenty of people who hate the Tories and always will. I would be overestimating their number if I was predicting a Labour victory - or even a hung Parliament - but I'm merely saying a wipeout is next to impossible.

I've read a lot of people - mainly in relation to Boris - who think that this Tory Toff stuff doesn't work, and it certainly won't work to win the a general election, but it does have an impact. The reason why Labour supporters hate David Cameron, for example, isn't just that he went to public school - it's his whole demeanour; the sort of public schoolboy he is. That goes double for George Osborne.

I know little (okay, nothing) about attitudes in Yorkshire, but the majority of everyone I have any contact with - from my Mum in Stockport to the majority of my friends in London and Bristol absolutely hate Cameron, and definitely do not view the prospect of a Tory Government with any enthusiasm. I can think of one or two who might vote Tory in the hope of some Tory-LD coalition, and a couple more who might stop home, but the majority will vote Labour or Lib-Dem against Cameron, if only to limit his powers. I suspect that will become more acute with a higher turnout.

You are right that the anti-Tory tactical voting that held up for 1997, 2001 and to a lesser extent 2005 will reduce substantially, but I doubt that it will disappear.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	strictlytrue 2008-05-14 06:56 pm UTC (link)
	A Cameron landslide with his current unreconstructed backwoods would be worse. I completely agree with you about this. I think one thing that simply isn't visible to the electorate, but it is all too clear in Westminster, is the amount of loonies who are still present on the Tory Benches, and the fact that many of them are 2005 intake rather than old lags. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	miss_s_b 2008-05-14 09:14 pm UTC (link)
	I know LOTS of core Labour voters. They hate the current incarnation of the party and actively want them out. They won't go as far as voting Tory, because that turns their stomachs, but they'll stay home and not vote out of disgust for the current Labour party. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

strictlytrue
2008-05-14 10:12 pm UTC (link)

I know LOTS of core Labour voters. They hate the current incarnation of the party and actively want them out. They won't go as far as voting Tory, because that turns their stomachs, but they'll stay home and not vote out of disgust for the current Labour party.

Well, I can only speak for my own experiences and people I know. I recognise that many of them - including myself - have reservations of various degrees, from disquiet to anger (although few have expressed what I'd call disgust, as such), but I think it's inevitable that in a general election things will narrow a bit compared to the local elections of a couple of weeks ago. I have no doubt at all that some core Labour voters will stay at home, but I'm not convinced at all that there's going to be some sort of national collapse or wipeout - even in the disastrous locals a couple of weeks ago, places like Manchester remained solidly Labour.

I'm not convinced at all that a fourth term would be a good thing for Labour or the country at large - I feel that for a hatful of reasons the Tories would be worse, but a defeat for Labour next time might allow for a proper and total overhaul of approach. Nevertheless, I will still vote Labour a) because we have an excellent local candidate who I'd like to be involved in that and b) I don't want Cameron to have an enormous majority.

I wasn't trying to insinuate that

matgb didn't know Labour voters, BTW - just telling of my own experiences. I may live a bit of a sheltered life, of course, but I don't think it's particularly more sheltered than anyone else's.

Edited at 2008-05-14 10:13 pm UTC

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

miss_s_b
2008-05-15 09:30 am UTC (link)

I'm not convinced at all that a fourth term would be a good thing for Labour or the country at large - I feel that for a hatful of reasons the Tories would be worse

This is my view also. Sadly, I am finding more and more people difficult to convince of this.

Also, don't underestimate the BNP effect. A lot of the BNP's policies appeal to Old Labour types, who are the ones who are the most disaffected. This is purposeful on the part of the BNP, obviously, but those who are not as anti-racist as I am are very tempted by voting for the Scum.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(21 comments) - (Post a new comment)