Game on: is this the critical election?

[matgb]

OK, when I talked about Labour getting wiped out in 2010 a couple years back, I was semi-joking and being deliberately provocative. Or maybe I was just being prescient. Email from YouGov:

Our latest daily polling figures for The Sun (fieldwork 15th-16th April) are:

* Conservative: 33%
* Liberal Democrat: 30%
* Labour: 28%
* Others: 9%

The Liberal Democrats have surged to 30% in the latest YouGov poll, which was conducted entirely after the leader's debate, pushing Labour down to third place.

I'll say that again:

pushing Labour down to third place

Even the Sun, who commissioned the poll, are being nice:

the most dramatic shift in support for the Lib Dems was from the young, with a massive 44 per cent of 18 to 34-year-olds saying they would vote for Mr Clegg

(and there's more analysis on UK Polling Report).

But, so people are saying (morons) that the seat calculators say the LDs will still get crap because of the voting system. Well yes, that's true, the calculators do. Because the calculators are rough approximations based on uniform national swing effects.

Here's the thing. I live in a tight Labour/Tory marginal. On paper. When we decided on our campaign strategy, it was fairly easy. I went through the numbers, pointed out that Labour were dead in the water with a non-existent activist base, no local Govt presense and that we ought to be fighting to win. My PPC and agent were persuaded that this was at least a viable strategy; we're fighting the Tories for first place, Labour have Lost it in Calder Valley (that was my slogan, quite proud of it actually).

Yes, there are local issues, and the sheer uselessness of the eventual Labour candidate is helping, but it'd still be a good strategy even without their implosion.

Reality: persuade voters that Labour can't win and we can, we've won

So, according to the seat calculators, seats like mine fall Tory, or stay Labour. Reality is, as soon as we persuade local voters that Labour can't win and we can, we've won (happening already). It helps, of course, that we've an incredibly strong candidate.

Uniform swing calculators cannot, and will not, take into account the effect of a strong local campaign, or even the third party squeeze effect in reverse. Once Labour voters in an area are convinced their candidate can't win, some of them will switch to us to stop the Tory candidate. I don't want to live under a Tory MP, they sure as hell don't. This sort of effect is exactly what happened in Canada when their Tory Govt got eviscerated.

Extra added bonus? A bunch of notional Tory voters now are voting Tory just to stop Labour. Persuade them they don't need to worry? Even more swing to us.

This could be the game changing election

It's probably the most critical election since 1983. Only this time, those that want real change have learnt from the mistakes of last time, and will be pushing forward with a much stronger message.

Time to abandon those narrowly chosen target seat campaigns guys. Secondary seats that on previous polls were unlikely to fall are in much more need of support if we're actually going to take advantage of this massive boost.

Seats like Calder Valley. Where we're fighting to win from 3rd place. And if the opinion polls keep showing Labour in 3rd place? We'll take it easily. With a bit of extra cash.

I'm guessing we need to go sort out an online donation system.

Comments

[leftoutside.wordpress.com]

I think you make a good point. The swings are not going to be uniform by by any stretch of the imagination but I think it is dangerous to focus you're argument on this too much. When you say:

Uniform swing calculators cannot, and will not, take into account the effect of a strong local campaign, or even the third party squeeze effect in reverse.

...that is all well and good. But what people will say, and I instantly thought, is that Uniform swing calculators cannot, and will not, take into account the effect of a weak local campaign".

The analysis you offer is important in Calder Valley, but may be average out across the whole nation.

Regardless it is a good poll result, but you will still probably get the least seats out of it, and Labour the most. [Frankly, it might be good for democracy in the medium term, the sense of outrage would be enormous and we might be able to capitalise on that.]

[solipsistnation]

Wasn't the Clegg (or Klegg?) some kind of evil enemy alien in Judge Dredd way back when? Clearly this is working against Labour.

[missedith01]

Reading a lot into one set of polls? Political hegemonies are hard things to shift ... and the 'Dems have been promising Labour voters that they can shift this one since the Gang of Four first ... ganged.

Good luck in Calder Valley tho ... will look out for you on the night!

[mooism.livejournal.com]

Not only is this only a single poll, it's only the first debate. Two more to come, lots of time for the media narrative to change in reaction to them.

Plus, the other parties saying our policies will get more scrutiny now? They have a point. Some of our supporters will have been projecting their beliefs onto us, and might not like what they see.

We can't put all our eggs into assuming our poll ratings will stay high.

(Your tag cloud is hiding the rhs of this text box, on my netbook, FF 3.sth.)

[birguslatro]

Is it a foregone conclusion, (or perceived to be), that the LDs would form a coalition with Labour if they (or Labour;) held the balance of power?

As if so, an effective Conservative response might be that a vote for the LDs is a vote for more of the same. You might need to counter that perception.

[chris]

I presume that since then you've seen this report that one poll to be published in the press tomorrow has the Lib Dems in first place?

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

OpenID refuses to accept me unless I give it admin rights. Fuck that.

So, comment here:

"So, the "Labour" party are facist bastards. That's not new. What's the *DOWNSIDE* to them beign completely wiped out and their pathetic fuckwit supporters being absorbed by the National Socialists, again?"