Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How votes have been churning between the parties since 2010
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How votes have been churning between the parties since 2010
We don’t often view polling data in this way partly because the sample sizes in the regular surveys are not really large enough to draw conclusions from sub-samples.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
How much gold is there in the world?
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2014/02/this-is-what-all-the-gold-in-the-world-looks-like-and-it-doesnt-look-like-much/
It's strange how fellow EU members seem to have rather a lot of gold, ye we don't. See (1). Can anyone think of a reason why that might be? :innocent face:
(1): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_reserve
It really is sick-making.
http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/obama-my-poll-numbers-are-down-because-im-black/
“There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black president,” Obama said in the article by David Remnick, appearing in the magazine’s Jan. 27 edition. “Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black president.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26063121
My guesses for the Lib Dems are 16% and around 35 seats, similar to Mr Dale yesterday. 16% would mean that they had lost approximately a third of their support from the previous election. That will not just hurt where they did not have a chance anyway. It will hurt everywhere.
I stick with my original analogy: Brown show the patient, and you're blaming the doctor.
Can any Labourite do economics ?
I don't know what makes up the Oth/Dnv category but it's interesting that they make up 16% of Lab support compared to 9% of Con. Let's say some of that flaked and went down to a similar level to the Cons, say 10% - Labour would drop in the polls by 2% overnight.
Whatever you look at it, this doesn't look like compelling election winning data for Labour.
The Con vote hasn't much to lose - Maybe some of the DNV so say 2%, Lab could lose 2% 2010 LDs and 3% to DNV. UKIP could lose 3% to Con ( survey said a third of their support would vote blue to stop Ed ) plus maybe 5% on DNVs. So allowing for a new base we could have Con 35-37, Lab 33-34. UKIP 6-8%. That's a HP, Cons most votes, Lab most seats.
The mix will be driven mostly by how well the LDs fair since a high LD vote means less tory seats and vice versa, as well as how serious those DNVs are about getting off their butts and voting.
It's fairly clear that Labour are that stupid. Labour's mantra appears to be: short-term gain for long-term pain; i.e. elect us and **** the future.
FPT: Mr. Charles, that's interesting stuff about salmon. It's true certain things (vitamin K, I think, is another) are hard to get through vegetarianism, but it is possible to be one.
Wealth was associated with eating meat and fish (perhaps excepting areas in the vicinity of abundant fish stocks) in medieval times too. Interesting how that appears to still be the case, on the global stage, at least.
0.82*1443 =1183
These graphs are good but better yet would be to have them in size proportion
This is going to be an interesting election.
The selling-at-the-bottom argument is the weakest; he may have been stupid enough to think the price was to go down massively. But the other arguments: the sizes of the tranches sold, the short timescale and the pre-announcements, are fairly indefensible.
Furthermore since gold is a volatile reserve common sense would say that in a time of crisis it's value will shoot up so selling at a time of peace and prosperity would be a bad time to sell.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Blueprint-4-Full-tables.pdf
But for conspiracy theory fans, how about Gordon Brown was actually bailing out the banks?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/thomaspascoe/100018367/
The disconnect between reality and the general perception built on the cut to 45% for the additional rate is severe and it is important that the government is more successful in getting this across. It won't be easy because they are fighting against very well entrenched (if completely false) stereotypes.
To find the comparison you are trying to make, you can just look at any daily YouGov polling table, and you'll find that Lab is consistently doing better than Con in retaining its 2010 voters, with a significant chunk of 2010 Con having switched to UKIP. Here's today's table, look at the 6th and 7th columns.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/5avz4dp2zr/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-050214.pdf
Was DC 36 EdM 23. Today's poll DC 36 EDM 27
Stealth tax cuts will be for the next Parliament at best. Right now George needs the money. There is my bet with Tim to consider for a start.
Recently Deceased Feline Temporary Upward Movement
Herders flashing a shapely ankle as PBers gawp in fevered anticipation ....
FWIW - and this is a sort of anecdotal focus group, my impression is this. UKIP ex-DNVs are generally detached from the political process as they think we're all crap. They feel "At last there's a sensible party out there with a chance, I'll vote for them". These people are not going to switch to any other party. However, if UKIP started to deflate they might well say "Oh, looks like they haven't got a chance after all, I won't bother". A good or bad Euro showing will make a lot of difference. If half of those don't vote, it'll knock just over 1 point off the UKIP score.
Labour DNVs are roughly half people who are quite political but judged that we'd been in power long enough, yet couldn't bear voting Tory. They are back with a vengeance and will vote. The other half are semi-detached traditional Labour and it's much less certain that they'll vote. If half of these don't, it would knock 1.5 points off the Labour score. They are however concentrated in Labour strongholds - in marginals, I think we'll generally get them out. The upcoming by-election may give a hint of what will happen in the strongholds.
1) Was it right to do it in secret? Surely there should be some debate about such a drastic problem. After all, we live in a democracy.
2) With hindsight, a big banking scandal in that timeframe might have saved us a great deal of pain seven years later by forcing some necessary changes. Might it have been cheaper and more effective to let a bank fail?
3) Was selling gold the right way to tackle the problem?
4) Were the banks being truthful about the scale of the problem? By keeping things secret, we cannot know if they were taking the government for a ride.
5) If Brown knew that some banks were getting into such bad positions that early on, then why did he not tighten things up before the big crash?
Even that conspiracy theory does not leave Brown without brown stuff on his hands.
As you say, these are people disillusioned with all the other parties. What will hit UKIP's support is not UKIP failing to look like it'll challenge for seats - these are 'send a message' voters - it's UKIP sounding like just another party (or not sounding like the sort of party they thought it was).
I had a weird engineering and flood related dream last night. There is a problem with rainwater flooding of the Somerset levels. There is a water shortage problem in the southeast.
The dream posited using large parts of the levels as a natural rainwater reservoir, and a pipeline east to provide water to London and the SE. Farmers would be compensated by southeastern water customers, a certain amount per acre.
The dream then morphed off into a pastiche of Waterworld for the levels' inhabitants.
There are some obvious problems: both London and the levels are near sea level, and they are over 100 miles apart, and the resultant lakes would be wide and very shallow.
But there is a precedent: Liverpool is supplied with water from Lake Vyrnwy 70 miles away, and Birmingham from the Elan Valley, 75 miles or so. But the area of the levels is vast, and can store a heck of a lot of water.
The last time I was wrong was in forecasting the Tories at 305 at the 2010 GE. Out by one - Disgraceful !! ....
And we don't mention Watford ..... or as I now refer to it as a Hertfordshire constituency with a Championship football team with links to Elton John.
In any case the argument is a bit dusty. I remember the then family stockbroker once ignored my orders and failed to sell some shares when I instructed him to ("I used my best judgment that it would be unwise just yet"), losing me quite a bit of money. I was in my 20s and living abroad and he'd handled my family's accounts for decades, so the idea of suing him didn't really enter my mind. Annoying, but I got over it. There comes a point where it's not worth worrying about historical transactions unless the people involved are still running things.
Narcissism of small differences, but whatever gets you through the night.
"One problem with gold is there in your last paragraph: volatility."
when you're a big enough eejit to believe you have abolished boom and bust then why's volatility a problem ?
But it was 'ages ago', wasn't it? Which in your mind is seven weeks. ;-)
And your comment does nothing to answer the questions above.
HUGE.
Some idiot mentioned the "Watford" word and I've come over all unnecessary ....
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/picture/2013/dec/29/michael-gove-random-policy-generator?CMP=fb_gu
However since I believe he has now recognised he has lost all the economic arguments to another Richard it was inevitable he would have to go in to hiding for a while.
Maybe as a PPC you could give us a steer on Labour Policy.
1579 Lab
1304 Con If we strip down to solely 2010 voters of the same parties
1165 Lab
1175 Con
In both cases Labour wins more seats than the Conservatives.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/australia-news-blog/2014/feb/06/replacing-abbott-with-kittens-qa-with-the-co-creator-of-stop-tony-meow
Labour 1541;
Conservatives 1333.
They're going to I) have a bankers bonus tax which they are going to II) spend on lots and lots and lots and lots of things and III) they are going to freeze everyone's energy prices at the newly increased April 2015 level for two years.....isn't that enough to be going on with?
Pulpstar has done the maths so you don't have to.
In other words, they are pathetically sitting on the fence. Oh, for conviction politicians with guts, who believe in something.
Lot of wishful thinking from you today.
But it was 'ages ago', wasn't it? Which in your mind is seven weeks. ;-)
And your comment does nothing to answer the questions above.
Hey, you appear to treat Labour supporters as a hivemind when it suits your argument - I can't remember the last time *I* referred to Mrs Thatcher, but it was, to coin a phrase, ages ago. I expect there are Labour supporters who are jolly interested in Mrs Thatcher and gold sales and Kinnock vs Militant, and perhaps Keir Hardie and Lloyd George, and there's no reason why you shouldn't share their hobby. Happy delving!
http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm
Not at all.
That small slice that support labour from 2010 is worth mentioning endlessly despite the lib dems flatlining at 10% since late 2010.
Why are these and only these 2010 lib dem switchers so important? Er, well, because... they might all run off one day so little Ed had better be nicer to Clegg??
Yes, that must be it.