Once again, the Conservatives' certainty to vote is less than Labour's. It's worth noting that UKIP's polling is steady between all those giving a voting intention and all those certain to vote.
I'll leave you to explain to those upset wealthy Indians that their rocket isn't going to the moon because of a storm in Somerset
Get your calculator out, Sam!
Assuming an Indian aid budget of 300 million quid a year, and an Indian population of 1 billion, that works out at an eye-watering.... 30p - 30 PENCE - per Indian per year!
Maybe but why give anything to countries that can afford space travel? They should look after their hungry people first and if they run out if money then we top it up
If you were skint and struggling to eat I'd give you some money. If I saw you with a brand new jacket on next day id not give you any more
Could you live on 30p a year? Even in India?
And as a UKIP fan shouldn't you be worrying more about the money given to the wealthy first world countries of the EU - 18 BILLION quid per annum.
This is the first time I recall seeing a poll where "certain to vote" disadvantages the Conservatives. Very bad news indeed for Cameron.
Not really , Labour voters are more likely to be 'angry' and thus engaged enough to consider voting at this stage. Tory voters are likely to be content and thus not engaged at this point. Come the actual election tory (as in voters who prefer the tories to any other party) voters will vote (as they always have done)
People's increasing economic optimism is not necessarily that great for the Tories. It might be what's behind their improved polling but if the next year doesn't go as well as hoped they may be back down again.
Labour 7% ahead with those 'certain to vote' - that's pretty good at this stage of a parliament. Better economic prospects may be helping but Dave still needs a game changer.
Broken sleazy Labour on the slide. Dave romping home to a landslide! Or not as the case may be.
Anyone have any views on likely turnout at the GE? I suspect it might be quite high. I think there was some sense of inevitability about 2010 as the country could surely not invite the one-eyed monster back in. But in 2015 I suspect there'll be a real choice between 'steady as she goes' and 'let's party'.
People's increasing economic optimism is not necessarily that great for the Tories. It might be what's behind their improved polling but if the next year doesn't go as well as hoped they may be back down again.
Labour 7% ahead with those 'certain to vote' - that's pretty good at this stage of a parliament. Better economic prospects may be helping but Dave still needs a game changer.
That's an excellent point - worth noting how poor economic optimism was at the time of the 2005 general election, with a 40-10 lead for "get worse" over "improve", because the economy was doing fairly well.
If people's expectations that the economy will improve are not matched by their experience come February next year they will be looking for an explanation of why that is so, and also somebody to blame.
Assuming there is a Labour landslide on 30 something percent of the vote will there then be calls for electoral reform? Will we be able to look forward to STV or PR2 threads on PB after 2015?
But according to a survey I completed yesterday, Labour’s grip on the seat is firm. I found Labour on 61% of the vote with UKIP second on 15%, the Conservatives on 14% and the Liberal Democrats fourth on 5%.
antifrank on the previous thread remarked about the drought risk we faced quite recently.
The Met Office have some interesting climate anomaly maps. If you select "annual" and "rainfall" you can see how dry 2010 and 2011 were over England, and two consecutive dry years is enough to being to create problems.
You can also look back through the decades and pick out the years in the 90s when we had recurrent drought issues, and a dry 1975 was important as preparation for 1976.
I have just heard it claimed that if there is no further rain this month the winter as a whole will be the third-wettest in the UK since 1910, which is quite extraordinary, though I haven't seen those figures myself.
Assuming there is a Labour landslide on 30 something percent of the vote will there then be calls for electoral reform? Will we be able to look forward to STV or PR2 threads on PB after 2015?
Labour won an enormous landslide in 2001 with just over 40% of the vote. I don't know if 40% itself is psychologically significant but if it wasn't an issue in 2001 I fail to see why it will be an issue next time if Labour get 39%. One thing about the collapse of the Lib Dem vote is that Labour will get plenty more votes where they don't necessarily need them eg the north east. So a 9% lead over the Tories won't result in a Blairite landslide. It could still be a landslide though.
But according to a survey I completed yesterday, Labour’s grip on the seat is firm. I found Labour on 61% of the vote with UKIP second on 15%, the Conservatives on 14% and the Liberal Democrats fourth on 5%.
Months away, 15 of them, plus people like the Bullingdon rhetoric (there is no other line of attack) so Lab, finally, appear to be becoming an opposition party (albeit a petty, spiteful one).
Great - doesn't change a thing. The poll is a bit more opposition angled vs NOTA but also NOTA has an actual party to indicate a preference for.
But according to a survey I completed yesterday, Labour’s grip on the seat is firm. I found Labour on 61% of the vote with UKIP second on 15%, the Conservatives on 14% and the Liberal Democrats fourth on 5%.
But according to a survey I completed yesterday, Labour’s grip on the seat is firm. I found Labour on 61% of the vote with UKIP second on 15%, the Conservatives on 14% and the Liberal Democrats fourth on 5%.
Would be vying with Manchester Central for the LDs worst by-election since the War, in terms of loss of vote share...
I know that it is a very different demographic - but given that it is geographically between the 2, I suspect that we can put Manchester Withington in the LAB Gain column for 2015.
Looking at the full data tables briefly , my opinion FWIW is that UKIP may end up 3rd
I've mentioned from the start that Labour were going to win this seat by a mile and that I wouldn't even be tempted to bet on UKIP coming second as it really isn't a seat full of UKIP type people. For instance, the UKIP candidates literature reads like what some Westminster policy geek imagines the white working class think.
There will probably be a very low turnout for this seat so there may be a bit more variation in actual results than shown in the poll - I don't know how motivated Labour voters are for instance.
The Tories don't seem that motivated about this seat - certainly their candidate isn't a big hitter.
The poster battle around my area on the Wythenshawe side of the constituency shows 2 LD posters, one Labour and one Raving Loony - I think we get more during council elections.
Wythenshawe will be an interesting test of Lord Ashcroft's polling. A lot rests on him given the lack of other marginals polling being done. Why is that?
Would be vying with Manchester Central for the LDs worst by-election since the War, in terms of loss of vote share...
I know that it is a very different demographic - but given that it is geographically between the 2, I suspect that we can put Manchester Withington in the LAB Gain column for 2015.
By my reckoning that seat is about 30 odd on Labour's target list, half way to a majority, and around the point that would probably give Ed Miliband the keys to No 10 as the largest party at least.
But for Labour - taking LD seats will likely be significantly easier than taking Tory seats - so I can easily see Manchester Withington going Labour even in scenarios where Lab gets fewer seats than the Tories.
Wythenshawe will be an interesting test of Lord Ashcroft's polling. A lot rests on him given the lack of other marginals polling being done. Why is that?
Cost I imagine. But I agree - it will be a very interesting test. Personally I see it more likely that Lab come down from 61% (people don't bother to vote on the day) and that UKIP move up - 45%, 25% or similar?
FPT admittedly, I see Dernbach has been selected for the English cricket team again. Is he someone's love-child or does he know where bodies are buried. Can't be a cricketing reason to select him, surely!
Would be vying with Manchester Central for the LD's worst by-election since the War, in terms of loss of vote share...
True in terms of absolute loss of vote share (i.e. By-election share minus GE share), but it would be better than some of their proportionate losses of vote share i.e. (By-election share / GE share) * 100%.
South Shields, for example, saw the LD share fall from 14.2 to 1.4: a loss of almost exactly 90% of their previous share, and a decline of 93.2% in terms of votes.
FPT admittedly, I see Dernbach has been selected for the English cricket team again. Is he someone's love-child or does he know where bodies are buried. Can't be a cricketing reason to select him, surely!
He's a world beater. He's deliberately bowling badly so people think he's rubbish.
But will bowl like Glenn McGrath in the t20 World Cup so England will win it.
Would be vying with Manchester Central for the LDs worst by-election since the War, in terms of loss of vote share...
I know that it is a very different demographic - but given that it is geographically between the 2, I suspect that we can put Manchester Withington in the LAB Gain column for 2015.
By my reckoning that seat is about 30 odd on Labour's target list, half way to a majority, and around the point that would probably give Ed Miliband the keys to No 10 as the largest party at least.
But for Labour - taking LD seats will likely be significantly easier than taking Tory seats - so I can easily see Manchester Withington going Labour even in scenarios where Lab gets fewer seats than the Tories.
The Conservatives are reported to be targeting 20 LD seats. If Labour get encouraged by swings like this, and put resources into LD seats they thought were long-shots, the LDs are going to have a very uncomfortable time in 2015.
Would be vying with Manchester Central for the LDs worst by-election since the War, in terms of loss of vote share...
I know that it is a very different demographic - but given that it is geographically between the 2, I suspect that we can put Manchester Withington in the LAB Gain column for 2015.
By my reckoning that seat is about 30 odd on Labour's target list, half way to a majority, and around the point that would probably give Ed Miliband the keys to No 10 as the largest party at least.
But for Labour - taking LD seats will likely be significantly easier than taking Tory seats - so I can easily see Manchester Withington going Labour even in scenarios where Lab gets fewer seats than the Tories.
The Libs will lose almost everywhere that Labour is second, with the possible exception of Southwark. Labour may also take one or two Lib seats from third place. In Scotland, the Libs will lose at least half their seats.
But I suspect the Conservatives will struggle to take seats from the Libs in the South of England, largely thanks to UKIP.
30-35 feels perhaps very slightly low, especially if the Libs pick up OxwAb or Watford. But I would feel very comfortable selling 40 seats.
The danger for the Conservatives is that in constituencies like Erewash the LibDem vote is likely to collapse, and go to Labour.
Wythenshawe will be an interesting test of Lord Ashcroft's polling. A lot rests on him given the lack of other marginals polling being done. Why is that?
If the final result does turn out to be significantly different from the poll, the questions to answer will be:
1. Are there methodological problems with the polling? 2. Was there a shift of opinion on the ground between the poll and the vote? 3. To what extent are both (1) and (2) attributable to (a) shifts between voting intentions and (b) shifts between voting at all and not voting?
By-elections have dynamics all of their own - and the polling itself can shift them. However, if the figures are reasonably reliable in terms of identifying VI, then it follows that even if there are shifts in VI and turnout intention (TI?) during the general election campaign, we ought to be able to adjust the constituency polls accordingly to account for them.
Will be interesting if Labour voters stay at home, given it seems to be a walkover...
As posted elsewhere , Labour voters will mostly have voted postally ( IIRC something over 20,000 postal votes in the constituency ) .. If this poll has any effect at all it may be to decrease Con and LD to UKIP switchers and see UKIP end up 3rd
Would be vying with Manchester Central for the LDs worst by-election since the War, in terms of loss of vote share...
I know that it is a very different demographic - but given that it is geographically between the 2, I suspect that we can put Manchester Withington in the LAB Gain column for 2015.
By my reckoning that seat is about 30 odd on Labour's target list, half way to a majority, and around the point that would probably give Ed Miliband the keys to No 10 as the largest party at least.
But for Labour - taking LD seats will likely be significantly easier than taking Tory seats - so I can easily see Manchester Withington going Labour even in scenarios where Lab gets fewer seats than the Tories.
The Libs will lose almost everywhere that Labour is second, with the possible exception of Southwark. Labour may also take one or two Lib seats from third place. In Scotland, the Libs will lose at least half their seats.
But I suspect the Conservatives will struggle to take seats from the Libs in the South of England, largely thanks to UKIP.
30-35 feels perhaps very slightly low, especially if the Libs pick up OxwAb or Watford. But I would feel very comfortable selling 40 seats.
The danger for the Conservatives is that in constituencies like Erewash the LibDem vote is likely to collapse, and go to Labour.
Hmmm...
Lib Dems should hold Sheffield Hallam, and Leeds NW, I think. I think they should hold c.40 seats on the back of 15% or so of the vote.
If it's true Labour are heading for 61%, the party would probably have much preferred for this poll not to have been published because it may give Labour voters the impression they can switch to UKIP at the eleventh hour without changing the result, which is always a dangerous scenario.
Taking only those declaring themselves certain to vote:
Lab 45% Ukip 13% Con 9% LD 2%
Other/DK/refused 30%
Room for plenty of change? That's based on turnout of 50%
Turnout will be well under 50% , it was only 54% in 2010 GE
By way of comparison - Manchester Central by-election had a turnout of 18.2% according to wiki. I don't think that it'll be quite that low - but somewhere in the 20%-30% range wouldn't be unexpected.
Will be interesting if Labour voters stay at home, given it seems to be a walkover...
As posted elsewhere , Labour voters will mostly have voted postally ( IIRC something over 20,000 postal votes in the constituency ) .. If this poll has any effect at all it may be to decrease Con and LD to UKIP switchers and see UKIP end up 3rd
Does anyone else feel uncomfortable about the high volume of postal votes? I really think there should e a rethink of eligibility.
Taking only those declaring themselves certain to vote:
Lab 45% Ukip 13% Con 9% LD 2%
Other/DK/refused 30%
Room for plenty of change? That's based on turnout of 50%
Turnout will be well under 50% , it was only 54% in 2010 GE
By way of comparison - Manchester Central by-election had a turnout of 18.2% according to wiki. I don't think that it'll be quite that low - but somewhere in the 20%-30% range wouldn't be unexpected.
Yep , I would expect circa 30% as the number of postal voters is rather higher than in Central .
Will be interesting if Labour voters stay at home, given it seems to be a walkover...
As posted elsewhere , Labour voters will mostly have voted postally ( IIRC something over 20,000 postal votes in the constituency ) .. If this poll has any effect at all it may be to decrease Con and LD to UKIP switchers and see UKIP end up 3rd
Does anyone else feel uncomfortable about the high volume of postal votes? I really think there should e a rethink of eligibility.
Possibly but would you rather have elections with a turnout of less than 20% ?
Will be interesting if Labour voters stay at home, given it seems to be a walkover...
As posted elsewhere , Labour voters will mostly have voted postally ( IIRC something over 20,000 postal votes in the constituency ) .. If this poll has any effect at all it may be to decrease Con and LD to UKIP switchers and see UKIP end up 3rd
Does anyone else feel uncomfortable about the high volume of postal votes? I really think there should e a rethink of eligibility.
Possibly but would you rather have elections with a turnout of less than 20% ?
Alternatively are you happy with possible shenanigans going on with 20% postal votes?
Party of popular MP who died tragically in line to retain seat shocker!
FPT, those on the previous thread who were arguing we should cut Russia some slack over the gat thing because some other countries are worse, might want to watch Liz McKean's Dispatches:
Will be interesting if Labour voters stay at home, given it seems to be a walkover...
As posted elsewhere , Labour voters will mostly have voted postally ( IIRC something over 20,000 postal votes in the constituency ) .. If this poll has any effect at all it may be to decrease Con and LD to UKIP switchers and see UKIP end up 3rd
Does anyone else feel uncomfortable about the high volume of postal votes? I really think there should e a rethink of eligibility.
Nobody should get a postal vote ever IMHO. You should have the option to vote on one day 3 weeks in advance in person with an admin fee of £2.
Why has the coalition not done anything about postal voting? I would have thought it would have helped them and been one of those rare occasions I agree with them.
Does anyone else feel uncomfortable about the high volume of postal votes? I really think there should e a rethink of eligibility.
We had this debate before but as I understand it the rules have changed from May 2014. Voter registration per household will be replaced by individual voter registration. In order to be registered you will need a date of birth and NI number.
It should, in theory anyway, be more difficult to register 20 bogus voters, get postal vote forms for them, and post the the votes.
Will be interesting if Labour voters stay at home, given it seems to be a walkover...
As posted elsewhere , Labour voters will mostly have voted postally ( IIRC something over 20,000 postal votes in the constituency ) .. If this poll has any effect at all it may be to decrease Con and LD to UKIP switchers and see UKIP end up 3rd
Does anyone else feel uncomfortable about the high volume of postal votes? I really think there should e a rethink of eligibility.
Possibly but would you rather have elections with a turnout of less than 20% ?
Alternatively are you happy with possible shenanigans going on with 20% postal votes?
I don't think this is the sort of seat where the Conservatives would get up to shenanigans with postal votes .
Taking only those declaring themselves certain to vote:
Lab 45% Ukip 13% Con 9% LD 2%
Other/DK/refused 30%
Room for plenty of change? That's based on turnout of 50%
Others at 30% - Lol No.
It's Others + Don't Know + Refused = 30%.
Probably most of the DK's and refused will not vote, so I'm not sure the shares Millsy originally gave are meaningful. Indeed, I would be astonished if turnout was anywhere near 50%. It'll do well to hit 40%, especially if it's wet on the day.
Will be interesting if Labour voters stay at home, given it seems to be a walkover...
As posted elsewhere , Labour voters will mostly have voted postally ( IIRC something over 20,000 postal votes in the constituency ) .. If this poll has any effect at all it may be to decrease Con and LD to UKIP switchers and see UKIP end up 3rd
Does anyone else feel uncomfortable about the high volume of postal votes? I really think there should e a rethink of eligibility.
Possibly but would you rather have elections with a turnout of less than 20% ?
Alternatively are you happy with possible shenanigans going on with 20% postal votes?
I don't think this is the sort of seat where the Conservatives would get up to shenanigans with postal votes .
Mark loves loves loves being in coalition with the Cons. 5 more years coming up.
Will be interesting if Labour voters stay at home, given it seems to be a walkover...
As posted elsewhere , Labour voters will mostly have voted postally ( IIRC something over 20,000 postal votes in the constituency ) .. If this poll has any effect at all it may be to decrease Con and LD to UKIP switchers and see UKIP end up 3rd
Does anyone else feel uncomfortable about the high volume of postal votes? I really think there should e a rethink of eligibility.
Possibly but would you rather have elections with a turnout of less than 20% ?
Alternatively are you happy with possible shenanigans going on with 20% postal votes?
I don't think this is the sort of seat where the Conservatives would get up to shenanigans with postal votes .
Mark loves loves loves being in coalition with the Cons. 5 more years coming up.
LOL , That may be true but I have been a much more loyal supporter of the Coalition government than many Conservative MP's
Not surprised by the Wythenshawe poll. I've said it before, but imo, when people are talking about UKIP's chances, they need to take into account whether the area in question is rural or (sub)urban. In (sub)urban areas, even poor people tend to be relatively liberal, and usually aren't that fearful about immigration or multiculturalism simply because they and their family have grown up always being around people from different cultures since most cities are long-established "melting pots". The areas UKIP do best tend to be slightly more rural areas and/or places where immigration/multiculturalism is a very recent phenomenon, over say the last 10-20 years, where people just aren't used to it and so feel more unsettled by it.
I doubt Labour's winning margin will be as emphatic as the poll indicates, but I expect them to be about 20% ahead of UKIP.
Taking only those declaring themselves certain to vote:
Lab 45% Ukip 13% Con 9% LD 2%
Other/DK/refused 30%
Room for plenty of change? That's based on turnout of 50%
Others at 30% - Lol No.
It's Others + Don't Know + Refused = 30%.
Probably most of the DK's and refused will not vote, so I'm not sure the shares Millsy originally gave are meaningful. Indeed, I would be astonished if turnout was anywhere near 50%. It'll do well to hit 40%, especially if it's wet on the day.
There could be a sizeable group of voters who will definitely vote but haven't made up their minds yet
If it's true Labour are heading for 61%, the party would probably have much preferred for this poll not to have been published because it may give Labour voters the impression they can switch to UKIP at the eleventh hour without changing the result, which is always a dangerous scenario.
Though as Tory supporters are most likely to use postal votes, any tightening up will disproportionately disadvantage them, so it might be a good idea!
Not necessarily; it will eliminate those who use them but wouldn't get round to voting on the day. I'm a Tory voter but I have a postal vote for convenience; if it was taken away I'd go to the polling station.
It's quite possible that restricting postal votes would actually disproportionally disadvantage Labour, given historical turnout figures.
Not to mention that Occam's razor suggests Labour wouldn't have expanded postal voting quite so aggressively if they didn't think it would help them.
JohnLoony was right to point out a few days ago that UKIP are always much weaker in the western side of England (excl. the south-west). So Greater Manchester is not as good territory for them as Yorkshire would be, for instance.
JohnLoony was right to point out a few days ago that UKIP are always much weaker in the western side of England (excl. the south-west). So Greater Manchester is not as good territory for them as Yorkshire would be, for instance.
Any idea why that would be? There are very few East/West differences in UK politics other than this one so it stands out as being worth understanding if possible.
"Not surprisingly, those who have switched to UKIP – largely but by no means exclusively from the Tories – are more likely than most to say they are voting tactically to try to stop another party from winning. They are more likely still to say they are voting as a protest: nine in ten of them say they want to show they are unhappy with all the main parties at the moment.
Despite Labour’s huge overall lead, only a minority of voters in the constituency (43%) say they would rather have Ed Miliband as Prime Minister than David Cameron. In fact, a quarter of Labour voters (and more than half of UKIP supporters) say either that they are satisfied with Cameron or that they prefer him to the alternative.
When it comes to the economy, voters are more likely to say they think things will get better over the next year for the country as a whole (and only 29% think that) than to expect any improvement for themselves and their families (19%).
Even so – Miliband and Ed Balls are only five points ahead of Cameron and George Osborne (40% to 35%) on being trusted to manage the economy in the best interests of Britain. One in five Labour voters trust the PM and Chancellor more than their own party’s team.
As for the campaign on the ground, UKIP are making their presence felt. Nearly half (47%) of voters in the constituency say the party has put literature through their door, compared to 63% from Labour, 35% from the Conservatives and 18% from the Lib Dems."
Though as Tory supporters are most likely to use postal votes, any tightening up will disproportionately disadvantage them, so it might be a good idea!
Not necessarily; it will eliminate those who use them but wouldn't get round to voting on the day. I'm a Tory voter but I have a postal vote for convenience; if it was taken away I'd go to the polling station.
It's quite possible that restricting postal votes would actually disproportionally disadvantage Labour, given historical turnout figures.
Not to mention that Occam's razor suggests Labour wouldn't have expanded postal voting quite so aggressively if they didn't think it would help them.
I think that is a pretty accurate summary , Labour want as many people to vote as possible because higher turnout helps them , Conservatives don't mind how low turnout is because that helps them .
re postal voting , I have never bought the argument that everything should be done to make voting easier so that turnout will be higher and this will somehow then be more democratic. Voting should not be made hard of course but a walk of no more than 300 yards to a polling station should not be beyond any able bodied person (the disabled and frail can of course postal vote). If you make voting too easy people will vote without care or little thought . That's not being democratic that's just encouraging triviality
I said at the time that this wasn't UKIP territory at all - and would be quite happy to see themselves set themselves up for a fall. In fact, the 'UKIP will save your benefits' campaign is both patronising and toxic elsewhere - they're in danger of becoming the all things to all people party.
John Leech is a class act, but if the Lib Dems hold Manchester Withington in 2015 I think they'd be looking at substantial net gains across the UK.
Not to mention that Occam's razor suggests Labour wouldn't have expanded postal voting quite so aggressively if they didn't think it would help them.
Right, so Labour almost certainly thought that expanding postal voting would help them, but given their record of stunning achievement in terms of effects following from intentions, how likely is it really that it does favour them?
Wouldn't it be less surprising if it turned out to be another thing they got wrong?
Wythenshawe and Sale East - as far as I've experienced so far, the Tory candidate is by far the most visible. But I live in Sale East - perhaps he's concentrating on getting the vote out in the part of the constituency likely to be most favourable to him. He seemed a nice enough chap, anyway - reminded me a little of Nick Palmer in manner and bearing (tall, mild, drily amusing, balding). Next most active have been UKIP, followed by the Greens, followed by Labour. Not heard anything at all from the Lib Dems - neither a leaflet, nor a poster, nor even a van driving about the place.
I said at the time that this wasn't UKIP territory at all - and would be quite happy to see themselves set themselves up for a fall. In fact, the 'UKIP will save your benefits' campaign is both patronising and toxic elsewhere - they're in danger of becoming the all things to all people party.
John Leech is a class act, but if the Lib Dems hold Manchester Withington in 2015 I think they'd be looking at substantial net gains across the UK.
The only way John Leech holds Manchester Withington is if he defects to Labour.
re postal voting , I have never bought the argument that everything should be done to make voting easier so that turnout will be higher and this will somehow then be more democratic. Voting should not be made hard of course but a walk of no more than 300 yards to a polling station should not be beyond any able bodied person (the disabled and frail can of course postal vote). If you make voting too easy people will vote without care or little thought . That's not being democratic that's just encouraging triviality
My polling station is over half a mile walk despite living in urban Worthing , I am not yet frail or disabled but I have and use my postal vote .
re postal voting , I have never bought the argument that everything should be done to make voting easier so that turnout will be higher and this will somehow then be more democratic. Voting should not be made hard of course but a walk of no more than 300 yards to a polling station should not be beyond any able bodied person (the disabled and frail can of course postal vote). If you make voting too easy people will vote without care or little thought . That's not being democratic that's just encouraging triviality
Voting is the least important feature of a democracy.
The restrictions on freedom of assembly that have been imposed over the last couple of decades have done much more to undermine democracy in this country than pettyfogging disputes over postal voting or gerrymandering.
On the other hand, voting creates events that are easy to frame bets on, so it does bring some advantages.
The only way John Leech holds Manchester Withington is if he defects to Labour.
Is this likely, both in the specific case and more widely? I don't know John Leech's personal politics, but are there one or two LD MPs who might be peel-offable by EdM?
Comments
And as a UKIP fan shouldn't you be worrying more about the money given to the wealthy first world countries of the EU - 18 BILLION quid per annum.
Time to sell off the London Underground.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26069867
Mike's used January's VI figures/graphic instead of this month's.
On maneuvers.
Labour 7% ahead with those 'certain to vote' - that's pretty good at this stage of a parliament. Better economic prospects may be helping but Dave still needs a game changer.
Anyone have any views on likely turnout at the GE? I suspect it might be quite high. I think there was some sense of inevitability about 2010 as the country could surely not invite the one-eyed monster back in. But in 2015 I suspect there'll be a real choice between 'steady as she goes' and 'let's party'.
In Feb 2009, The Tories polled 48% and had a 20% lead with Ipsos-Mori
Just learned that Americans rhyme "shone" with "bone":
http://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot.co.uk/
Canadians seem to pronounce Polypeptide as Pole-ypeptide.
Note the Lab Govt polled at the GE roughly what they polled with Mori 15 months before the election.
Wythenshawe & Sale East bye-election poll will be released shortly . Suspect only one Party will be happy........"
twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/431429205872885761
If people's expectations that the economy will improve are not matched by their experience come February next year they will be looking for an explanation of why that is so, and also somebody to blame.
But according to a survey I completed yesterday, Labour’s grip on the seat is firm. I found Labour on 61% of the vote with UKIP second on 15%, the Conservatives on 14% and the Liberal Democrats fourth on 5%.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/02/with-a-week-to-go-in-wythenshawe-labours-grip-looks-firm/
Lol - suspect we are near peak Kip - they are not going to get above "spoiler" for the 2015 GE. Dreams of any MPs are nowhere.
Miliband's new best mates - that's all they are bringing to the party.
The Met Office have some interesting climate anomaly maps. If you select "annual" and "rainfall" you can see how dry 2010 and 2011 were over England, and two consecutive dry years is enough to being to create problems.
You can also look back through the decades and pick out the years in the 90s when we had recurrent drought issues, and a dry 1975 was important as preparation for 1976.
I have just heard it claimed that if there is no further rain this month the winter as a whole will be the third-wettest in the UK since 1910, which is quite extraordinary, though I haven't seen those figures myself.
2010 result was: Con 26%, Lab 44%, LD 22%, UKIP 3%
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/wythenshaweandsaleeast/
I'd be sweating on that poll if I'd piled on for UKIP 2nd at the ridiculously short odds.
Fortunately I didn't. A decent poll for my bets anyhow, but there could be some late swings in the 2nd place race.
Feel vindicated by this poll.
I assume @isam will adjust his betting lines based on this poll too
Months away, 15 of them, plus people like the Bullingdon rhetoric (there is no other line of attack) so Lab, finally, appear to be becoming an opposition party (albeit a petty, spiteful one).
Great - doesn't change a thing. The poll is a bit more opposition angled vs NOTA but also NOTA has an actual party to indicate a preference for.
Lab + 17, LD - 17
Ukip +12, Con - 12
There will probably be a very low turnout for this seat so there may be a bit more variation in actual results than shown in the poll - I don't know how motivated Labour voters are for instance.
The Tories don't seem that motivated about this seat - certainly their candidate isn't a big hitter.
The poster battle around my area on the Wythenshawe side of the constituency shows 2 LD posters, one Labour and one Raving Loony - I think we get more during council elections.
South Shields, for example, saw the LD share fall from 14.2 to 1.4: a loss of almost exactly 90% of their previous share, and a decline of 93.2% in terms of votes.
He'll be out on tag in 3 months.
But will bowl like Glenn McGrath in the t20 World Cup so England will win it.
http://order-order.com/2014/02/06/farage-complains-to-electoral-commission-over-labour-postal-votes-accuses-canvassers-of-intimidatory-tactics/
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/labourtargets/
But I suspect the Conservatives will struggle to take seats from the Libs in the South of England, largely thanks to UKIP.
30-35 feels perhaps very slightly low, especially if the Libs pick up OxwAb or Watford. But I would feel very comfortable selling 40 seats.
The danger for the Conservatives is that in constituencies like Erewash the LibDem vote is likely to collapse, and go to Labour.
Hmmm...
1. Are there methodological problems with the polling?
2. Was there a shift of opinion on the ground between the poll and the vote?
3. To what extent are both (1) and (2) attributable to (a) shifts between voting intentions and (b) shifts between voting at all and not voting?
By-elections have dynamics all of their own - and the polling itself can shift them. However, if the figures are reasonably reliable in terms of identifying VI, then it follows that even if there are shifts in VI and turnout intention (TI?) during the general election campaign, we ought to be able to adjust the constituency polls accordingly to account for them.
Lab 45%
Ukip 13%
Con 9%
LD 2%
Other/DK/refused 30%
Room for plenty of change? That's based on turnout of 50%
Around 40% in the Trafford wards and 25% in the Manchester ones.
FPT, those on the previous thread who were arguing we should cut Russia some slack over the gat thing because some other countries are worse, might want to watch Liz McKean's Dispatches:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/4od#3651833
We had this debate before but as I understand it the rules have changed from May 2014. Voter registration per household will be replaced by individual voter registration. In order to be registered you will need a date of birth and NI number.
It should, in theory anyway, be more difficult to register 20 bogus voters, get postal vote forms for them, and post the the votes.
In theory.
Probably most of the DK's and refused will not vote, so I'm not sure the shares Millsy originally gave are meaningful. Indeed, I would be astonished if turnout was anywhere near 50%. It'll do well to hit 40%, especially if it's wet on the day.
I doubt Labour's winning margin will be as emphatic as the poll indicates, but I expect them to be about 20% ahead of UKIP.
It's quite possible that restricting postal votes would actually disproportionally disadvantage Labour, given historical turnout figures.
Not to mention that Occam's razor suggests Labour wouldn't have expanded postal voting quite so aggressively if they didn't think it would help them.
"Not surprisingly, those who have switched to UKIP – largely but by no means exclusively from the Tories – are more likely than most to say they are voting tactically to try to stop another party from winning. They are more likely still to say they are voting as a protest: nine in ten of them say they want to show they are unhappy with all the main parties at the moment.
Despite Labour’s huge overall lead, only a minority of voters in the constituency (43%) say they would rather have Ed Miliband as Prime Minister than David Cameron. In fact, a quarter of Labour voters (and more than half of UKIP supporters) say either that they are satisfied with Cameron or that they prefer him to the alternative.
When it comes to the economy, voters are more likely to say they think things will get better over the next year for the country as a whole (and only 29% think that) than to expect any improvement for themselves and their families (19%).
Even so – Miliband and Ed Balls are only five points ahead of Cameron and George Osborne (40% to 35%) on being trusted to manage the economy in the best interests of Britain. One in five Labour voters trust the PM and Chancellor more than their own party’s team.
As for the campaign on the ground, UKIP are making their presence felt. Nearly half (47%) of voters in the constituency say the party has put literature through their door, compared to 63% from Labour, 35% from the Conservatives and 18% from the Lib Dems."
If you make voting too easy people will vote without care or little thought . That's not being democratic that's just encouraging triviality
John Leech is a class act, but if the Lib Dems hold Manchester Withington in 2015 I think they'd be looking at substantial net gains across the UK.
Wouldn't it be less surprising if it turned out to be another thing they got wrong?
The restrictions on freedom of assembly that have been imposed over the last couple of decades have done much more to undermine democracy in this country than pettyfogging disputes over postal voting or gerrymandering.
On the other hand, voting creates events that are easy to frame bets on, so it does bring some advantages.