Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Exactly two years to the day after the AV referendum this i

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited May 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Exactly two years to the day after the AV referendum this is how Rallings and Thrasher project GE2015

The chart is based on Rallings & Thrasher data for today’s Sunday Times which has the pair’s own national equivalent vote share projections based on their detailed analysis of the outcome on Thursday. This has CON 26%, LAB 29%, LD 13%, Ukip 22%

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited May 2013
    So 22% gives UKIP zero seats and 29% delivers Labour 331. That's some electoral system.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,147
    Is there an explanation of how they made those vote share projections?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited May 2013
    UKIP got the most votes in at least two constituencies: Boston&Skegness and Aylesbury. Obviously Rallings & Thrasher's projections involve nullifying those results for one reason or another.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 41,002
    "Help" the yellows to a tally of seats still below even 13% of the total? I think you mean that the LibDems on a lower vote share are disadvantaged somewhat less than they have been at above 20%. But the system still "helps" the reds and blues to the disadvantage of everyone else, including the voters!
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,785
    If UKIP really did get 22% of the votes in a general election (ha ha ha, but anyway) then those votes would be very much less evenly spread across the country than they were this week - they would be heavily concentrated and targeted in some places (e.g. Lincolnshire), and virtually non-existent in others (e.g. Scotland) - so UKIP would get several, perhaps several dozen, seats.

    In other words, the R & T projection above is ultra-mega-double-plus-nincombalderdash-with-knobs-on.

    In real life, UKIP is of course likely to get not 22%, but only 3% or 5% or 8% if they are very lucky.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,246
    Did you vote No in the AV referendum Andy?

    If so you can hardly complain
    AndyJS said:

    So 22% gives UKIP zero seats and 29% delivers Labour 331. That's some electoral system.

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,147
    edited May 2013
    AndyJS said:

    UKIP got the most votes in at least two constituencies: Boston&Skegness and Aylesbury. Obviously Rallings & Thrasher's projections involve nullifying those results for one reason or another.

    ...so relatedly, did Rallings and Thrasher do the seat totals too, or has Mike or somebody else done those based on the national swings based off their vote shares?

    I don't know about anyone else but I'm totally confused about all the national numbers I've seen related to this election, and have no idea what they mean on their own terms, let alone what they'd mean for an actual general election.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,147
    tim said:

    LD vote almost halved and seats won goes up
    Labour majority on under 30%

    How proud must the Tory supporters of FPTP be?

    It would indeed be a very entertaining result, but I'm not sure that it's right, partly for the reasons AndyJS gives upthread.

    Maybe the vote share numbers already have some kind of adjustment in them for the difference between local elections and national ones?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 55,591
    tim said:

    LD vote almost halved and seats won goes up
    Labour majority on under 30%

    How proud must the Tory supporters of FPTP be?

    Or the voters who voted 2:1 against AV:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/United_Kingdom_AV_referendum_area_results.svg
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 55,591
    Kellner in The Scotsman and the next 500 days:

    "So there is still much to play for. Even if next year’s referendum does not lead to the early departure of Scotland from the UK, the vote could have big long-term consequences. Salmond’s dream may not come true this time round. But he is just 58 and looks to be in excellent health. If he can lift the Yes vote to 40 per cent next year, then independence could still happen in his lifetime."

    http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/opinion/comment/peter-kellner-supporters-of-devo-max-hold-the-key-1-2920663
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,147
    tim said:

    @Edmund
    Rallings and Thrasher look at turnout by age too don't they? it'll be a lot higher in the younger age groups at a GE than it wAs on Thurs.

    OK, that makes a bit more sense. So we reckon they've taken the actual votes, then adjusted for the age differences between the local electorate and the normal general one? Presumably they've just weighted by previous election votes to make up for how they'd do in seats that didn't vote this time?
    tim said:

    Of course I'll offer £50 at evens that UKIP don't win Boston and Skegness Same goes for Aylesbury

    Likewise, I'd offer 0.5 Bitcoins at evens that they don't get a vote share of 22% in the next general election. But if I lost that bet, I don't think I'd be very confident that you'd win yours.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    and 1% each from liblabcon and 26,29,13,22 turns into 25%, 28%,12%, 25%

    when things are this split only a small change could be the difference between no seats and 100s
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    JohnLoony said:

    In real life, UKIP is of course likely to get not 22%, but only 3% or 5% or 8% if they are very lucky.

    3% would still be less than than 3.1% UKIP got in 2010. A bold assertion. Even if true there were tories who thought that 3.1% in 2010 was still enough to deny Cammie his majority by driving down the tory vote in some marginals. More realistically the Curtice projection of 6-8% was a fairly reasonable one and that was before the locals.

    Though to be fair the lib dem 50 is vastly amusing. Somehow I doubt it. A party that finishes behind the BNP in South Shields might just be in far more trouble than this projection indicates. The importance of vote distribution notwithstanding. I also seem to recall that the Rallings and Thrasher prediction/projection for the locals didn't actually pan out either. They were close(ish) but not exactly on the money.

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,147
    edited May 2013
    Putting aside all these projections and FPTP seat conversion clevers, does anyone have the actual numbers for how many actual votes each party got in the places that actually voted on Thursday?
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited May 2013

    Putting aside all these projections and FPTP seat conversion clevers, does anyone have the actual numbers for how many actual votes each party got in the places that actually voted on Thursday?

    Harder to find than you might think oddly enough but I believe this one seems up to date.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/may/03/local-elections-results-full

    EDIT And it still isn't a total votes tally. Hmm.. I shall keep looking

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,147
    Mick_Pork said:

    Putting aside all these projections and FPTP seat conversion clevers, does anyone have the actual numbers for how many actual votes each party got in the places that actually voted on Thursday?

    Harder to find than you might think oddly enough but I believe this one seems up to date.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/may/03/local-elections-results-full

    That looks like seat totals to me, I'm talking about votes.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    tim said:

    @MrJones
    Not really, UKIP still get stuffed at 25%, go and look at the 1983 election

    yeah not saying 25% is the magic point, just an example. having very broad support across the country could work out when things are this split
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,147
    edited May 2013
    MrJones said:

    tim said:

    @MrJones
    Not really, UKIP still get stuffed at 25%, go and look at the 1983 election

    yeah not saying 25% is the magic point, just an example. having very broad support across the country could work out when things are this split
    Sure, all it takes is for the LibDems to get 25% as well...
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Latest YouGov / The Sunday Times results 3rd May - CON 30%, LAB 40%, LD 11%, UKIP 12%; APP -35
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited May 2013

    That looks like seat totals to me, I'm talking about votes.

    I know. I thought one of the sub headings at the bottom might have had it but not so.

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,147
    edited May 2013
    Mick_Pork said:

    That looks like seat totals to me, I'm talking about votes.

    I know I thought one of the sub headings at the bottom might have had it but not so.

    OK, thanks anyway.

    Nice of the BBC and the papers to go to all this trouble analyzing the data for us, but it would be even nicer if they could actually tell us what it was...
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 55,591
    tim said:

    @Carlotta
    AV is a miserable little compromise, supporters of fairer electoral systems of course voted against it.
    Tories might have a think in 2022 after thirty years without a majority

    Clearly the concept that voters actually prefer FPTP "does not compute"! Is there any poll evidence that a third of the electorate thought "I want fairer votes but not AV"?
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523

    MrJones said:

    tim said:

    @MrJones
    Not really, UKIP still get stuffed at 25%, go and look at the 1983 election

    yeah not saying 25% is the magic point, just an example. having very broad support across the country could work out when things are this split
    Sure, all it takes is for the LibDems get 25% as well...
    nope. a little bit more off the Tories and a little bit more off Labour.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,147
    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:

    tim said:

    @MrJones
    Not really, UKIP still get stuffed at 25%, go and look at the 1983 election

    yeah not saying 25% is the magic point, just an example. having very broad support across the country could work out when things are this split
    Sure, all it takes is for the LibDems get 25% as well...
    nope. a little bit more off the Tories and a little bit more off Labour.
    Pirate surge?
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523

    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:

    tim said:

    @MrJones
    Not really, UKIP still get stuffed at 25%, go and look at the 1983 election

    yeah not saying 25% is the magic point, just an example. having very broad support across the country could work out when things are this split
    Sure, all it takes is for the LibDems get 25% as well...
    nope. a little bit more off the Tories and a little bit more off Labour.
    Pirate surge?
    no idea what that means

    if

    CON 26%, LAB 29%, LD 13%, Ukip 22%

    is accurate then it's not going to take big shifts to create big shifts in number of seats so the FPTP sucks thing seems a bit silly
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited May 2013

    Nice of the BBC and the papers to go to all this trouble analyzing the data for us, but it would be even nicer if they could actually tell us what it was...

    It's not just the BBC (though let's not mince words their coverage of the locals was dire) the likes of ITV and SKY as well as the papers have isolated nuggets of data on votes cast (like more than a million votes for UKIP) but none of them seems to have bothered to lay it all out.
    Best bet seems to be to search on a council by council basis as far as I can tell.

  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    tim said:

    @Mick
    Doesn't give percentage by county (or preferably by constituency)

    Yes, this just underlines Edmund's point. After searching for a fair bit it's astonishing how cursory most of the coverage of the data is. Were most of the papers/TV news political editors and number crunchers on their holidays? I don't remember the coverage being this bad last year.

  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    tim said:

    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:

    tim said:

    @MrJones
    Not really, UKIP still get stuffed at 25%, go and look at the 1983 election

    yeah not saying 25% is the magic point, just an example. having very broad support across the country could work out when things are this split
    Sure, all it takes is for the LibDems get 25% as well...
    nope. a little bit more off the Tories and a little bit more off Labour.
    Pirate surge?
    no idea what that means

    if

    CON 26%, LAB 29%, LD 13%, Ukip 22%

    is accurate then it's not going to take big shifts to create big shifts in number of seats so the FPTP sucks thing seems a bit silly
    Yes it is, given the spread of UKIP votes they need close to 30% to get 20 seats

    don't believe it
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,529
    Does "Others" 25 include Northern Ireland? If so it implies a drop in Green/PC/SNP representation. Can't see SNP dropping.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    tim said:

    @MrJones

    I know you don't believe it, you don't believe crime is falling or racists leaving London improves Londons educational out ones or that the BNP wouldn't have a single county councillor.
    But what you believe or not isnt really the point

    I believe the murder rate in London is falling - which is odd as i can only think of one way that could happen. Maybe the courts have been quietly doing that since the shopping riots. If that's what it is and it's working, shame about the last 40 years.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    YouGov

    Do you think that David Cameron is doing well
    or badly as Prime Minister?
    Con Voters: Well 88 Badly 9

    Do you think Ed Miliband is doing well or badly
    as leader of the Labour party?
    LAB Voters: Well; 64 Badly 30

    Do you think that Nick Clegg is doing well or
    badly as leader of the Liberal Democrats?
    LD Voters. Well 65 Badly 30

    Thinking about Ed Miliband's leadership of the
    Labour party, do you think he...
    Has or has not provided an effective opposition
    to the government
    Lab Voters. Has 49 Has Not 41 DK 10

    Has or has not made it clear what he stands
    for?
    Lab Voters Has 45 Has not 44 DK 11

    Has been too close to the Trade Unions, too
    distant, or has got the balance about right?
    Lab Voters. Close 9 Distant 15, Right 52 DK 25

    Would or would not be up to the job of Prime
    Minister?
    Lab Voters. Would 62 Would Not 16 DK 21


  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited May 2013
    It'll be interesting to see how confident sitting MPs are that UKIP will get zero seats. My guess is "not at all".

    The Westminster reactions to changes in polling, or by-election results, are going to be very entertaining.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    YouGov

    Cabinet Minister Ken Clarke recently described
    UKIP as a "collection of clowns or indignant,
    angry people". Do you think this is fair or unfair
    description?

    Cons:: Fair 29 Unfair 57 DK 14
    LAB: Fair 43; Unfair 40 DK 16
    LD: Fair 51; Unfair 41; DK 8

    Politically, how well or badly do you think David
    Cameron is responding to the increased
    support for UKIP?

    Con Voters: Well 40 Badly 37 DK 23
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,147
    tim said:

    @KingCole
    Local election results project will show Galloway and Lucas losing their seats, they give PC and the SNP 8.
    Can't see the LDs surviving in Scotland to that degree

    It wouldn't be surprising to see Galloway fail to translate his personal support into support for RESPECT, but did they even have elections in Bradford?

    None of this makes sense - I'm beginning to suspect you guys couldn't even be arsed to hold elections this year, so you just made up some seat totals to fit in with the prevailing media narrative, then fudged in some meaningless "projections" instead of announcing actual vote shares so that nobody would catch you out on the specifics.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,156
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,529
    edited May 2013
    tim said:

    @KingCole
    Local election results project will show Galloway and Lucas losing their seats, they give PC and the SNP 8.
    Can't see the LDs surviving in Scotland to that degree

    Logical re Galloway and Lucas, but that would suggest SNP/PC lose one between them. Can't see that myself. Could LD's pick up a couple of the Cornish seats they lost last time?

    Agree about loss of LD seats in Scotland, though.

    Someone was posting yesterday about Tory tactical voting; could that happen such places as Burnley and Rochdale? Used to in Lancashire years ago, although that was probably a hangover from the pre-war National government.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 18,405

    tim said:

    @KingCole
    Local election results project will show Galloway and Lucas losing their seats, they give PC and the SNP 8.
    Can't see the LDs surviving in Scotland to that degree

    It wouldn't be surprising to see Galloway fail to translate his personal support into support for RESPECT, but did they even have elections in Bradford?

    None of this makes sense - I'm beginning to suspect you guys couldn't even be arsed to hold elections this year, so you just made up some seat totals to fit in with the prevailing media narrative, then fudged in some meaningless "projections" instead of announcing actual vote shares so that nobody would catch you out on the specifics.
    Projections based on key ward calculations are generally more indicative than total votes cast, because of the unrepresentative spread of the councils up this year.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,156
    Notts no collated vote totals by party. Likewise Northants and Oxon.

    https://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/election2013

    http://www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/election2013/

    http://www.oxfordshireelection.org.uk/

    Vote totals can be found but by going through each individual seat.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523

    It'll be interesting to see how confident sitting MPs are that UKIP will get zero seats. My guess is "not at all".

    The Westminster reactions to changes in polling, or by-election results, are going to be very entertaining.

    i don't believe anyone can be sure when the split is this weird.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,000
    If anyone thinks Labour will only get 29%. They must think an economic miracle is about to be delivered by GO. Fruitcakes Crackpots ...... comes to mind.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Workshy map of Britain revealed: Thousands of incapacity benefit claimants found to be capable of working

    This map of Britain reveals the 'workshy' spots around the country where people claiming incapacity benefit claimants are actually fit enough to work.

    The Government introduced tough new health tests for those who claimed to be too unwell to get back into employment two years ago.

    Since then some 203,000, 30 per cent, out of 700,000 receiving the old Incapacity Benefit were declared fit to find work.

    The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) said Birmingham had the biggest number of claimants capable of work. Of 14,640 claimants, 5,180 were fit.

    THE TOP 20 'WORKSHY' AREAS

    Birmingham 5,180
    Glasgow City 3,950
    Liverpool 3,280
    Manchester 3,030
    County Durham 2,970
    Leeds 2,570
    Bradford 2,430
    Sheffield 2,180
    Stoke-on-Trent 1,900
    Wakefield 1,880
    Kirklees 1,830
    Sandwell 1,810
    Cardiff 1,800
    Bristol, City of 1,760
    Nottingham 1,740
    Wigan 1,690
    Rhondda, 1,670
    Wirral 1,620
    Doncaster 1,610
    Coventry 1,580

    In Glasgow, 3,950 of the 15,720 who received incapacity benefit were found to be well enough to work.

    And in both Liverpool and Manchester more than 3,000 are no longer eligible for the benefit.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2319355/Workshy-map-Britain-revealed-Thousands-incapacity-benefit-claimants-capableworking.html#ixzz2SOdzw535

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 55,591
    YouGov Labour lead on 10 - internals pretty flat all round

    http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/9pvrqmvz9b/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-030513.pdf

    Ed has shifted perception a bit since Sept 12, but still has a way to go:
    Net
    Effective opposition to govt: -38 (+5)
    Clear what he stands for: -38 (-1)
    Up to job of PM: -26(+5)
    Likely he will become PM: -21 (+6)

    Lib Dems (+10) and Lab (+3) think it was fair of Ken Clarke to describe UKIP as "clowns", Tories (-28) and UKIP (-96) do not, and no one (-60) thinks it was good tactics. Only Tories, barely (+3) think Cameron is responding to UKIP well, most (-35) do not.
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    edited May 2013
    Thrasher and Rallings have to account for the paradigm-shift of 2013. Until they do they will shelter in the dirty comfie-blankie of post-war electoral failure.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 18,405
    Financier said:

    Workshy map of Britain revealed:


    Something almost Dickensian about that article. The rich do love to judge the poor. Makes them feel big.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    tim said:

    @Carlotta
    AV is a miserable little compromise, supporters of fairer electoral systems of course voted against it.
    Tories might have a think in 2022 after thirty years without a majority

    Clearly the concept that voters actually prefer FPTP "does not compute"! Is there any poll evidence that a third of the electorate thought "I want fairer votes but not AV"?
    The AV referendum was won by a wide margin, it was not just Tory voters who preferred FPTP, but must have included large numbers of Labour, and likely to include at least some LibDems and others.

    To me a narrow majority of 6 for Milliband's Labour at this point of the electoral cycle looks extremely fragile, and with some swingback, very likely to be a rerun of 2010. This would probably accurately reflect the voters views, who are unconvinced by any party. Such is the virtue of FPTP, one reason people like it.

    Having said that, I voted against AV, but would probably vote for PR, if it was a formula like STV in multimember constituencies, not the appalling party list system of the Euros.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    A leading law firm has set up a new service to encourage Bulgarian and Romanian immigrants to cash in on Britain’s compensation culture.

    Osbornes Solicitors LLP is offering a tailor-made ‘no win, no fee’ injury claims scheme for the thousands expected to come to Britain when entry controls are lifted at the end of the year.

    The firm has hired bilingual advisers so that migrants can submit compensation applications without having to speak English, while its website provides an explanation of how Britain’s compensation system works.

    The Romanian-language page says: ‘Find out, free of charge, if you can claim compensation as a result of your accident.

    'Furthermore, for the vast majority of our clients we operate a policy of NO WIN, NO FEE!’

    A Romanian businesswoman said: ‘Most of the new arrivals will be amazed to find that such a thing exists.’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2319665/Firm-urges-Romanians-launch-legal-claims.html#ixzz2SOfrGwOl




  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,156
    Jonathan what is a key ward?

    One of the Labour seats Eastville was by 1 vote, the LDs held on by 17 in Clifton East, and a third Bristol seat Frome Valley had a majority of 35 to Labour - but had a big UKIP Vote.. I'm not sure that the one with the slimmest majority was considered to be a key ward in the first place.

    Clifton East could be a key ward.
    http://www.bristol.gov.uk/LocalElectionViewer?XSL=main&ShowElectionWard=true&ElectionId=67&WardId=34

    Not sure about Frome Valley - looked safe last time.

    http://www.bristol.gov.uk/LocalElectionViewer?XSL=main&ShowElectionWard=true&ElectionId=67&WardId=5

    Eastville looked like a safe Labour ward.

    http://www.bristol.gov.uk/LocalElectionViewer?XSL=main&ShowElectionWard=true&ElectionId=67&WardId=31

    I;m not trying to score points - but am trying to work out what is a key ward?
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Financier said:

    A leading law firm has set up a new service to encourage Bulgarian and Romanian immigrants to cash in on Britain’s compensation culture.

    Osbornes Solicitors LLP is offering a tailor-made ‘no win, no fee’ injury claims scheme for the thousands expected to come to Britain when entry controls are lifted at the end of the year.

    The firm has hired bilingual advisers so that migrants can submit compensation applications without having to speak English, while its website provides an explanation of how Britain’s compensation system works.

    The Romanian-language page says: ‘Find out, free of charge, if you can claim compensation as a result of your accident.

    'Furthermore, for the vast majority of our clients we operate a policy of NO WIN, NO FEE!’

    A Romanian businesswoman said: ‘Most of the new arrivals will be amazed to find that such a thing exists.’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2319665/Firm-urges-Romanians-launch-legal-claims.html#ixzz2SOfrGwOl

    In Russia, faked car/pedestrian accidents have become so widespread that drivers have taken to adding video cams to their cars. Lots of entertaining videos on YouTube. Perhaps the UK will now be able to compete!

  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    tim said:

    @MrJones

    I know you don't believe it, you don't believe crime is falling or racists leaving London improves Londons educational outcomes or that the BNP wouldn't have a single county councillor.

    Statistical evidence once again Wee-Timmy: Which "racists" have left London and where have they gone? Such a political-dynamic must have betting implications for constituency-votes so you should back up your claims, no...?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 18,405
    As I understand it Prof John Curtice has a set of about 500 wards across the country that together correlate with GE voting patterns. Possibly in his research papers.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Financier said:

    A leading law firm has set up a new service to encourage Bulgarian and Romanian immigrants to cash in on Britain’s compensation culture.

    Osbornes Solicitors LLP is offering a tailor-made ‘no win, no fee’ injury claims scheme for the thousands expected to come to Britain when entry controls are lifted at the end of the year.

    The firm has hired bilingual advisers so that migrants can submit compensation applications without having to speak English, while its website provides an explanation of how Britain’s compensation system works.

    The Romanian-language page says: ‘Find out, free of charge, if you can claim compensation as a result of your accident.

    'Furthermore, for the vast majority of our clients we operate a policy of NO WIN, NO FEE!’

    A Romanian businesswoman said: ‘Most of the new arrivals will be amazed to find that such a thing exists.’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2319665/Firm-urges-Romanians-launch-legal-claims.html#ixzz2SOfrGwOl



    With the cuts to legal aid, there will be lots of underemployed lawyers desperate for work, I forsee quite a bit of ambulance chasing, not just for gypsy cats.

    I
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 643
    Ironic if the rise of UKIP caused introduction of proper PR for local and Westminster elections.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    Jonathan said:

    As I understand it Prof John Curtice has a set of about 500 wards across the country that together correlate with GE voting patterns. Possibly in his research papers.

    The Tory-Ukip vote partially overlaps in the same way Lib-Lab does. Even on those same numbers you only need some tactical voting here and there to change the seats.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Icarus said:

    Ironic if the rise of UKIP caused introduction of proper PR for local and Westminster elections.

    Why would it be ironic?

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    AV also supports those with uneven distribution, uneven turnout etc
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 18,405
    MrJones said:

    Jonathan said:

    As I understand it Prof John Curtice has a set of about 500 wards across the country that together correlate with GE voting patterns. Possibly in his research papers.



    The Tory-Ukip vote partially overlaps in the same way Lib-Lab does. Even on those same numbers you only need some tactical voting here and there to change the seats.
    Railings and Thrasher do something similar, will be interesting to see what they come up with.

  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Jonathan said:

    MrJones said:

    Jonathan said:

    As I understand it Prof John Curtice has a set of about 500 wards across the country that together correlate with GE voting patterns. Possibly in his research papers.



    The Tory-Ukip vote partially overlaps in the same way Lib-Lab does. Even on those same numbers you only need some tactical voting here and there to change the seats.
    Railings and Thrasher do something similar, will be interesting to see what they come up with.
    R&T predicted 40 UKIP gains at the locals.

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,147
    Jonathan said:

    tim said:

    @KingCole
    Local election results project will show Galloway and Lucas losing their seats, they give PC and the SNP 8.
    Can't see the LDs surviving in Scotland to that degree

    It wouldn't be surprising to see Galloway fail to translate his personal support into support for RESPECT, but did they even have elections in Bradford?

    None of this makes sense - I'm beginning to suspect you guys couldn't even be arsed to hold elections this year, so you just made up some seat totals to fit in with the prevailing media narrative, then fudged in some meaningless "projections" instead of announcing actual vote shares so that nobody would catch you out on the specifics.
    Projections based on key ward calculations are generally more indicative than total votes cast, because of the unrepresentative spread of the councils up this year.
    If you don't know how the projections have been done then they're pretty much 100% useless in predicting the general election (or anything else) because there are a bunch of things you'd have to correct for when translating a localized local election result into a national general election result, but we don't know whether those corrections are already in the numbers we're working with.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,147
    edited May 2013
    MrJones said:

    Jonathan said:

    As I understand it Prof John Curtice has a set of about 500 wards across the country that together correlate with GE voting patterns. Possibly in his research papers.

    The Tory-Ukip vote partially overlaps in the same way Lib-Lab does. Even on those same numbers you only need some tactical voting here and there to change the seats.
    How are the voters going to know who to tactically vote for? Even if UKIP are polling strongly in the run-up to the election nobody, including the best-informed people here, will know whether they're going to end up fizzling out on the day. And the voters won't be remotely as well-informed: Tories in UKIP-winnable seats will be telling all the UKIPpers to vote tactically for them, and they'll have convincing-looking bar-charts to support their arguments.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited May 2013

    MrJones said:

    Jonathan said:

    As I understand it Prof John Curtice has a set of about 500 wards across the country that together correlate with GE voting patterns. Possibly in his research papers.

    The Tory-Ukip vote partially overlaps in the same way Lib-Lab does. Even on those same numbers you only need some tactical voting here and there to change the seats.
    How are the voters going to know who to tactically vote for? Even if UKIP are polling strongly in the run-up to the election nobody, including the best-informed people here, will know whether they're going to end up fizzling out on the day. And the voters won't be remotely as well-informed: Tories in UKIP-winnable seats will be telling all the UKIPpers to vote tactically for them, and they'll have convincing-looking bar-charts to support their arguments.
    Perhaps Tories in safe Labour/LD seats will switch en masse to UKIP? Lots of local elections next year, a pattern may show up in the results.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 18,405

    Jonathan said:

    tim said:

    @KingCole
    Local election results project will show Galloway and Lucas losing their seats, they give PC and the SNP 8.
    Can't see the LDs surviving in Scotland to that degree

    It wouldn't be surprising to see Galloway fail to translate his personal support into support for RESPECT, but did they even have elections in Bradford?

    None of this makes sense - I'm beginning to suspect you guys couldn't even be arsed to hold elections this year, so you just made up some seat totals to fit in with the prevailing media narrative, then fudged in some meaningless "projections" instead of announcing actual vote shares so that nobody would catch you out on the specifics.
    Projections based on key ward calculations are generally more indicative than total votes cast, because of the unrepresentative spread of the councils up this year.
    If you don't know how the projections have been done then they're pretty much 100% useless in predicting the general election (or anything else) because there are a bunch of things you'd have to correct for when translating a localized local election result into a national general election result, but we don't know whether those corrections are already in the numbers we're working with.
    I don't have the references to hand, but there are a number of academic papers on the subject post 1992. Search for Curtice, Payne, Railings or Thrasher.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,156
    edited May 2013
    Things in Syria changing for the worse?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22417482

    Israeli air strikes reported by BBC. One for @Yokel.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Why shouldn't Romanians get compensated if they're injured because of someone else's fault? And I'm sure Osbornes are delighted both at being described as a leading law firm and at all the free publicity.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    antifrank said:

    Why shouldn't Romanians get compensated if they're injured because of someone else's fault? And I'm sure Osbornes are delighted both at being described as a leading law firm and at all the free publicity.

    Declare your interest sir!

  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523

    MrJones said:

    Jonathan said:

    As I understand it Prof John Curtice has a set of about 500 wards across the country that together correlate with GE voting patterns. Possibly in his research papers.

    The Tory-Ukip vote partially overlaps in the same way Lib-Lab does. Even on those same numbers you only need some tactical voting here and there to change the seats.
    How are the voters going to know who to tactically vote for? Even if UKIP are polling strongly in the run-up to the election nobody, including the best-informed people here, will know whether they're going to end up fizzling out on the day. And the voters won't be remotely as well-informed: Tories in UKIP-winnable seats will be telling all the UKIPpers to vote tactically for them, and they'll have convincing-looking bar-charts to support their arguments.
    all the more confusion to add into the mix
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,147

    MrJones said:

    Jonathan said:

    As I understand it Prof John Curtice has a set of about 500 wards across the country that together correlate with GE voting patterns. Possibly in his research papers.

    The Tory-Ukip vote partially overlaps in the same way Lib-Lab does. Even on those same numbers you only need some tactical voting here and there to change the seats.
    How are the voters going to know who to tactically vote for? Even if UKIP are polling strongly in the run-up to the election nobody, including the best-informed people here, will know whether they're going to end up fizzling out on the day. And the voters won't be remotely as well-informed: Tories in UKIP-winnable seats will be telling all the UKIPpers to vote tactically for them, and they'll have convincing-looking bar-charts to support their arguments.
    Perhaps Tories in safe Labour/LD seats will switch en masse to UKIP? Lots of local elections next year, perhaps a pattern will show up in the results.

    Possibly, but if they're safe Labour seats then (pretty much by definition) it's unlikely that UKIP will win them.

    Also, whatever you might think about the current government, the Conservatives have a pretty strong national brand. A lot of their supporters just aren't going to defect.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 18,405
    One of the interesting questions for 2014 is whether the Locals and the Euros will be held on the same day. Not sure what the current status is. Could serious change the result.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    MrJones said:

    Jonathan said:

    As I understand it Prof John Curtice has a set of about 500 wards across the country that together correlate with GE voting patterns. Possibly in his research papers.

    The Tory-Ukip vote partially overlaps in the same way Lib-Lab does. Even on those same numbers you only need some tactical voting here and there to change the seats.
    How are the voters going to know who to tactically vote for? Even if UKIP are polling strongly in the run-up to the election nobody, including the best-informed people here, will know whether they're going to end up fizzling out on the day. And the voters won't be remotely as well-informed: Tories in UKIP-winnable seats will be telling all the UKIPpers to vote tactically for them, and they'll have convincing-looking bar-charts to support their arguments.
    Perhaps Tories in safe Labour/LD seats will switch en masse to UKIP? Lots of local elections next year, perhaps a pattern will show up in the results.

    Possibly, but if they're safe Labour seats then (pretty much by definition) it's unlikely that UKIP will win them.

    Also, whatever you might think about the current government, the Conservatives have a pretty strong national brand. A lot of their supporters just aren't going to defect.
    20% of 2010 Tories have already switched to UKIP, and a lot of voters have just stopped voting in the last decade.

    http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

    Plus, if the UKIP momentum keeps building, lots of people will just join in.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    The Euro elections are not fptp - and are next. Lds must be dreading those.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,147
    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:

    Jonathan said:

    As I understand it Prof John Curtice has a set of about 500 wards across the country that together correlate with GE voting patterns. Possibly in his research papers.

    The Tory-Ukip vote partially overlaps in the same way Lib-Lab does. Even on those same numbers you only need some tactical voting here and there to change the seats.
    How are the voters going to know who to tactically vote for? Even if UKIP are polling strongly in the run-up to the election nobody, including the best-informed people here, will know whether they're going to end up fizzling out on the day. And the voters won't be remotely as well-informed: Tories in UKIP-winnable seats will be telling all the UKIPpers to vote tactically for them, and they'll have convincing-looking bar-charts to support their arguments.
    all the more confusion to add into the mix
    Well that's my point, there's no way you can get a united Tory-UKIP tactical front if everybody's confused, and the campaigns will be working very hard trying to confuse them. Tory supporters voting tactically for UKIP will be cancelled out by UKIP supporters voting tactically for the Tories...
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    TGOHF said:

    The Euro elections are not fptp - and are next. Lds must be dreading those.

    The really nice thing about the Euros, is that they are being held on the same day as the locals. Lots and lots of local government seats up, including a majority of the LDs remaining councillors.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    @anotherDave My interest is seeing all having fair access to the law.

    I have no financial interest either directly or indirectly in claims of the type mentioned in the Daily Mail article.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,147

    MrJones said:

    Jonathan said:

    As I understand it Prof John Curtice has a set of about 500 wards across the country that together correlate with GE voting patterns. Possibly in his research papers.

    The Tory-Ukip vote partially overlaps in the same way Lib-Lab does. Even on those same numbers you only need some tactical voting here and there to change the seats.
    How are the voters going to know who to tactically vote for? Even if UKIP are polling strongly in the run-up to the election nobody, including the best-informed people here, will know whether they're going to end up fizzling out on the day. And the voters won't be remotely as well-informed: Tories in UKIP-winnable seats will be telling all the UKIPpers to vote tactically for them, and they'll have convincing-looking bar-charts to support their arguments.
    Perhaps Tories in safe Labour/LD seats will switch en masse to UKIP? Lots of local elections next year, perhaps a pattern will show up in the results.

    Possibly, but if they're safe Labour seats then (pretty much by definition) it's unlikely that UKIP will win them.

    Also, whatever you might think about the current government, the Conservatives have a pretty strong national brand. A lot of their supporters just aren't going to defect.
    20% of 2010 Tories have already switched to UKIP, and a lot of voters have just stopped voting in the last decade.

    http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

    Plus, if the UKIP momentum keeps building, lots of people will just join in.
    Sure, for all I know the bandwagon could keep rolling and give them another 20% on top of that, but they're not going to be getting 70% or 80% or 90%. Tribal loyalties just don't die that fast.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523

    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:

    Jonathan said:

    As I understand it Prof John Curtice has a set of about 500 wards across the country that together correlate with GE voting patterns. Possibly in his research papers.

    The Tory-Ukip vote partially overlaps in the same way Lib-Lab does. Even on those same numbers you only need some tactical voting here and there to change the seats.
    How are the voters going to know who to tactically vote for? Even if UKIP are polling strongly in the run-up to the election nobody, including the best-informed people here, will know whether they're going to end up fizzling out on the day. And the voters won't be remotely as well-informed: Tories in UKIP-winnable seats will be telling all the UKIPpers to vote tactically for them, and they'll have convincing-looking bar-charts to support their arguments.
    all the more confusion to add into the mix
    Well that's my point, there's no way you can get a united Tory-UKIP tactical front if everybody's confused, and the campaigns will be working very hard trying to confuse them. Tory supporters voting tactically for UKIP will be cancelled out by UKIP supporters voting tactically for the Tories...
    Lab-Lib voters seem to figure it out somehow.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 2,812
    I think UKIP "won" Forest of Dean on Thursday. Were they any other seats where they topped the poll in the County elections?
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,124
    tim said:

    UKIP projected vote share 22%
    UKIP + BNP vote share 2009 22%

    Funny that

    Nice smearing...
  • MarchesMarches Posts: 51
    Per the bucket shop lawyers, unlikely to be good publicity if their potential clients can't read English. And Romania of course has employer liability rules. Whether they're enforced is of course another question. Which makes one suspect that the quote is an invented one.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 18,405

    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:

    Jonathan said:

    As I understand it Prof John Curtice has a set of about 500 wards across the country that together correlate with GE voting patterns. Possibly in his research papers.

    The Tory-Ukip vote partially overlaps in the same way Lib-Lab does. Even on those same numbers you only need some tactical voting here and there to change the seats.
    How are the voters going to know who to tactically vote for? Even if UKIP are polling strongly in the run-up to the election nobody, including the best-informed people here, will know whether they're going to end up fizzling out on the day. And the voters won't be remotely as well-informed: Tories in UKIP-winnable seats will be telling all the UKIPpers to vote tactically for them, and they'll have convincing-looking bar-charts to support their arguments.
    all the more confusion to add into the mix
    Well that's my point, there's no way you can get a united Tory-UKIP tactical front if everybody's confused, and the campaigns will be working very hard trying to confuse them. Tory supporters voting tactically for UKIP will be cancelled out by UKIP supporters voting tactically for the Tories...
    It's rather sweet to see the right wrestle with the same questions that have dogged the left for years.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    MrJones said:

    Jonathan said:

    As I understand it Prof John Curtice has a set of about 500 wards across the country that together correlate with GE voting patterns. Possibly in his research papers.

    The Tory-Ukip vote partially overlaps in the same way Lib-Lab does. Even on those same numbers you only need some tactical voting here and there to change the seats.
    How are the voters going to know who to tactically vote for? Even if UKIP are polling strongly in the run-up to the election nobody, including the best-informed people here, will know whether they're going to end up fizzling out on the day. And the voters won't be remotely as well-informed: Tories in UKIP-winnable seats will be telling all the UKIPpers to vote tactically for them, and they'll have convincing-looking bar-charts to support their arguments.
    Perhaps Tories in safe Labour/LD seats will switch en masse to UKIP? Lots of local elections next year, perhaps a pattern will show up in the results.

    Possibly, but if they're safe Labour seats then (pretty much by definition) it's unlikely that UKIP will win them.

    Also, whatever you might think about the current government, the Conservatives have a pretty strong national brand. A lot of their supporters just aren't going to defect.
    20% of 2010 Tories have already switched to UKIP, and a lot of voters have just stopped voting in the last decade.

    http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

    Plus, if the UKIP momentum keeps building, lots of people will just join in.
    Sure, for all I know the bandwagon could keep rolling and give them another 20% on top of that, but they're not going to be getting 70% or 80% or 90%. Tribal loyalties just don't die that fast.
    Conservative Party membership has reportedly halved since Mr Cameron became leader.

    Politicians don't command a lot of respect. So I don't think it will be such a wrench to switch to a similar alternative.

    Voters will have the opportunity to experiment by voting for UKIP in the Euros, or local elections, and seeing how they feel about it before the GE rolls round.

  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    I think UKIP "won" Forest of Dean on Thursday. Were they any other seats where they topped the poll in the County elections?

    Great Yarmouth, and Boston & Skegness were mentioned.

    http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/31242/#Comment_31242
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 55,591
    Interesting supplementaries in YouGov on attitude to naming suspects on arrest and charge with different offences.

    Strong support for anonymity on arrest (eg net secret, sexual offences, +59) becomes much more evenly balanced on charging (net secret, sexual offence -2), but falls away significantly on crimes like murder (net secret, arrest: +39, charge, -20)
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,147
    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:

    Jonathan said:

    As I understand it Prof John Curtice has a set of about 500 wards across the country that together correlate with GE voting patterns. Possibly in his research papers.

    The Tory-Ukip vote partially overlaps in the same way Lib-Lab does. Even on those same numbers you only need some tactical voting here and there to change the seats.
    How are the voters going to know who to tactically vote for? Even if UKIP are polling strongly in the run-up to the election nobody, including the best-informed people here, will know whether they're going to end up fizzling out on the day. And the voters won't be remotely as well-informed: Tories in UKIP-winnable seats will be telling all the UKIPpers to vote tactically for them, and they'll have convincing-looking bar-charts to support their arguments.
    all the more confusion to add into the mix
    Well that's my point, there's no way you can get a united Tory-UKIP tactical front if everybody's confused, and the campaigns will be working very hard trying to confuse them. Tory supporters voting tactically for UKIP will be cancelled out by UKIP supporters voting tactically for the Tories...
    Lab-Lib voters seem to figure it out somehow.
    Sure, after two decades of being slapped around by Thatcher and Major. Seriously, this is really hard to do. I remember trying to persuade Labour supporters to vote LibDem in Oxford West and Abingdon in 1997. It was a completely hopeless seat for Labour, with an impeccably centre-left LibDem candidate. The problem is that the other side don't want to concede. The candidate wants a reasonable performance to put on their CV. They tell all their people that this time they could make it - it's not hard to come up with a justification that will persuade people who don't know any better.

    The way Lib/Lab figured it out was inch by inch, election by election. A few more people figure it out each election, and that weakens the score of the squeezed party enough to build the case for the next time around. But it all takes time. And they still get it wrong - for example, someone (I think it was Yellow Submarine) posted how their sister heard about how well Clegg was doing and voted tactically for the LibDems in a Lab/Con marginal. With a party starting with almost nothing, it's pretty much impossible to tactically-vote correctly.

    Where you are right is if that UKIP turn out to be a permanent feature this could work itself out in the long term. But the right will need to lose a few general elections before they figure it out.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Some Tories finally getting it.
    - its not specifically Europe it is that Westminster is powerless and so respect for the institutions is sapping away.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/news/newstopics/eureferendum/10037363/EU-the-time-has-come-for-a-mandate-referendum.html
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,529
    In both 2005 and 2010 there were websites offering vote partnerships ..... you, LD supporter vote Lab in Tory/Lab marginal, I, Lab supporter will vote LD in LD/Tory marginal. Had to take people on trust of course, but that applies to canvassing anyway!

    You do need a history in the seat, of course, and UKIP haven't got much of that to offer. Besides which defectors aren't popular. At first anyway. Eventually people get used to it.

    There's also been some suggestion that a significant proportion of UKIP voters are first-for-a-long-time voters. Has any work been done on that?
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    edited May 2013

    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:

    Jonathan said:

    As I understand it Prof John Curtice has a set of about 500 wards across the country that together correlate with GE voting patterns. Possibly in his research papers.

    The Tory-Ukip vote partially overlaps in the same way Lib-Lab does. Even on those same numbers you only need some tactical voting here and there to change the seats.
    How are the voters going to know who to tactically vote for? Even if UKIP are polling strongly in the run-up to the election nobody, including the best-informed people here, will know whether they're going to end up fizzling out on the day. And the voters won't be remotely as well-informed: Tories in UKIP-winnable seats will be telling all the UKIPpers to vote tactically for them, and they'll have convincing-looking bar-charts to support their arguments.
    all the more confusion to add into the mix
    Well that's my point, there's no way you can get a united Tory-UKIP tactical front if everybody's confused, and the campaigns will be working very hard trying to confuse them. Tory supporters voting tactically for UKIP will be cancelled out by UKIP supporters voting tactically for the Tories...
    Lab-Lib voters seem to figure it out somehow.
    Sure, after two decades of being slapped around by Thatcher and Major. Seriously, this is really hard to do. I remember trying to persuade Labour supporters to vote LibDem in Oxford West and Abingdon in 1997. It was a completely hopeless seat for Labour, with an impeccably centre-left LibDem candidate. The problem is that the other side don't want to concede. The candidate wants a reasonable performance to put on their CV. They tell all their people that this time they could make it - it's not hard to come up with a justification that will persuade people who don't know any better.

    The way Lib/Lab figured it out was inch by inch, election by election. A few more people figure it out each election, and that weakens the score of the squeezed party enough to build the case for the next time around. But it all takes time. And they still get it wrong - for example, someone (I think it was Yellow Submarine) posted how their sister heard about how well Clegg was doing and voted tactically for the LibDems in a Lab/Con marginal. With a party starting with almost nothing, it's pretty much impossible to tactically-vote correctly.

    Where you are right is if that UKIP turn out to be a permanent feature this could work itself out in the long term. But the right will need to lose a few general elections before they figure it out.
    Eastleigh, Rotherham, South Shields

    edit: the point i'm making is not that it's easy but that saying they can't get any seats on this vote share is just silly
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,124

    Interesting supplementaries in YouGov on attitude to naming suspects on arrest and charge with different offences.

    Strong support for anonymity on arrest (eg net secret, sexual offences, +59) becomes much more evenly balanced on charging (net secret, sexual offence -2), but falls away significantly on crimes like murder (net secret, arrest: +39, charge, -20)

    Probably due to the fact there's more (somewhat strange but also understandable) deemed disgust at someone accussed of sexual offenses than of murder.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 55,591
    Another interesting UKIP voter outlier - how responsible (or not) are food manufacturers in reducing sugar/salt in their food:

    Net responsible:
    OA: -22
    Con: -11
    Lab: -24
    LibDem: -21
    UKIP: -40
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,147
    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:

    Jonathan said:

    As I understand it Prof John Curtice has a set of about 500 wards across the country that together correlate with GE voting patterns. Possibly in his research papers.

    The Tory-Ukip vote partially overlaps in the same way Lib-Lab does. Even on those same numbers you only need some tactical voting here and there to change the seats.
    How are the voters going to know who to tactically vote for? Even if UKIP are polling strongly in the run-up to the election nobody, including the best-informed people here, will know whether they're going to end up fizzling out on the day. And the voters won't be remotely as well-informed: Tories in UKIP-winnable seats will be telling all the UKIPpers to vote tactically for them, and they'll have convincing-looking bar-charts to support their arguments.
    all the more confusion to add into the mix
    Well that's my point, there's no way you can get a united Tory-UKIP tactical front if everybody's confused, and the campaigns will be working very hard trying to confuse them. Tory supporters voting tactically for UKIP will be cancelled out by UKIP supporters voting tactically for the Tories...
    Lab-Lib voters seem to figure it out somehow.
    Sure, after two decades of being slapped around by Thatcher and Major. Seriously, this is really hard to do. I remember trying to persuade Labour supporters to vote LibDem in Oxford West and Abingdon in 1997. It was a completely hopeless seat for Labour, with an impeccably centre-left LibDem candidate. The problem is that the other side don't want to concede. The candidate wants a reasonable performance to put on their CV. They tell all their people that this time they could make it - it's not hard to come up with a justification that will persuade people who don't know any better.

    The way Lib/Lab figured it out was inch by inch, election by election. A few more people figure it out each election, and that weakens the score of the squeezed party enough to build the case for the next time around. But it all takes time. And they still get it wrong - for example, someone (I think it was Yellow Submarine) posted how their sister heard about how well Clegg was doing and voted tactically for the LibDems in a Lab/Con marginal. With a party starting with almost nothing, it's pretty much impossible to tactically-vote correctly.

    Where you are right is if that UKIP turn out to be a permanent feature this could work itself out in the long term. But the right will need to lose a few general elections before they figure it out.
    Eastleigh, Rotherham, South Shields

    edit: the point i'm making is not that it's easy but that saying they can't get any seats on this vote share is just silly
    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:

    MrJones said:

    Jonathan said:

    As I understand it Prof John Curtice has a set of about 500 wards across the country that together correlate with GE voting patterns. Possibly in his research papers.

    The Tory-Ukip vote partially overlaps in the same way Lib-Lab does. Even on those same numbers you only need some tactical voting here and there to change the seats.
    How are the voters going to know who to tactically vote for? Even if UKIP are polling strongly in the run-up to the election nobody, including the best-informed people here, will know whether they're going to end up fizzling out on the day. And the voters won't be remotely as well-informed: Tories in UKIP-winnable seats will be telling all the UKIPpers to vote tactically for them, and they'll have convincing-looking bar-charts to support their arguments.
    all the more confusion to add into the mix
    Well that's my point, there's no way you can get a united Tory-UKIP tactical front if everybody's confused, and the campaigns will be working very hard trying to confuse them. Tory supporters voting tactically for UKIP will be cancelled out by UKIP supporters voting tactically for the Tories...
    Lab-Lib voters seem to figure it out somehow.
    Sure, after two decades of being slapped around by Thatcher and Major. Seriously, this is really hard to do. I remember trying to persuade Labour supporters to vote LibDem in Oxford West and Abingdon in 1997. It was a completely hopeless seat for Labour, with an impeccably centre-left LibDem candidate. The problem is that the other side don't want to concede. The candidate wants a reasonable performance to put on their CV. They tell all their people that this time they could make it - it's not hard to come up with a justification that will persuade people who don't know any better.

    The way Lib/Lab figured it out was inch by inch, election by election. A few more people figure it out each election, and that weakens the score of the squeezed party enough to build the case for the next time around. But it all takes time. And they still get it wrong - for example, someone (I think it was Yellow Submarine) posted how their sister heard about how well Clegg was doing and voted tactically for the LibDems in a Lab/Con marginal. With a party starting with almost nothing, it's pretty much impossible to tactically-vote correctly.

    Where you are right is if that UKIP turn out to be a permanent feature this could work itself out in the long term. But the right will need to lose a few general elections before they figure it out.
    Eastleigh, Rotherham, South Shields

    edit: the point i'm making is not that it's easy but that saying they can't get any seats on this vote share is just silly
    Eastleigh would be a good example where tactical voters will probably get it wrong. UKIP will probably under-perform their by-election score, since by-elections are ideal for protest parties and bad for parties in government. The right would be better uniting around the Tory, but luckily for the LibDem, UKIP supporters won't believe me when I say that...
  • Gerry_ManderGerry_Mander Posts: 621

    Another interesting UKIP voter outlier - how responsible (or not) are food manufacturers in reducing sugar/salt in their food:

    Net responsible:
    OA: -22
    Con: -11
    Lab: -24
    LibDem: -21
    UKIP: -40

    Does that mean they expect the food manufacturers to be responsible? If so, it is a bit nanny state for UKIP supporters.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Like the best of the BBC and on thread, the latest ARSE 2015 GE projection bares a repeat :

    Con 280 .. Lab 285 .. LibDem 45 .. SNP 10 .. Ukip 5 .. PC 3 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 1 .. Speaker 1 .. NI 18
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,124

    Another interesting UKIP voter outlier - how responsible (or not) are food manufacturers in reducing sugar/salt in their food:

    Net responsible:
    OA: -22
    Con: -11
    Lab: -24
    LibDem: -21
    UKIP: -40

    Does that mean they expect the food manufacturers to be responsible? If so, it is a bit nanny state for UKIP supporters.
    Also maybe due to the fact that older ukip voters might be more concerned about the health impact of foods, due to them being more aware of it..blood pressure and the like.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,148
    UKIP "won" Great Yarmouth, Thanet North, and Boston & Skegness, I think.

    Of course, UKIP won't win 22% in 2015. If they did, I think you'd end up with a lot of very quirky results, like 1922-24, before the system settled down again. I'm told by one quite senior figure in the party that while they'll field almost field a full slate, they'll focus on about 20 seats, in the hope of winning three or four.

    A 3% projected lead for Labour is not encouraging, by recent standards. The Conservatives were 7% ahead in 2000 and 2003, and 12% ahead in 2004.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,375
    As others have said, interesting but there's not enough information about R&T's assumptions to comment intelligently.

    Not mentioned in other posts about YouGov, I think: a sharp shift in "coalition partners working together well", -6 net to Yes 28 No 63. Possibly reflects people getting leaflets slagging off the other party, but more probably the evident parallel Cam and Clegg strategies to differentiate - Cam saying we'd be more EU-sceptic if it wasn't for the LDs, Clegg saying he won't tolerate a referendum bill or more benefit cuts. This is, as Edmund would say, a feature, not a bug - both parties want to look different from each other in 2015. But if the gap continues to widen it makes a shift to confidence and supply in late 2014 more likely.

    It seems odd that there is no UKIP bounce at all, but the polling ended on Friday afternoon, so won't have covered all the UKIP headlines in the Saturday press. No poll tonight but I'd expect a small bounce on Monday.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    OT but interesting and well worth a read.

    Melanie Phillips being autobiographical, recalls a difficult childhood and her initial working life as a Guardian journalist - she reveals the "thought culture" prevalent at the Guardian and how their writers were (are?) expected to conform.

    She writes, "Having (personally) experienced how the absence of proper fathering could screw up a child for life, I believed I was doing no more than stating the obvious when I deplored the explosion of lone parenting, female-headed households and mass fatherlessness.

    But, to my amazement, at The Guardian, I found that over this and many other issues, I was branded as reactionary, authoritarian and, of course, Right-wing.

    The result was social ostracism. One of the mentors I had looked up to — a thoughtful person, independent-minded and intellectually curious, or so I had thought — simply walked off rather than talk to me about these issues.

    All this was very painful. I was accosted angrily by someone I had previously thought of as a friend.

    ‘How can you possibly say that family breakdown hurts children?’ he spat out at me.

    ‘The worst damage to a child is always done by the traditional nuclear family!’

    I could only gaze at him, defeated by the stupendous shallowness of such an attitude.

    The ones who were the most aggressive and offended, I noticed, were those who had walked out on their families or were cheating on their spouses.

    This revealed another sad truth about the Left. What matters to them above all is that they are seen to be virtuous and compassionate. They simply cannot deal with the possibility that they might not be.

    They deal with any such suggestion not by facing up to any harm they may be doing, but by shutting down the argument altogether.

    That’s because the banner behind which they march is not altruism, as they kid themselves. It is narcissism.

    It was increasingly clear that the Left, the movement whose goal was to create a better society, had lost the moral plot — and not just over the family. It embraced the doctrine that all lifestyles were equal and none could be deemed to be better than any other.

    The more those around me demonised those of us who were clinging to moral precepts based on duty rather than self-interest, the more important it became to me to try to open people’s eyes to what was thus being ignored, denied or misrepresented."

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2319192/


  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    @Sean_Fear

    Do you have an appreciation of the St Albans and Watford parliamentary seats based on Thursday ?

    I have this worrying feeling of creeping yellow perilism begining to infest leafy Herts. Will I have to extend fine pie operations south of the border ?? .. I fear so !!
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699

    TGOHF said:

    The Euro elections are not fptp - and are next. Lds must be dreading those.

    The really nice thing about the Euros, is that they are being held on the same day as the locals. Lots and lots of local government seats up, including a majority of the LDs remaining councillors.

    That is nonsense , the majority of LD's remaining councillors have been reelected in the last 3 years . The one area where your comment is true is London which has had no elections since 2010 .

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,645
    TGOHF said:

    Some Tories finally getting it.
    - its not specifically Europe it is that Westminster is powerless and so respect for the institutions is sapping away.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/news/newstopics/eureferendum/10037363/EU-the-time-has-come-for-a-mandate-referendum.html

    Yes indeed Sir H. Also accentuated by the handover of powers in devloution. If the Westminster Turkeys have voted for Xmas it seems only reasonably they should be plucked and hung from a butcher's hook. 300 less of them would be a good start for people who have forgotten their purpose.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    JackW said:

    Like the best of the BBC and on thread, the latest ARSE 2015 GE projection bares a repeat :

    Con 280 .. Lab 285 .. LibDem 45 .. SNP 10 .. Ukip 5 .. PC 3 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 1 .. Speaker 1 .. NI 18

    @JackW:
    Are you revealing all again or do you mean "bears".
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,529
    JackW said:

    Like the best of the BBC and on thread, the latest ARSE 2015 GE projection bares a repeat :

    Con 280 .. Lab 285 .. LibDem 45 .. SNP 10 .. Ukip 5 .. PC 3 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 1 .. Speaker 1 .. NI 18

    That, sort of, "feels" better.

This discussion has been closed.