Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How Nigel and Nick squared up against each other in the wee
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How Nigel and Nick squared up against each other in the week’s other YouGov polling
NOTE: I’m out this evening and will not be posting tonight surveys until later. As well as YouGov I’m expecting Opinium for the Observer which has some interesting tactical voting questions. The sample was asked if people were voting for a party or against one and, if so, which.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
On-topic: pretty good for Clegg, but most people still thought he lost.
Sounds like Blair. Sometimes a certain rough edge is more reassuring than someone who's so smooth they're slippery.
Must be worried about the fast disappearing L/Dems.
Farage has no real need to worry about some of these figures. Be seen to be in touch and you can get away with a lot more, and while Clegg is a slick performer, part of Farage's appeal comes from not seeming as polished and professional in that regard as Clegg, Cameron and, increasingly, Miliband are. The honesty one is a surprise.
Also, if the LDs were disappearing as fast as people claim, they'd have been gone by now. They are much damaged, but from well over 6 million votes in 2010, even at half that they are a force, even if much diminished. I am also certain people wrote them off as dead and buried in the days of the Liberals, and yet they revived to almost 1/4 of the vote. I'd be wary of assuming they are history, even though they will take a big hit.
The BBC televised debate next week will be seen by a larger audience I’d imagine, Clegg can’t afford another bunch of front-page headlines getting thrashed by that affable guy from the pub.
"Although the fieldwork took place last month this only appeared on YouGov’s website yesterday. "
His criteria for having 'won' the debate is far different that that of Farage, and he is speaking for and to a minority when debating Farage. Farage imploding would be great for him, and there is no guarantee his stance will work, but it has a chance, which is all he needs out of this.
That the Yes campaign want this just shows that they know that they will need a nappy to control their financial incontinence.
Why else would an "independent" country want their big neighbour running their economy?
Edited extra bit: Mr. G, 'these people'? The English, aka (according to Salmond) your 'best pals' in the world?
Mr Farage's top quality was "stands up for Britain".
Mr Clegg's was "weak".
(Mr Cameron "out of touch", Mr Miliband "out of his depth").
http://order-order.com/2014/03/28/what-the-public-thinks-about-each-party-leader/
Only 0-44 off 3 overs.
Mr Farage before debate +40/-56
Mr Farage after debate +52/-46
Mr Clegg before debate +31/-67
Mr Clegg after debate +35/-64
http://order-order.com/2014/03/27/how-farage-won-last-nights-debate/
http://www.populus.co.uk/item/Something-for-the-Weekend-17/
But that's my point. We massively overestimate the significance of almost every news story. Opinions aren't driven by one-off piddly events like debates between minor league politicians.
For those who haven't seen it, today's Matt is brilliant. One of his best - cat haters don't look.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
Mr Farage's numbers are: +19/-46, Mr Clegg's +12/-56.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/jlge2cwwx4/YG-Archive-140224-Clegg-Farage.pdf
"It was not a vast audience".
The political commentary on this debate has been an embarrassment from start to finish. We heard that it was bad news for David Cameron. Then we heard that both Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage would be winners. The "narrative" in the Westminster bubble is now being driven by polling on a debate that few saw and fewer remembered, rather than on what either leader actually said. Meanwhile in reality the public are very sensibly paying almost no attention at all.
It filtered through so much that both the Lib Dems and UKIP fell in the most recent Populus poll.... Meanwhile in reality the public are very sensibly paying almost no attention at all.
I did say 'can' have significance, not 'will'. And the cry of 'the public pay almost no attention' is, I regret to say, complete and total nonsense. Not because it is not true, but because for practically every event involving politicians and politics, it will be true to a smaller or larger degree, so it tends to get trotted out for personal preference reasons only.
Most people do not read articles on politics in the blogosphere, they don't watch PMQs, Daily Politics or Question time (and those are the more watched events), so making the 'public pay almost no attention' argument can be applied to almost every political event anyone can care to name, so when it is trotted out, it devolves into a semantic argument about why, although most people do not pay attention to X or Y, X is significant whereas Y is not.
If someone claims these debates are game changing events, they are provably incorrect, but equally it makes little sense to just dismiss them because they will almost certainly have little lasting impact, because you cannot view such things in isolation, it is part of the overall political culture, even if by itself it can have little direct influence.
The story of this Parliament in the public's eyes could be summed up in a few words:
Deficit, austerity, tuition fees, Euro crisis, bankers' bonuses, 45%, Plebgate, immigration, economic recovery, cost of living, Scotland.
You could argue about even some of these.
Go on! How many?
Immigration polling (how it affects my family) is often pointed to by people who are pro EU immigration... yet the obvious fact is that an anti EU immigration party is winning support in real elections wherever their is mass EU immigration!
It is the bluff, bluster and bull from Salmond that I do not approve of.
If Scotland wants independence it is no skin off my nose. But Independence means Independence, not tapping up the British taxpayer.
Indeed I would quite like Scottish Independence as it would mean that spendthrift Labour chancellors will be much less likely, and that to become electable in rUK Labour will move to become a more centrist Social Democrat party.
Twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/449575576475406336/photo/1
We still have not had an answer as to why Scotland would want the rUK setting interest rates and financial policy though. An Independent Scotland would make it much more likely to be a right wing Tory government too. The only reason that I can fathom is that Salmond wants rUK to be the Germans to Scotlands Greece. I can see the advantage to him of being bailed out, but not the advantage to us.
BTW excellent win for Leicester City, our hands nearly on that trophy now. Burnley will have to watch it with both strikers injured.
Very happy to bet on LD versus UKIP GE2015 seats.
Betting PostBacked Hulkenberg to be top 6 at 2.5:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/malaysia-pre-race.html
I'll take 7/5 UKIP (6/4 w Ladbrokes)
So why not bet me here?
Secondly I think there's a chance that UKIP could win most votes and I have that covered in other ways.
I do have a bet at 8/1 that UKIP will win more than 1 seat which at the moment looks touch and go.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/vladimir-putin-wants-regain-finland-says-close-adviser-1442466
Also I have allowed your son to pay me for a bet (only 20 quid mind) at the next PB meet despite the fact Ive never met him, never been to a PB do and am not 100% to go to the next one!
The second reason would have sufficed!
You couldve laid me 7/5 and backed the 6/4 yourself!
•Rand Paul 13%
•Mike Huckabee 13%
•Jeb Bush 11%
•Chris Christie 9%
•Ted Cruz 9%
•Paul Ryan 6%
•Marco Rubio 6%
•Scott Walker 5%
•Bobby Jindal 3%
•Rick Santorum 3%
£10 and if the LDs get more % that UKIP Ill owe you £7.14
That said, Putin's roots are in St Petersburg rather than Moscow. This will have placed him close to the disputed territority of Karelia (Karjala) which is split by the border between Finland and Russia.
Karelia was originally Finnish but its territory has been fought over since the 13th century when the combatants were Sweden (ruling Finland) and the Novgorod Republic (later absorbed into Russia). The border kept being moved East and West right up until WWII, with Russia most often gaining land.
Finland did occupy much of Soviet Karelian territory as Hitler's tanks moved the Russians east but this didn't last long and led to nearly half a million Finnish Karelians being relocated to non Karelian Finland as the borders were redrawn again to Finland's disadvantage in 1944.
The Finns are more possessive of Karelia than Russia and its status is a core element of Finnish nationalism. The Karelian language, both on the Finnish and Russian sides, is a dialect of Finnish, although their religion is Orthodox rather than (Swedish) Lutheran.
The Finns 'winning' the Winter War between November 1939 and March 1940 following the Soviet Union's invasion of Finland to recover lost Karelian territory. The victory of the Finns lay more though in the casualties and defeats inflicted on Soviet forces and the avoidance of occupation. The Treaty of Moscow which ended the war saw Finland concede more Karelian territory to Russia.
I have been up to the Finnish Karelian border with Russia. The Finns are immensely proud of the economic strength of their part of Karelia and forever point out the destitution and neglect of Russian Karelia.
If any country is claiming territory it would be Finland wanting Eastern Karelia repatriated. Putin is most unlikely to have any territorial ambitions within Finland.
Finland's non NATO status is additionally irrelevant. Having, throughout its history been torn apart in conflicting imperialist fights between Sweden and Russia (and to a lesser extent and indirectly by Germany), it has always chosen to remain unaligned from military geo-political alliances. This has given it the freedom as one Finn told me: "to be on the wrong side in every major global conflict but always only to the benefit of Finland".
We can all do without US Neo-cons scaremongering on Putin's territorial ambitions.
Even Pork knows that.
33/32/15/10
Labour share lowest since 2010 !
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/29/labour-support-falls-lowest-2010-observer-opinium-opinion-poll?CMP=twt_gu
The findings – showing a clear bounce for the Tories after George Osborne's budget – will put more pressure on Miliband, whose party was 10 points ahead of the Tories a year ago.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/29/labour-support-falls-lowest-2010-observer-opinium-opinion-poll
I'm not sure he is right that it is probably Mr Cable. The impression given was that it was a Tory.
But Prof G does have a point - that minister mannie [edit: or lady] has rather put his foot through the Better Together hull, and if nobody is sacked soon it will look gey unchancy ...
I wonder if it is Mr Hammond (Defence not Trains)? He's got Faslane to think about, after all, and the last time the MoD put Faslane on the indy debate radar was not exactly tactful either (proposing imperial annexation to EWNI).
However the point was when did Labour last achieve a majority government before Blair. The answer is Oct 74."
JackW - I've just seen your posts on this on the last thread. This is not the point. You and I are answering different questions. Yes, Labour last achieved a majority government in Oct 74.
My point was when Labour last *returned* to power *with* a majority. That is to say, when did they last take control of the government - from the Conservatives, following a general election - with a majority government.
They did not do so in Feb 74, but did form a minority government. Therefore, the answer to that question (when did Labour last take power from the Conservatives, with a majority government, before 1997) is 1964, which is how I answered it in the first place.
Has anyone seen either of the two Eds in a bingo hall this week?
Being walked across a bridge in Helsinki in a mid-winter snowstorm to see Red Army bullet holes in the pedestals of the parapet is the price you have to pay for befriending the Finn.
Coming from Scotland, I am sure you will find such stories familiar, Carnyx.
If so, put me down for a tenner on the LDs.
I wonder to what extent a fug might set in within Labour if their polling suggest they may be forced into bed with the LDs? That would be very tough for (say) a new chancellor to come along and still have Danny Alexander in place. It's long been 'nailed' on PB that 'Ed is crap' could become a dominant message, and although it's clear he's actually quite capable, at his best verging on likeable, and certainly is and had progressed Labour's chances it may well be that the label comes to define him.
Cameron might just hang on yet! If he did though I wonder whether GO might eventually emerge as someone people like (hard sell I know). He is certainly doing a difficult job well (I would entirely concede that there have been endless PR disasters along the way).
We need a politician that people warm to. Maggie, Benn, even Bob Crowe - I can't think of anyone of the current generation who might become 'valued' in that way.
I do wonder what would have happened if they had simply kept out of it in 1941?