I see the YouGov UKIP bounce has duly arrived, though it's not wildly exciting - 2% up on the one before the press when to town over their success. Oddly it seems to be hurting the LibDems most..
Not odd at all. These are people trying to avoid a decision, or choosing to 'send a message'.
It makes them all look and sound the same, and terrifyingly bland, and while I am a big believer in the fact they have become so bland by design because it works
Gone are the times when Farage would turn every single issue into an anti-Europe rant and he is far more comfortable speaking on other issues and policies now. Politicians can and do improve over time and are capable of learning from their mistakes. Farage has.
An astute point. He was canny enough to tap into the increasing anti-EU anger, still raise it as a point most of the time, but he's actually less forceful about it and as you say does talk about other things, making him more reasonable.
A third of Tories want deal with Ukip, grassroots poll finds
A third of Conservatives members want to strike a deal with Ukip at the next general election as Tory MPs proposed standing on an unprecedented “joint ticket”.
That third clearly don't regard them as "fruitcakes loonies and closet racists". The tory base and membership is also far more BOO than the parliamentary tory party.
I see the YouGov UKIP bounce has duly arrived, though it's not wildly exciting - 2% up on the one before the press when to town over their success. Oddly it seems to be hurting the LibDems most..
Not odd at all. These are people trying to avoid a decision, or choosing to 'send a message'.
If you compare it with YouGov of May 2012, rather than last week, UKIP's rise has hurt Labour more than anyone else.
If you want to get rid of the wonks in politics, take the excess of money out of politics and in particular the political parties.
Thank the gods that Europe - ha - ruled that the ban of political advertising on TV was ok. at least.
You'll find out soon enough if that's the case or the chumocracy has dumped yet another part of the coalition agreement while Clegg wasn't looking or decided lobbysits might not be so bad after all when finances are dire. Namely the lobbying register and whether it finally appears in the Queen's Speech after being dumped repeatedly before.
In point 16, page 21 of the Coalition Agreement it states:
“We will regulate lobbying through introducing a statutory register of lobbyists and ensuring greater transparency.”
I see the YouGov UKIP bounce has duly arrived, though it's not wildly exciting - 2% up on the one before the press when to town over their success. Oddly it seems to be hurting the LibDems most..
Not odd at all. These are people trying to avoid a decision, or choosing to 'send a message'.
No, we've decided. We hate you.
Let the Heathites have their fun for the next two years. I can't see them ever getting back into office after the farce of this administration.
Well her first name alone disqualifies her, but she's another SPAD/Westminster insider, I so loathe in British politics these days
My Labour Party experience
I know how Parliament works and have spent most of the last decade supporting Labour at a national level:
Deputy field director for Ed Miliband’s leadership campaign Policy adviser to Dame Tessa Jowell MP Press officer for London Labour Party Researcher at Philip Gould Associates Researcher for the Greater London Authority Caseworker for Harry Cohen MP
Oh gods these political wonks depress me, and I am a political wonk. She'll no doubt fit right in, and with so much time in the internal party bubble will have no idea what normal people are like, unless it's summarized on a Labour party focus group report.
It's like the big parties WANT Farage and UKIP to take over.
Oddly, I think the problem is that for senior politicians who are as perfectly polished in presentation as decades in politics can manage, the leaders on both stratas don't seem to realize that their presentation is what is the problem. Although it would not be a huge problem were it not for something else
It makes them all look and sound the same, and terrifyingly bland, and while I am a big believer in the fact they have become so bland by design because it works - that people have wanted safe, bland leaders - the less polished, riskier Farage type presentation only seems to get mainstream appeal when most people don't think that all the other lot are pretty shit.
Their blandness is almost comforting if people had any confidence they weren't equally crap, but since they are perceived that way, the risky actual personality - gods forbid - of Farage and the occasional character in their own ranks, holds no fears, but the leaders don't seem to realize that, because the bland thing has worked until now.
The effect is not enough to prevent them from holding on to their positions, but it prevents any turnaround from viewing our political classes with contempt.
As mad as they can sometimes be, I find local councillors to be much more relatable and trustworthy, even the lower quality ones. If some oxbridge party hack tells me once more they know what it's like for the public and what is best for them in a tone like they're reading an autocue that magically appears on the faces of whoever they are talking to, I may scream.
They do themselves a disservice with their incautious, frightened-of-the-public presentations, because they may well understand the issues and have positive solutions, but they appear so disconnected.
Gods, rant over.
I think it's the constant glare of the spotlight. Everything is recorded, scrutinised from every angle to find a way it can be seen as a gaffe.
Hence why the state of our political class is still mostly our own fault, unfortunately.
It makes them all look and sound the same, and terrifyingly bland, and while I am a big believer in the fact they have become so bland by design because it works - that people have wanted safe, bland leaders
I don't think it's so much driven by what people wanted as by fear of career suicide in a world where nobody stands for anything substantial. Any sign of original thought is just used as a means to attack the other side so they try very hard to eliminate any trace of it from their own personae.
Cameron said that UKIP supporters should be respected, but then a Downing Street source was quoted as referring to them as "life's losers." Which reflects Cameron's view most accurately, I wonder?
UKIP it is, then.
Loser!
You're another clueless posh Tory twat, but you post on here, so you can't be all bad. Can't you go tell your chinless mates in Downing Street to STOP INSULTING EVERYONE IN BRITAIN WHO DIDN'T GO TO ETON, because, the fact is, us lot down here in Britain, we're kinda tempted to vote UKIP, and if you keep sneering and chortling, that's exactly what we will do.
And then we will come round and rape your pets.
Sean.
There is nothing anyone can do with the Downing Street boys. OK, we can get them to be a little politer but that would only take them further away from reality.
I am reminded of Callaghan's comments on the highest stratum of British society, the Royal Family. He said they were were always friendly but he could never consider them friends.
The PR boys could of course make the No 10 Etonians more friendly, but is this what we want? Would it make any difference? We wouldn't end up being friends.
The only time I have heard Cameron speak in public in what I detected as an authentic voice was when he chuckled to Nick Ferrari that kippers were "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists".
We all know that Cameron was right, at least in the sense that a good joke is always based on a perceived but inadmissable truth.
The No 10 flunkey who called the kipper's "life's losers" was also right on the same basis. If it had been written by a psephologist in explanation of a political archetype few of us would have complained.
You may think that I move in exalted circles but like most people I have family who are perfect fruitcakes, loonies and [closet] racists, some of whom may now be voting UKIP; and friends who could definitely be described as "life's losers". I would say as much to their faces without any malice. After all in the end we are all "life's losers".
And the Cameron Etonians are no different to Labour's elite as we discovered in the last election when Gordon referred to Gillian Duffy in the privacy of his car as a bigot.
And Farage is only different by luxury of not being in office. So contrary to the 'political classes' he has licence to offend and tell the President of the EU that "he has the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk" and that the nation of his birth is a "non-country".
I like "life's losers". At least it raises the questions of who and what has been lost and how it may be recovered.
Cameron said that UKIP supporters should be respected, but then a Downing Street source was quoted as referring to them as "life's losers." Which reflects Cameron's view most accurately, I wonder?
UKIP it is, then.
Loser!
You're another clueless posh Tory twat, but you post on here, so you can't be all bad. Can't you go tell your chinless mates in Downing Street to STOP INSULTING EVERYONE IN BRITAIN WHO DIDN'T GO TO ETON, because, the fact is, us lot down here in Britain, we're kinda tempted to vote UKIP, and if you keep sneering and chortling, that's exactly what we will do.
And then we will come round and rape your pets.
Sean.
Blah Blah Blah
Roll on the insults.
There is one major difference Mr LimpDick, Farage was playing to his audience, Cameron and Downing Street are crapping on their's. Beyond the faux outrage of such insults, the real revelation is that Cameron is a political inadequate bereft of ability to think either tactically or strategically. One of his most damaging failings peridoically his mouth opens before his brain engages.........
Cameron said that UKIP supporters should be respected, but then a Downing Street source was quoted as referring to them as "life's losers." Which reflects Cameron's view most accurately, I wonder?
UKIP it is, then.
Loser!
You're another clueless posh Tory twat, but you post on here, so you can't be all bad. Can't you go tell your chinless mates in Downing Street to STOP INSULTING EVERYONE IN BRITAIN WHO DIDN'T GO TO ETON, because, the fact is, us lot down here in Britain, we're kinda tempted to vote UKIP, and if you keep sneering and chortling, that's exactly what we will do.
And then we will come round and rape your pets.
Sean.
Blah Blah Blah
Roll on the insults.
There is one major difference Mr LimpDick, Farage was playing to his audience, Cameron and Downing Street are crapping on their's. Beyond the faux outrage of such insults, the real revelation is that Cameron is a political inadequate bereft of ability to think either tactically or strategically. One of his most damaging failings peridoically his mouth opens before his brain engages.........
"Germany sees surge in immigration from crisis-hit Europe
An influx of people from crisis-hit southern European countries like Spain, Italy and Greece has led to the biggest surge in German immigration in nearly 20 years.
The Federal Statistics Office said 1.081 million immigrants flocked to Germany last year, up 13 percent from 2011 and the highest number since 1995.
Leading the way were arrivals from countries in eastern Europe and from southern euro zone countries struggling with recession and high unemployment as a result of the currency bloc's three-year old debt crisis.
The number of immigrants coming from Spain, Greece, Portugal and Italy rose by 40 percent or more compared to the prior year."
Cameron said that UKIP supporters should be respected, but then a Downing Street source was quoted as referring to them as "life's losers." Which reflects Cameron's view most accurately, I wonder?
UKIP it is, then.
Loser!
You're another clueless posh Tory twat, but you post on here, so you can't be all bad. Can't you go tell your chinless mates in Downing Street to STOP INSULTING EVERYONE IN BRITAIN WHO DIDN'T GO TO ETON, because, the fact is, us lot down here in Britain, we're kinda tempted to vote UKIP, and if you keep sneering and chortling, that's exactly what we will do.
And then we will come round and rape your pets.
Sean.
Blah Blah Blah
Roll on the insults.
There is one major difference Mr LimpDick, Farage was playing to his audience, Cameron and Downing Street are crapping on their's. Beyond the faux outrage of such insults, the real revelation is that Cameron is a political inadequate bereft of ability to think either tactically or strategically. One of his most damaging failings peridoically his mouth opens before his brain engages.........
Please don't call me LimpDick.
I don't like it.
Very Well. So not 'Roll On The Insults' then. Perhaps you might suggest to your leaders as well that people don't like their insults either.......
Cameron said that UKIP supporters should be respected, but then a Downing Street source was quoted as referring to them as "life's losers." Which reflects Cameron's view most accurately, I wonder?
UKIP it is, then.
Loser!
You're another clueless posh Tory twat, but you post on here, so you can't be all bad. Can't you go tell your chinless mates in Downing Street to STOP INSULTING EVERYONE IN BRITAIN WHO DIDN'T GO TO ETON, because, the fact is, us lot down here in Britain, we're kinda tempted to vote UKIP, and if you keep sneering and chortling, that's exactly what we will do.
And then we will come round and rape your pets.
Sean.
Blah Blah Blah
Roll on the insults.
There is one major difference Mr LimpDick, Farage was playing to his audience, Cameron and Downing Street are crapping on their's. Beyond the faux outrage of such insults, the real revelation is that Cameron is a political inadequate bereft of ability to think either tactically or strategically. One of his most damaging failings peridoically his mouth opens before his brain engages.........
Please don't call me LimpDick.
I don't like it.
Very Well. So not 'Roll On The Insults' then. Perhaps you might suggest to your leaders as well that people don't like their insults either.......
Insults connected with the expressed opinion I would suspect was the suggestion.
Are you saying that describing a quarter of voters in the local elections as "life's losers" was a good move by Downing Street?
In the long run yes.
The kippers are telling us every day how they are losing out to globalisation; to metropolitanism; to 'bankstas'; to Polish plumbers; to inflation; to wage freezes; to the EU.
If we start identifying how and why they have become life's losers we may be able to start working on recovery measures.
Cameron said that UKIP supporters should be respected, but then a Downing Street source was quoted as referring to them as "life's losers." Which reflects Cameron's view most accurately, I wonder?
UKIP it is, then.
Loser!
You're another clueless posh Tory twat, but you post on here, so you can't be all bad. Can't you go tell your chinless mates in Downing Street to STOP INSULTING EVERYONE IN BRITAIN WHO DIDN'T GO TO ETON, because, the fact is, us lot down here in Britain, we're kinda tempted to vote UKIP, and if you keep sneering and chortling, that's exactly what we will do.
And then we will come round and rape your pets.
Sean.
Blah Blah Blah
Roll on the insults.
There is one major difference Mr LimpDick, Farage was playing to his audience, Cameron and Downing Street are crapping on their's. Beyond the faux outrage of such insults, the real revelation is that Cameron is a political inadequate bereft of ability to think either tactically or strategically. One of his most damaging failings peridoically his mouth opens before his brain engages.........
Please don't call me LimpDick.
I don't like it.
Very Well. So not 'Roll On The Insults' then. Perhaps you might suggest to your leaders as well that people don't like their insults either.......
I doubt Hermann Rompuy liked being insulted by Farage either. And my guess is that the vast majority of Belgians agreed with him.
You cannot argue that Farage has a right to insult because it appeals to his supporters and advances his policies and that other political leaders should be denied the same opportunities.
Avery Lympe Pole is living proof as to why, even IF the economy improves, Cameron and Osborne will struggle and probably fail to beat the worst Labour leader since Foot.
The posh Tories in Westminster don't get it, and they never will. Half of them blithely don't care (though they will care when they are booted out of office). The rest, poignantly, DO care, but they can do nothing about it, because the life experiences of 99% of Brits are outwith their comprehension, and every attempt they make to connect with this experience looks painfully inauthentic.
Bizarrely, Dulwich-boy Farage gets it by instinct. So does Etonian Boris.
As Thatcher said in a tv interview on the eve of her landslide election victory: "bleating that you care is not solving the problems of those who need care". [or words to that effect as I can't find the source] .
Would any leader be brave enough to say that today?
Just wanted to comment on the earlier thread which is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read on PB. Clearly it is not OGH's prediction but it is still utterly ridiculous.
I have several problems with this. Firstly, we have just witnessed a stunning surge for UKIP from virtually nothing. This may be built on, it may fade away but it has certainly shaken up British politics and to use that as a basis to predict that Labour have an 81% certainty of a majority is ridiculous. If he was making that prediction in a 1999 environment for the 2001 election, I wouldn't have a problem. Those were generally stable and prosperous times. However, we live in interesting times as the Chinese say with a highly volatile global situation and a volatile electorate to match.
If you built a time machine and went back a mere 6 years ago and asked people to predict what would happen in the world in the next 6 years, how many would predict the following: A bank run on Northern Rock The News of the World closing down over phone hacking Well known TV stars revealed to be paedophiles. UKIP getting 23% in local elections MPs being caught fiddling expenses (maybe this one by a few cynics) People having their bank deposits confiscated in the Eurozone Revolutions in the Arab world
The answer is not many, if any. Few people including Mr Baxter would have predicted the local election result as recently as a month ago and yet Mr Baxter can make such firm predictions 2 years in advance. Nate Silver's model only had Obama to win at about 66% until the last few days of the US election because he allowed for unpredictability and the possibility of an October surprise.
There are so many possible October surprises that could happen to dramatically upset UK politics in the next few years: Syria spills over to a wider war in the Middle East Conflict in Korea A nation defaults on their debts and sets off another credit crisis Democracy fails in one of the Eurozone members A high profile crime by a Bulgarian or Romanian immigrant Any number of gaffes or potential mistakes by the politicians And no doubt other things that no-one has even considered
The other problem I have is that he is basing his prediction on his model. Humans are notoriously bad at predicting the future. There are 2 ways of doing this: one you go with a hunch or gut feel or something you saw in a dream. The second is you try and apply some scientific rigour. You do this by looking at what happened in the past and using this as a basis to predict the future. The problem with this is the old stock market warning "the past is no guide to future performance". A stock may go up steadily for years until it falls off a cliff.
The problem with most models is that they work for a while as most people are creatures of habit and don't change their routines too much. A lot of the time, change is gradual and models capture this. The problem can be when a group of people make a wholesale change to their behaviour over a short period of time and then the models can fall apart quite easily.
Look at the financial crisis. A lot of very clever mathematicians from places like Cambridge came up with a model that if you mix bits of bad debt you get a grade A product as it reduces risk. This worked for a while until the financial crisis changed everything in short order and then the model fell apart. As a side note I think the economists and mathematicians got off scot free from the financial crisis.
If UKIP get 8% then the model will probably work fine but if they did manage 23% then it will break all the seat calculators. I put the BBC share figures from last week into Mr Baxter's calculator and it tells me that in this case UKIP will get 23.7% share in Great Yarmouth and 22.2% in Orkney and Shetland. Seems pretty implausible to me.
In conclusion (and sorry for the post length), we are in for an interesting ride and anyone making such certain predictions could end up with egg on their face.
Very Well. So not 'Roll On The Insults' then. Perhaps you might suggest to your leaders as well that people don't like their insults either.......
I doubt Hermann Rompuy liked being insulted by Farage either. And my guess is that the vast majority of Belgians agreed with him.
You cannot argue that Farage has a right to insult because it appeals to his supporters and advances his policies and that other political leaders should be denied the same opportunities.
I don't. Politicians insult each other all the time and Eurocrats insult this country and Eurosceptics as much as the likes of Farage insult them. Its not pretty but it is what it is.
My argument against Cameron and his Downing Street chums was it was bad politics and unlike Brown who only actually directly insulted 1 voter (to whom he did apologise personally). Cameron insulted millions of voters potentially and he has yet to make a real retraction of what he said and has reinforced the attack by failing to withdraw it a number of times recently and by his coterie continuing to make derogatory noises.
Just wanted to comment on the earlier thread which is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read on PB. Clearly it is not OGH's prediction but it is still utterly ridiculous.
I have several problems with this. Firstly, we have just witnessed a stunning surge for UKIP from virtually nothing. This may be built on, it may fade away but it has certainly shaken up British politics and to use that as a basis to predict that Labour have an 81% certainty of a majority is ridiculous. If he was making that prediction in a 1999 environment for the 2001 election, I wouldn't have a problem. Those were generally stable and prosperous times. However, we live in interesting times as the Chinese say with a highly volatile global situation and a volatile electorate to match.
If you built a time machine and went back a mere 6 years ago and asked people to predict what would happen in the world in the next 6 years, how many would predict the following: A bank run on Northern Rock The News of the World closing down over phone hacking Well known TV stars revealed to be paedophiles. UKIP getting 23% in local elections MPs being caught fiddling expenses (maybe this one by a few cynics) People having their bank deposits confiscated in the Eurozone Revolutions in the Arab world
The answer is not many, if any. Few people including Mr Baxter would have predicted the local election result as recently as a month ago and yet Mr Baxter can make such firm predictions 2 years in advance. Nate Silver's model only had Obama to win at about 66% until the last few days of the US election because he allowed for unpredictability and the possibility of an October surprise.
There are so many possible October surprises that could happen to dramatically upset UK politics in the next few years: Syria spills over to a wider war in the Middle East Conflict in Korea A nation defaults on their debts and sets off another credit crisis Democracy fails in one of the Eurozone members A high profile crime by a Bulgarian or Romanian immigrant Any number of gaffes or potential mistakes by the politicians And no doubt other things that no-one has even considered
The other problem I have is that he is basing his prediction on his model. Humans are notoriously bad at predicting the future. There are 2 ways of doing this: one you go with a hunch or gut feel or something you saw in a dream. The second is you try and apply some scientific rigour. You do this by looking at what happened in the past and using this as a basis to predict the future. The problem with this is the old stock market warning "the past is no guide to future performance". A stock may go up steadily for years until it falls off a cliff.
The problem with most models is that they work for a while as most people are creatures of habit and don't change their routines too much. A lot of the time, change is gradual and models capture this. The problem can be when a group of people make a wholesale change to their behaviour over a short period of time and then the models can fall apart quite easily.
Look at the financial crisis. A lot of very clever mathematicians from places like Cambridge came up with a model that if you mix bits of bad debt you get a grade A product as it reduces risk. This worked for a while until the financial crisis changed everything in short order and then the model fell apart. As a side note I think the economists and mathematicians got off scot free from the financial crisis.
If UKIP get 8% then the model will probably work fine but if they did manage 23% then it will break all the seat calculators. I put the BBC share figures from last week into Mr Baxter's calculator and it tells me that in this case UKIP will get 23.7% share in Great Yarmouth and 22.2% in Orkney and Shetland. Seems pretty implausible to me.
In conclusion (and sorry for the post length), we are in for an interesting ride and anyone making such certain predictions could end up with egg on their face.
Comments
The tory base and membership is also far more BOO than the parliamentary tory party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2012
Nicolas Sarkozy, the former French President, has let his followers know that he may return to politics to save his nation from a “social explosion”.
Mr Sarkozy believes that the country is a tinderbox under the weak leadership of the “really useless” François Hollande, who succeeded him a year ago.
In point 16, page 21 of the Coalition Agreement it states:
“We will regulate lobbying through introducing a statutory register of lobbyists and ensuring greater transparency.”
There is nothing anyone can do with the Downing Street boys. OK, we can get them to be a little politer but that would only take them further away from reality.
I am reminded of Callaghan's comments on the highest stratum of British society, the Royal Family. He said they were were always friendly but he could never consider them friends.
The PR boys could of course make the No 10 Etonians more friendly, but is this what we want? Would it make any difference? We wouldn't end up being friends.
The only time I have heard Cameron speak in public in what I detected as an authentic voice was when he chuckled to Nick Ferrari that kippers were "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists".
We all know that Cameron was right, at least in the sense that a good joke is always based on a perceived but inadmissable truth.
The No 10 flunkey who called the kipper's "life's losers" was also right on the same basis. If it had been written by a psephologist in explanation of a political archetype few of us would have complained.
You may think that I move in exalted circles but like most people I have family who are perfect fruitcakes, loonies and [closet] racists, some of whom may now be voting UKIP; and friends who could definitely be described as "life's losers". I would say as much to their faces without any malice. After all in the end we are all "life's losers".
And the Cameron Etonians are no different to Labour's elite as we discovered in the last election when Gordon referred to Gillian Duffy in the privacy of his car as a bigot.
And Farage is only different by luxury of not being in office. So contrary to the 'political classes' he has licence to offend and tell the President of the EU that "he has the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk" and that the nation of his birth is a "non-country".
I like "life's losers". At least it raises the questions of who and what has been lost and how it may be recovered.
Roll on the insults.
I don't like it.
An influx of people from crisis-hit southern European countries like Spain, Italy and Greece has led to the biggest surge in German immigration in nearly 20 years.
The Federal Statistics Office said 1.081 million immigrants flocked to Germany last year, up 13 percent from 2011 and the highest number since 1995.
Leading the way were arrivals from countries in eastern Europe and from southern euro zone countries struggling with recession and high unemployment as a result of the currency bloc's three-year old debt crisis.
The number of immigrants coming from Spain, Greece, Portugal and Italy rose by 40 percent or more compared to the prior year."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/07/us-germany-immigration-idUSBRE94609320130507
Are you saying that describing a quarter of voters in the local elections as "life's losers" was a good move by Downing Street?
Night all.
The kippers are telling us every day how they are losing out to globalisation; to metropolitanism; to 'bankstas'; to Polish plumbers; to inflation; to wage freezes; to the EU.
If we start identifying how and why they have become life's losers we may be able to start working on recovery measures.
You cannot argue that Farage has a right to insult because it appeals to his supporters and advances his policies and that other political leaders should be denied the same opportunities.
Would any leader be brave enough to say that today?
I have several problems with this. Firstly, we have just witnessed a stunning surge for UKIP from virtually nothing. This may be built on, it may fade away but it has certainly shaken up British politics and to use that as a basis to predict that Labour have an 81% certainty of a majority is ridiculous. If he was making that prediction in a 1999 environment for the 2001 election, I wouldn't have a problem. Those were generally stable and prosperous times. However, we live in interesting times as the Chinese say with a highly volatile global situation and a volatile electorate to match.
If you built a time machine and went back a mere 6 years ago and asked people to predict what would happen in the world in the next 6 years, how many would predict the following:
A bank run on Northern Rock
The News of the World closing down over phone hacking
Well known TV stars revealed to be paedophiles.
UKIP getting 23% in local elections
MPs being caught fiddling expenses (maybe this one by a few cynics)
People having their bank deposits confiscated in the Eurozone
Revolutions in the Arab world
The answer is not many, if any. Few people including Mr Baxter would have predicted the local election result as recently as a month ago and yet Mr Baxter can make such firm predictions 2 years in advance. Nate Silver's model only had Obama to win at about 66% until the last few days of the US election because he allowed for unpredictability and the possibility of an October surprise.
There are so many possible October surprises that could happen to dramatically upset UK politics in the next few years:
Syria spills over to a wider war in the Middle East
Conflict in Korea
A nation defaults on their debts and sets off another credit crisis
Democracy fails in one of the Eurozone members
A high profile crime by a Bulgarian or Romanian immigrant
Any number of gaffes or potential mistakes by the politicians
And no doubt other things that no-one has even considered
The other problem I have is that he is basing his prediction on his model. Humans are notoriously bad at predicting the future. There are 2 ways of doing this: one you go with a hunch or gut feel or something you saw in a dream. The second is you try and apply some scientific rigour. You do this by looking at what happened in the past and using this as a basis to predict the future. The problem with this is the old stock market warning "the past is no guide to future performance". A stock may go up steadily for years until it falls off a cliff.
The problem with most models is that they work for a while as most people are creatures of habit and don't change their routines too much. A lot of the time, change is gradual and models capture this. The problem can be when a group of people make a wholesale change to their behaviour over a short period of time and then the models can fall apart quite easily.
Look at the financial crisis. A lot of very clever mathematicians from places like Cambridge came up with a model that if you mix bits of bad debt you get a grade A product as it reduces risk. This worked for a while until the financial crisis changed everything in short order and then the model fell apart. As a side note I think the economists and mathematicians got off scot free from the financial crisis.
If UKIP get 8% then the model will probably work fine but if they did manage 23% then it will break all the seat calculators. I put the BBC share figures from last week into Mr Baxter's calculator and it tells me that in this case UKIP will get 23.7% share in Great Yarmouth and 22.2% in Orkney and Shetland. Seems pretty implausible to me.
In conclusion (and sorry for the post length), we are in for an interesting ride and anyone making such certain predictions could end up with egg on their face.
You cannot argue that Farage has a right to insult because it appeals to his supporters and advances his policies and that other political leaders should be denied the same opportunities.
I don't. Politicians insult each other all the time and Eurocrats insult this country and Eurosceptics as much as the likes of Farage insult them. Its not pretty but it is what it is.
My argument against Cameron and his Downing Street chums was it was bad politics and unlike Brown who only actually directly insulted 1 voter (to whom he did apologise personally). Cameron insulted millions of voters potentially and he has yet to make a real retraction of what he said and has reinforced the attack by failing to withdraw it a number of times recently and by his coterie continuing to make derogatory noises.
South Carolina special congressional election results – live updates
LiveVoters choose between Elizabeth Colbert Busch and disgraced former governor Mark Sanford for Tim Scott's vacant congressional seat
Cruelly cut down by the thread change.
Why not carry it forward?
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/05/07/anglo-us-divide-equality/