Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » CON might have big leads with all voters on best PM and ec
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » CON might have big leads with all voters on best PM and economy but it’s a different picture with the key swing group
The two big reasons, it is argued, why Labour should not put place too much confidence in current poll ratings are Ed’s personal poll numbers in relation to Dave and the ongoing Tory lead on the economy. No party, it is said, has ever won power when it is behind on both.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
But probably needs to be set alongside overall sentiment on the economy which has shifted more towards the Tories in the past 6 months.
Some up-to-date polling would be helpful.
And to have nearly 20% of 2010 Labour voters say that they prefer David Cameron is noteworthy - that must be 4 or 5% of the electorate.
Even if Cameron wins in 2015 (never mind how) I can't see him standing in 2020, asking for another five years. Fifteen years would just be too long to ask for, and the party would know it. I'd expect Cameron to resign in 18/19, if he didn't get pushed out first, allowing his successor time to bed in.
Thus, win or lose, it looks a pretty good bet that Cameron won't be Conservative leader in 2020, though not quite a certainty.
I think you have a rather optimistic view on Scotland's bargaining position.
You want things in the gift of the rUK, which barely applies the other way round.....the big thing rUK want isn't on the table, but it's only one thing and does not affect day-to-day issues......
And if there are breakers, remember "who is in the bigger boat".....
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/once-in-blue-moon-first-cut-on-chances.html
This is the horses doofers - the epic stuff is coming in the next few days.
OGH puts a lot of store in this large poll but it is now somewhat historic.
@BBCNormanS: "I will never speak to the Times again" says @nigel_farage following report he abused EU Parliamentary allowances
I think you have a rather optimistic view on Scotland's bargaining position.
You want things in the gift of the rUK, which barely applies the other way round.....the big thing rUK want isn't on the table, but it's only one thing and does not affect day-to-day issues......
And if there are breakers, remember "who is in the bigger boat".....
Project Fib is holding because it is telling voters what they want to hear. It's a great strategy for winning a referendum, but that's really all that it has going for it. The reality of negotiation will be a sobering one for many who voted for independence. Others will not care, of course, because the line in the ground is all that they really want.
All the best for your beautifully named blog.
After a couple of weeks of getting my betting notes down, it will go dormant again.
But I was rather pleased with the name!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26969150
On-topic: not a new observation, but the switchers are like a woman scorned. They just want to hurt Clegg because he's not the Messiah, he's just a very naughty boy. It's their own damned fault. Lib Dems always wanted coalition and when they finally got it half the party threw their toys out of the pram because they had to, shockingly, make some compromises.
Of course, that's a good reason to dislike coalition, but if you like it and even want to ruin the electoral system to practically guarantee we always have coalitions then it's bizarre to suddenly realise coalition means you don't get everything you want and desert your party over it.
Does OGH believe hey will change because if they do the incumbency factor for the MPs In those constituencies won't mean a jot
Tomorrow's Times headline?
@PSbook: NEW --> When Nigel Farage admitted: 'We trousered EU expenses to fund UKIP' http://t.co/iHIeLEjzz6
It's no suprise they've lost that USP.
The next publication is due tomorrow, so you won't have long to wait.
The trend on almost all their metrics has been steadily upward since the beginning of 2013 but last month went into a holding pattern (a few up, a few down, most flat). This mirrors other quantitative data on the economy.
I doubt tomorrow's survey will show a big uplift but May's might as the sampling period will fall after most respondents have benefitted from the tax and allowance changes introduced in April.
Not talking to them plays into that easily enough. The voters UKIP are after/are attracting probably see the Times as distant from their lives anyway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014_(United_Kingdom)#London_Polls
The problem for College was that the same story was also covered in the Independent, The Mirror and The Guardian.
There are going to be a lot of disappointed journalists and editors out there!
Links for today's UKIP expenses story:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4063594.ece
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ukips-nigel-farage-could-face-3414955
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-leader-nigel-farage-accused-over-expenses-claims-9260542.html
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/15/nigel-farage-under-fire-over-office-expenses
You can bet Tories are going to be all over the internets in half an hour trying to claim the end to the ongoing cost of living crisis just because CPI plummets towards deflation.
Careful you galactically out of touch Tories. No one feels better off with pay rises of less than 2% regardless of CPI.
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/once-in-blue-moon-first-cut-on-chances.html
"Here are the constituencies that the Conservatives would need to make inroads into if they were to achieve an overall majority:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bygi8eZw-4q1aXdyMFd2MGwzcnc/edit?usp=sharing
The Conservatives would need to take a minimum of 19 to get a majority. Measured by size of majority, the bookies aren't remotely convinced. Number 19 on this list is Newcastle-under-Lyme, and the best price that you can get is 8/1. But let's sort them by odds instead. And here a very different picture emerges:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bygi8eZw-4q1VVVzb3dlblRob3c/edit?usp=sharing
It seems that the bookies regard the Lib Dems as much easier pickings than Labour-held seats. As if by magic, the yellow rises to the top...
But I note that on today's ICM poll, where the Conservatives polled 32% and the Lib Dems polled just 12%, there has been a swing from the Lib Dems to the Conservatives of 3% from the last election. On a uniform swing, that would give the Tories just eight of these target seats. The Lib Dems may have lost half their support, but the Conservatives have also lost some vote share. We shall need to work out what will happen in Lib Dem-held constituencies in particular: what will happen to the Lib Dem vote? And what will happen to the Conservative vote?"
Within five months, after the Euros, locals and Indy referendum the board will be cleared for the general election. Clearly these three polls will have an impact on the political scene but it's likely by the late Autumn that minds will slowly start to turn to the formation of the next government.
Presently Labour lead by about 4 points. Will this be enough for them to cross the line a little over a year from now ? The answer to this is a resounding no. Few Labour oppositions have been in a weaker electoral positions having recently left government and no Labour opposition, in modern times, has increased its share of the vote in their first post government general election.
That said, is it likely that Labour will poll less than PM Brown ? - Again the answer is no. Thus a record will be broken but likely only by the odd few points from the dire score of 29% in 2010.
The slow death spiral for Labour is of course linked in reverse by the continuing excellent news on the economy that will run through to the general election. Labour's only hope will be the "Reagan Question" - Are you better off now than five years ago ? . The Coalition parties will counter with the "Brown Question" - Do you want to go back to the Labour recession years ?
The last question to be answered by the voters will be - How badly will Labour lose ? .... The losing is now no longer if but by how much ?
Place your bets ....
It is symbolic. A beacon of hope for the future. A glimpse of the sunlit uplands.
We shall all be celebrating.
But we shall have to wait until Wednesday before popping the corks as we only get half the equation today.
Not enough for a tory majority, but enough for a tory minority government propped up by supply and confidence agreement with the DUP, with another election within two years.
All the links to Farage admitting that are pointless really... he is proud of it, he said so in last weeks interview with Jon Snow.
If he has trousered the money to spend on himself, that is different. Nowhere near as bad as taking from Westminster, mind.
At least maybe now, after Snow's "black" smear, and now this, people will stop saying UKIP get a free ride from the media
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1296205.ece
The story about @Nigel_Farage in The Times today is completely untrue and without substance. Just another #UKIP smear attempt by lefties.
norman smith @BBCNormanS 1h
UKIP leader @nigel_farage says claims he abused EU Parliament expenses are part of "a politically motivated campaign by the establishment "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10762922/Cameron-accused-of-using-public-funds-for-Tory-spin.html
A case of pot calling kettle, re Farage, methinks.
Presumably if Milord released a similar poll today, showing similar things, you would reverse your forecast?
As he is leader and as I suppose there are precious few able or in a position to "brief against" him, if he keeps quiet he may have a chance.
The LibDems will rise again, not least because a fair chunk of the electorate are in the sensible middle.
We no longer have welfare cuts: the new name is "entitlement reform".
What makes you think that the people of the UK are entitled to have their earnings increased by more than the rate of inflation? By what wave of a magic wand can governments grant such wishes?
It is not an entitlement but a reward earned by hard work, output growth and increased productivity. It may seem small change to you but this will be the first positive balance for six years.
And it has been earned too. The UK has not only topped the IMF G7 figures on the rate of fiscal consolidation (since 2010, 1.6% average annual reduction in the ratio of the Cyclically Adjusted Current Budget deficit to GDP) but also our economy grew faster than our competitors in 2013 and is forecast by the IMF to repeat this competitive feat in 2014.
Now name me a single year in which the Blair-Brown government managed to reduce current spending and grow the economy by the same margins. I suspect Labour wouldn't even know they had achieved it if it happened by accident!
If LD wins I pay the site, If UKIP win you pay UKIP?
CPI down, as expected, to 1.6%.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2013/03/what-are-the-liberal-democrats-for/
Reminds me slightly of IngSoc's mad approach towards language.
Let's see how it plays out in public. He has denied it, UKIP have denied it, we wouldn't like to call innocent people guilty now would we?
I understand you getting excited but I don't think this going to be a big deal
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1296205.ece
The Times is quite open about where it got confirmation of the story.
It was from the former manager of UKIP's Littlehampton office, a certain "David Samuel-Camps, 69".
This source is stated and quoted in the article.
Samuel-Camps is probably someone else College "is no longer speaking to".
It was from the former manager of UKIP's Littlehampton office, a certain "David Samuel-Camps, 69".
This source is stated and quoted in the article.
Samuel-Camps is probably someone else College "is no longer speaking to".
I understand it is standard practice in journalism to require at least two sources before running a story. That is, if your intent to run actual stories rather than just being a Tory-supporting newspaper that wants to smear an opponent. The timing of this is pretty clear it's just a hit job.
I believe the polling Mike .... but THE poll isn't until 7th May 2015 and our hilarious friend "Mr Truth" popped up during the last few months of the US campaign.
It's like saying the polls of April 2009 are the results of 2010 or more accurately for 2015 that the polls for April 1991 were the result for Apr 1992 :
ICM Poll :
06 Apr 91 - Con 39 .. Lab 43 .. LibDem 13
Result :
09 Apr 92 - Con 43 .. Lab 35 .. LibDem 18
So Mike, do you believe the polling today is the result for May 2015 ?
Today's YG also polls people on approval (down to -25 again) and party preference on everything you can think of. Mostly pretty much even splits and where there are differences they are narrowing, but Tories ahead on the economy and Labour ahead on the NHS. Labour marginally ahead on Europe :-). None of the ratings give the impression on being election-deciders, to be honest, partly as nobody gets more than 35% on anything and the support they get is mostly their own voters saying they're cool.
Do you think it will stay the same, as circumstances, inevitably, change?
"...a group of voters who did not want to vote for Gordon Brown and thought they had the luxury of voting against Labour without helping to elect a Conservative government. These people are numerous, and furious. What the Lib Dems have achieved, or how different from the Conservatives they can claim to be, is for them neither here nor there. As far as these people were concerned, the Lib Dems’ most important job – their only job – was to keep the Tories out, and now look what they’ve done."
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2013/03/what-are-the-liberal-democrats-for/
I shall let St. George do the talking:
In simple terms, I believe that if we reward hard work and support people’s aspirations to provide a better life for their family then there is no limit to what human enterprise can achieve.
I bring this same optimism to the second of today’s pessimistic predictions – that even if growth is sustained the benefits will accrue to the few not the many.
This prediction – that the link between living standards and economic growth has broken – also leads its proponents to the same prescription: more government spending on welfare and the costs of economic dependency.
But it too can be proved wrong if we follow a different approach.
To begin with it is not well supported by the facts.
As Greg Mankiw has pointed out for the US, on a superficial reading the data appears to show that real median incomes grew by only 3% over the entire period from 1979 to 2007. That sounds like there is a big problem.
But in fact once you take account of changes in household composition, lower taxes, healthcare benefits and other forms of remuneration then that number turns into a 37% real terms increase.
Of course that’s not to say that inequality doesn’t matter – it does.
The Great Recession made our countries poorer and times have been difficult for British and American families.
But in the UK the evidence shows that growth supports rising living standards.
[Words of wisdom to be continued...]
[... The Gospel according to S. George continued]
Recent work by academics at the London School of Economics and our own analysis at the Treasury has found no evidence that employee compensation has become detached from GDP growth in recent decades.
Previous results that appear to show a break disappear once you take account of rising pension contributions and payroll taxes.
That is one reason why the labour share of national income in the UK has stayed constant over the last decade.
Nor does the evidence support the so-called “hollowing out” hypothesis in the UK – the idea that middle-skill and middle-income jobs are disappearing with most of the growth in employment either at the top or the bottom of the distribution.
While some traditional mid-level occupations have shrunk or moved down the income scale, new ones have been created to take their place.
So we have fewer middle-paid production line and secretarial jobs, but a lot more middle-paid jobs in IT and professional services.
Overall there has been little change in the proportion of people in middle-income jobs in recent years.
And after rising during the industrial restructuring of the 1980s, as it did in many countries, the level of inequality in the UK has been fairly constant for two decades, and according to the latest data is at its lowest level since 1986.
So the long term link between economic growth and living standards has not been broken.
So whereas someone of my age hears the word poverty and thinks of dying malnourished children in Ethiopia, an 18 year old now thinks it means being on benefits and not having sky tv
"Relative poverty lines: These are defined in relation to the overall distribution of income or consumption in a country; for example, the poverty line could be set at 50 percent of the country’s mean income or consumption...
Ultimately, the choice of a poverty line is arbitrary. In order to ensure wide understanding and wide acceptance of a poverty line, it is therefore important to ensure that the poverty line chosen does resonate with social norms (with the common understanding of what represents a minimum). "
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/EXTPA/0,,contentMDK:20242879~menuPK:435055~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:430367,00.html
Doubt that most 2010 LibDem to Labour switchers are like "a woman scorned" and are disappointed that Clegg didn't turn out to be the Messiah.
Whilst I admit it is anecdotal I know a lot of people who moved to the Lib Dems in 2005 & 2010 because they were anti-Iraq, anti-Blair and believed the Lib Dems to be a radical left of centre alternative. All the ones I know were livid when the coalition was formed, switched back to Labour and have become very strong and vocal in their support as they don't see Milliband as from the same mould as Blair.
Whether they will be enough to see Labour home I don't know but I don't see many of them switching from Labour this side of next May
Relative poverty is defined as being an income which is only a certain percentage of the average of the whole country. As such, it's insane. If you can afford fuel, food, shelter, new clothes when necessary, little luxuries like books, cinema trips, eating out occasionally and 1-2 holidays a year then you are *not* poor.
Moreover, if, suddenly, every millionaire left the country it would 'lift' huge numbers out of this deranged definition of poverty. If every billionaire in the world suddenly entered the UK it would plunge huge numbers 'into' poverty.
We've utterly devalued an important piece of language (well, political idiots have).
Edited extra bit: this matters because when a politician talks about 'poverty' they often mean 'relative poverty'.