Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » UKIP Euro voters are more than twice as likely to say they
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » UKIP Euro voters are more than twice as likely to say they’ll support party in general election compared with five years ago
Exactly a year to go and this morning I’m off to London for the launch of the British Election Study – a huge academic exercise involving three universities which is monitoring and will produce regular reports on the coming general election.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Time to start worrying about all those UKIP bets I have with @isam!
And what have I done to offend Morpheus so...?
http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-findings/room-for-switching-european-parliament-vote-intentions/#.U2mgjNq9KK0
The British Electoral Study website has just been launched looks set to become an important resource.
And useful too, if the data was in readily accessible formats......anyone know how to open SPSS or STATA files?
http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/faq/convert_pkg.htm
As YouGov did the research, perhaps they will post it on their website in pdf....
" Stat/Transfer allows you to transfer data files to many other file formats, including Statistica, Systat, S-Plus, R, Excel, Access, Minitab, Matlab, LIMDEP and JMP"
Excel should be ok for both "Microsoft Office", and "Open Office" if I remember
I understand that they' want to expand exploitation of our national energy resources, for example to develop fracking. Zat so?
Agreed.
In fact, I've already found a fascinating little table. It is an attempt to measure the "hardness" of each party's vote. The lower the figure the harder their support. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this is good for the big parties (which are many decades, if not centuries, old, and are thus "built in" to the fabric of society) and poor for the wee parties (which are usually very young).
Something to bear in mind is that the LAB and SNP votes are very hard at high levels, whereas the CON vote is very hard at low levels, and the LIB DEM vote is very soft at low levels.
- Percentage for whom second choice is virtually equally attractive as first choice
Con 9
Lab 9
SNP 12
LD 19
PC 20
UKIP 20
BNP 23
Grn 25
- "We find that many voters have a real choice to make: the two parties most appealing to them are virtually equally attractive, which provides ample scope for changing their mind about which one of these two to vote for. Importantly, these voters are not found in equal measure amongst the intended voters for each of the parties:"
http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-findings/room-for-switching-european-parliament-vote-intentions/#.U2m2poF_vZ4
2010 splits:
Conservatives:
Con:74; LAB:4; LD:2; UKIP:18; Gn: 1
Labour:
Cons:7; LAB:80; LD:1; UKIP:9; GN:1; SNP/PC: 2
LIBDEMS:
Cons16; LAB:29; LD:34; UKIP:12; GN:5; SNP/PC:2
Last night’s YouGov has Labour on just 1 point lead: LAB 35%, CON 34%, UKIP 14%, LD 9%.
Last night’s Survation poll - LAB 34%, CON 33%, Ukip 18%, LD 8%.
Survation also asked a Euro question: Con 24%, (+3) Lab 28% (-6), LD 7% (-2), UKIP 31% (+4)
And the Guardian reports 'Countdown to least predictable GE outcome for 70 years.'
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/06/general-election-2015-campaigns-voters-
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/away-from-coastal-storm-inland-eastern.html
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/06/general-election-2015-campaigns-voters-outcome
That's Ed's idea of success, that is.
How can he be wrong?
You need to start worrying about Dan Hodges bet that if UKIP got 5% or more at the general election he would run down Whitehall naked.
If I am honest - I don't see how UKIP don't get at least 1 in 20 general election votes.
However, in the event of a "No" vote, 63% said the current arrangements for funding Britain's devolved nations - calculated under the Barnett formula - had to be reformed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27291670
.
Its also the same Co-op which Osborne tried to hand over hundreds of Lloyds branches on the cheap.
I wonder if George had bothered to look at the Co-op's accounts first ?
It will have at least a 5k majority at the next election.
Lab 34%, Con 33%, UKIP 18%, LD 8%.
There's real discontent with a system that hides minimal political difference behind alternative coloured rosettes and weekly catcalling in the Commons.
UKIP really does reach the parts that the Conservatives couldn't in old industrial areas.
To a large extent Labour can afford to lose many of these voters as they tend to be concentrated in safe Labour areas but it will handicap them in some constituencies - Elmet, Cannock and Sherwood for example.
Often they start with people with relevant experience on their board, but with time this gets diluted as "people we know" become elected; as the ballot papers put out to the millions of members are largely ignored as most realise that their vote will have little influence. So over time, the original objectives of that co-operative become lost or fail to catch up with market changes.
To avoid this happening, mutuals may have to look at the fundamental structure of their corporate governance.
Regarding Astra-Zenneca, the major problem here is the potential loss of IPR and the ability to create that IPR. It is a bit like energy security. However, are the drug companies flexible enough or skilled enough to switch to gene modification rather than the production of drugs which have potential side effects.
For those who will be needing currency for their holiday in the sun, today the Euro is at 1.22 and the USD near 1.70 - not a bad time to get that currency now.
Sorry was at a retirement party last night for the outgoing CEO of one of our joint ventures so couldn't respond to your comment a couple of threads ago.
You criticised my view that shareholders should decide how much a CEO is paid.
Of course there is significant work to do with improving institutional stewardship of their investments.
But if not the shareholders then who do you think should determine CEO pay? Ed Miliband? The Sun? Graef Crystal? @another_richard?
* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graef_Crystal)
Rowenna strikes me as utterly utterly ordinary. No insight, no passion, just another mediocre careerist. Don't understand what @Avery sees in her
Mr. Smarmeron, I've been using Open office for a little while now and can confirm Excel works for it. Mildly surprised about the SPSS format. I remember that from university.
I do find @DavidL's thesis that Labour's vote distribution efficiency hit a maximum in 2010 compelling. I forget the details, but it makes a material difference even if you just assume 2005 efficiency
(FWIW, my colours remain nailed to the same position they have been since early 2011. I don't see why the choice has changed since 2010: I'm expecting a very similar outcome)
The Tories have only won Southampton Itchen *twice* since *1950*.
In 1983 and 1987, Chris Chope won because the left was split between Labour and the SDP
From the outside, the Co-op were the best bidders. Can you imagine the ire and righteous indignation from labour if the government had treated the bank any differently?
Lloyds eventually found the problem during the Project Verde negotiations. I'm not sure how the government could have given the constraints.
So: in your mind and without the benefit of hindsight, what should the government have done differently, taking into account the November 2013 deadline?
I'm quite happy for shareholders to decide on directors pay but as you well know most of the 'shareholders' are via a block vote from financial institutions.
Which is decided by people with a vested interest in ever increasing executive earnings.
Here's a radical idea - no more block votes, only individual shareholders get to vote. No more cozy cartels and mutual back scratching for the executive oligarchy but the people who have invested their own money deciding how the businesses they own will be run.
Remind me, how many times does the directors remuneration get voted down ? Or for that matter how many times does anything get voted down - the reappointment of the directors, the reappointment of the auditors etc ?
On drive from Killamarsh to Guiseley recently counted around 20 signs. All UKIP. Only poster I saw was kipper too. At |GE there were Lib Dem posters. Doubt I will see too many around 2015 !
Voting down is relative rare, but over the past few years you've seen very significant votes against management remuneration on multiple occasions. These often result in changes either before or after the vote. Recent examples worth highlighting are Glencore, Sports Direct and Barclays.
Next UK GE - Burton - best prices
Con 4/6 Stan James
Lab 4/1 Lad
UKIP 100/1
LD 100/1
http://sotonpolitics.org/2014/05/07/the-polling-observatory-forecast-1-lessons-for-2015-from-polling-history/
Our forecast model has consistently predicted a very close result – the Conservative vote share is expected to recover from its current level of around 32%, rising to around 36%, within half a percentage point of Labour, whose poll share is not expected to change much from current levels. In vote share, the result is close to a dead heat – the Conservatives are currently forecast to have 36.1%, and Labour 36.5%. The Liberal Democrats are forecast to recover some ground from their current polling position, but still put in their weakest performance in decades, with a forecast vote share of 10.1%.
Con 1/5 Lad
Lab 9/2 SJ
LD 100/1
UKIP 150/1 SJ
Lab 1/3 (Lad, PP)
Con 4/1 (Lad)
UKIP 7/1
LD 100/1
Paddy Power
UKIP 8% or over 8/11
UKIP under 8% EVS
Ladbrokes are using a banding system. The most popular bands are:
UKIP 5-10% 7/4
UKIP 10-15% 2/1
UKIP 0-5% 9/2 (this is the band they finished in at UK GE 2010)
UKIP 15-20% 11/2 (this is what some polls are hinting at)
Either the bookies are idiots, or else the Tories under Cameron are shafted. It is a very brave man who thinks that he knows more about political odds than Shadsy.
If we assume this holds true for this estimate of 56.7%, then we would expect 41.8% of UKIP's 2014 Euro poll share to vote UKIP at the 2015GE.
With the latest ICM poll of 27% for the Euro elections, this would be a GE2015 share of 11.3%.
The highest recent UKIP share for the Euro elections was 38% from ComRes online poll. That would suggest a GE2015 share of 15.9%.
Interestingly, the April 2014 pb.com polling average has UKIP on 14.6%. This is consistent with the shares estimated above, so it is reassuring that the polling is not contradictory.
What are the odds on the 10-15% band for UKIP at the next general election? That must surely be tempting.
I wouldn't quote any UKIP Policy until they release the new manifesto in September, other than to get out of the EU and toughen up immigration.
It would be like saying you think Lib Dems are going to scrap tuition fees.
I went into this in a lot more detail a couple of weeks ago, here:
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/the-conservatives-overall-chances.html
The odds are a little out of date, but the principle remains.
Avery 25 December - failed
Stark Dawning 1 May - failed
Fitalass 5 May - failed
Rod Crosby 31 May - pending*
*I'm being very generous here - most took Rod's prediction of "by May" to mean 1 May...
Indeed. Plenty of nice insurance fodder for those of us for whom the prospect of a Tory win makes us shudder. Meanwhile, I assume Moniker will a piling on after his "Labour to come third in the Euros" forecast last night*
*never bother to ask Moniker to back up his predictions with money - he runs a mile every single time. Frit.
Has anyone here ever been asked how their pension fund shares should be voted ?
Voting down is not 'relatively rare' its practically non-existant.
Don't 'very significant votes against management remuneration' tend to amount to about 10% ?
And 'changes before or after a vote' is just a cozy stich up by vested interests.
Instead, there's every chance a strong UKIP showing will see Ed Miliband as PM, possibly in Lab-Lib EU-phile coalition.