If UKIP get say 30% in the Euros, there's no way their national projected share should be less than 20% for the local elections because the majority of people would have voted the same way in both elections. Only a minority of people split their votes.
If UKIP get say 30% in the Euros, there's no way their national projected share should be less than 20% for the local elections because the majority of people would have voted the same way in both elections. Only a minority of people split their votes.
In East Anglia I know many people who planned/plan to vote Tory at Westminster and UKIP in Brussels. Admittedly I don't know which they would prefer for local elections, but this group of people does exist.
If UKIP get say 30% in the Euros, there's no way their national projected share should be less than 20% for the local elections because the majority of people would have voted the same way in both elections. Only a minority of people split their votes.
Nick Robinson tweeted that UKIP won 23% of votes in the council elections.
The experts then plugged that in to their 2.5 party system models and decided this was such ripe UKIP territory that it needed to be reduced by 25%. Daft.
Nick Robinson @bbcnickrobinson 2h UKIP not party of power yet but are party with power to disrupt. BBC National Vote Share - Lab 29%, Con 25%, UKIP 23% & Lib Dems 14%.
Apologies if already posted: the BBC analysis of the results projected to the whjole country at a GE: Labour: 322 seats, Conservatives: 255, Lib Dems: 45
- Sky has a similar analysis. It's 4 seats short of an overall majority.
Just not good enough Nick, nowhere near good enough for Labour just under a year from the general election.
The question for you and other Labour burghers is what are you going to do to turn this impending disaster around ?
Don't spoil his fun, salivating at the prospect of those MP's allowances.
If UKIP get say 30% in the Euros, there's no way their national projected share should be less than 20% for the local elections because the majority of people would have voted the same way in both elections. Only a minority of people split their votes.
According to Survation, 59% of UKIP EU voters were going to stick with them in the locals.
They already do it with help to buy, now they need help to build.
My daughter has just started work in London after uni. We live in surrey and don;t charge any rent so she gets to save what she earns.
Its much worse for every one of her friends. After rent, tax, travel and food they have nothing. Zip. Nada. Nix. They can't dream of a deposit, never mind a home of their own. When I started working in London thirty years ago central properties were expensive, but what were then the grottier boroughs were within some sort of compass. Now nothing is. Nothing at all.
We have some young people at the office I work who are the same. They have nothing, bless em and no prospect whatsoever of owning.
What do they do? If they're single on £25,000 a year, then that's £1662 a month. If you rent with three mates, you could get somewhere at £2500 pcm, or £625 each. £50 on groceries a week. £100 a month on a travel card. You've got £700 left. Knock off £200 for socialising and other things that come up, and you've got £500 to save each month. £6k a year.
I think travel cards are generally a bit more than £100 per month. Zone 1-5 on the tube is more than £200, and I don't think that even includes use of the bus.
Plus your putative renter hasn't paid for any electricity, water, council tax, etc, assuming that's not included in their rent.
Fair enough. Just looked up a Zone 1-3 travel card, which were the sort of properties I'm looking at. That's £140. Four bedroom house would have bills or maybe £100 a month, and council tax the same, divided by the four residents. So let's say it's £400 saving a month.
Hmm, most interesting discussion. Obviously £25K is the gross salary. But if they are young professionals you need to add at least £60 or so pcm for student loan, and a bit more for professional development, including fees, books, PC, etc. So saving could be now down to £300pcm?
If UKIP get say 30% in the Euros, there's no way their national projected share should be less than 20% for the local elections because the majority of people would have voted the same way in both elections. Only a minority of people split their votes.
Nick Robinson tweeted that UKIP won 23% of votes in the council elections.
The experts then plugged that in to their 2.5 party system models and decided this was such ripe UKIP territory that it needed to be reduced by 25%. Daft.
If UKIP get say 30% in the Euros, there's no way their national projected share should be less than 20% for the local elections because the majority of people would have voted the same way in both elections. Only a minority of people split their votes.
Nick Robinson tweeted that UKIP won 23% of votes in the council elections.
The experts then plugged that in to their 2.5 party system models and decided this was such ripe UKIP territory that it needed to be reduced by 25%. Daft.
[Hmm, most interesting discussion. Obviously £25K is the gross salary. But if they are young professionals you need to add at least £60 or so pcm for student loan, and a bit more for professional development, including fees, books, PC, etc. So saving could be now down to £300pcm?]
This is interesting Carynx. 60 pcm is also the cost of part-time tution - a very nice equilibrium
Apologies if already posted: the BBC analysis of the results projected to the whjole country at a GE: Labour: 322 seats, Conservatives: 255, Lib Dems: 45
- Sky has a similar analysis. It's 4 seats short of an overall majority.
Just not good enough Nick, nowhere near good enough for Labour just under a year from the general election.
The question for you and other Labour burghers is what are you going to do to turn this impending disaster around ?
Don't spoil his fun, salivating at the prospect of those MP's allowances.
In fairness Nick has never been an expenses whore but the question remains that Labour are well short of the mark one year out.
No opposition has done this badly so close to the GE and gone on to win.
I thought the whole point of the national projected share was that it adjusted for the sort of places that aren't voting in a particular year, so last year's projected share should have taken into account the fact that London wasn't voting whereas this year it was. So to say UKIP are down 6% because London was voting this year and UKIP are weak there doesn't seem to make sense.
Yes, Andy, that's the way I understand it too, but it leaves us with a puzzle. As RichardN pointed out earlier, it would imply that everybody has done badly.
But we'll see on Sunday - this projection is extremely hard to square with anything over about 27% for UKIP in the euros.
That might be about right, and still give them first place. It's certainly compatible with some of the opinion polls. (FWIW my guess for the PB competition was 27.7%).
Please remember that the cohort of voters for 2014 (Mainly Labour + London) was different from that of voters for 2013 (Mainly Tory)
This has a major effect on PSV
The whole point is that it should not have an effect. Given UKIP have won more seats than last year, in less fertile areas, piling up plenty of big share 2nd places, to have them down as significantly falling in the last year is very very odd.
What is Cameron playing at,giving people monetary options when what they are concerned about is having clean water,clean air which is methane-free and respect for Mother Earth?
Respect for the planet cannot be "bought off" in this way.
One Tory success I can live with. BBC. Former Sun newspaper editor Kelvin MacKenzie narrowly failed to win election to Elmbridge Borough Council.
Mr MacKenzie, standing as an Independent in St George's Hill ward, won 770 votes but Conservative Simon Foale saw him off with 811.
When he announced he would stand in March Mr MacKenzie said he wanted lower parking charges for locals and to relocate the council HQ to a cheaper area of the borough.
'lower parking charges for locals'
Eh? Who in St Georges Hill has problems paying for their parking?!!!
'Oh, it's awful. I can barely afford to go out in the Silver Wraith these days, Esher High Street is so expensive'.
One Tory success I can live with. BBC. Former Sun newspaper editor Kelvin MacKenzie narrowly failed to win election to Elmbridge Borough Council.
Mr MacKenzie, standing as an Independent in St George's Hill ward, won 770 votes but Conservative Simon Foale saw him off with 811.
When he announced he would stand in March Mr MacKenzie said he wanted lower parking charges for locals and to relocate the council HQ to a cheaper area of the borough.
'lower parking charges for locals'
Eh? Who in St Georges Hill has problems paying for their parking?!!!
'Oh, it's awful. I can barely afford to go out in the Silver Wraith these days, Esher High Street is so expensive'.
Hee, hee, can I say as EBC Council Leader that result was immeasurably pleasing (I was canvassing with Simon until 9.30pm) along with, of course, that we also gained a seat in Molesey East to end up with an increased majority. pbTories - don't mess with us! Bouquets being delivered, even as we speak to the dream campaign team of Neil, Jack W and Andrea.
What date should we pencil in for the party to celebrate your richly-deserved elevation to the Lords?
Dave, Dave, Dave, We know you love pb. I'm here. I'd make a simply gorgeous people's peer. And it simply wouldn't have been possible without the intellectual rigour supplied (gratis) by the Most Rev, Professor Dr. Nabavi.
One Tory success I can live with. BBC. Former Sun newspaper editor Kelvin MacKenzie narrowly failed to win election to Elmbridge Borough Council.
Mr MacKenzie, standing as an Independent in St George's Hill ward, won 770 votes but Conservative Simon Foale saw him off with 811.
When he announced he would stand in March Mr MacKenzie said he wanted lower parking charges for locals and to relocate the council HQ to a cheaper area of the borough.
'lower parking charges for locals'
Eh? Who in St Georges Hill has problems paying for their parking?!!!
'Oh, it's awful. I can barely afford to go out in the Silver Wraith these days, Esher High Street is so expensive'.
One Tory success I can live with. BBC. Former Sun newspaper editor Kelvin MacKenzie narrowly failed to win election to Elmbridge Borough Council.
Mr MacKenzie, standing as an Independent in St George's Hill ward, won 770 votes but Conservative Simon Foale saw him off with 811.
When he announced he would stand in March Mr MacKenzie said he wanted lower parking charges for locals and to relocate the council HQ to a cheaper area of the borough.
'lower parking charges for locals'
Eh? Who in St Georges Hill has problems paying for their parking?!!!
'Oh, it's awful. I can barely afford to go out in the Silver Wraith these days, Esher High Street is so expensive'.
Hee, hee, can I say as EBC Council Leader that result was immeasurably pleasing (I was canvassing with Simon until 9.30pm) along with, of course, that we also gained a seat in Molesey East to end up with an increased majority. pbTories - don't mess with us! Bouquets being delivered, even as we speak to the dream campaign team of Neil, Jack W and Andrea.
Huzzah for the "Dream Team" and congratulations to Herham's Hero.
They already do it with help to buy, now they need help to build.
My daughter has just started work in London after uni. We live in surrey and don;t charge any rent so she gets to save what she earns.
Its much worse for every one of her friends. After rent, tax, travel and food they have nothing. Zip. Nada. Nix. They can't dream of a deposit, never mind a home of their own. When I started working in London thirty years ago central properties were expensive, but what were then the grottier boroughs were within some sort of compass. Now nothing is. Nothing at all.
We have some young people at the office I work who are the same. They have nothing, bless em and no prospect whatsoever of owning.
What do they do? If they're single on £25,000 a year, then that's £1662 a month. If you rent with three mates, you could get somewhere at £2500 pcm, or £625 each. £50 on groceries a week. £100 a month on a travel card. You've got £700 left. Knock off £200 for socialising and other things that come up, and you've got £500 to save each month. £6k a year.
I think travel cards are generally a bit more than £100 per month. Zone 1-5 on the tube is more than £200, and I don't think that even includes use of the bus.
Plus your putative renter hasn't paid for any electricity, water, council tax, etc, assuming that's not included in their rent.
Fair enough. Just looked up a Zone 1-3 travel card, which were the sort of properties I'm looking at. That's £140. Four bedroom house would have bills or maybe £100 a month, and council tax the same, divided by the four residents. So let's say it's £400 saving a month.
Hmm, most interesting discussion. Obviously £25K is the gross salary. But if they are young professionals you need to add at least £60 or so pcm for student loan, and a bit more for professional development, including fees, books, PC, etc. So saving could be now down to £300pcm?
Since when do you have to pay for your own PC and books for professional development?
Please remember that the cohort of voters for 2014 (Mainly Labour + London) was different from that of voters for 2013 (Mainly Tory)
This has a major effect on PSV
The whole point is that it should not have an effect. Given UKIP have won more seats than last year, in less fertile areas, piling up plenty of big share 2nd places, to have them down as significantly falling in the last year is very very odd.
But it does - Last year if 10,000 Tory voters have a 25% chance of switching to UKIP and 5,000 Labour voters have a 10% chance of switching to UKIP then UKIPs potential share of the vote is 20% (2500+500)/15000
This year the ratios are reversed - so UKIP get 15% of the vote (25% of 5000 + 10% of 1000)/15000
This year also - it is not the big votes in Sunderland that are counting, it is also the low percentage in London. London is a massive weighting factor in national percentages.
What this does mean, is that UKIP are polling well above the headline figure away from London - which probably offers opportunities if matching bets being placed on the headline percentage.
I'm going to continue tallying real votes in the local elections so we can compare them with the various national projected shares that will be published. (I'm using highest party vote in multi-member wards).
If UKIP get say 30% in the Euros, there's no way their national projected share should be less than 20% for the local elections because the majority of people would have voted the same way in both elections. Only a minority of people split their votes.
I'm not sure. All the excessive attention on the party's idiots among the council candidates might make people feel more resolved to vote for them in the Euros, to stick it to the establishment, but not feel confident in the capabilities of the local council.
Please remember that the cohort of voters for 2014 (Mainly Labour + London) was different from that of voters for 2013 (Mainly Tory)
This has a major effect on PSV
The whole point is that it should not have an effect. Given UKIP have won more seats than last year, in less fertile areas, piling up plenty of big share 2nd places, to have them down as significantly falling in the last year is very very odd.
But it does - Last year if 10,000 Tory voters have a 25% chance of switching to UKIP and 5,000 Labour voters have a 10% chance of switching to UKIP then UKIPs potential share of the vote is 20% (2500+500)/15000
This year the ratios are reversed - so UKIP get 15% of the vote (25% of 5000 + 10% of 1000)/15000
This year also - it is not the big votes in Sunderland that are counting, it is also the low percentage in London. London is a massive weighting factor in national percentages.
What this does mean, is that UKIP are polling well above the headline figure away from London - which probably offers opportunities if matching bets being placed on the headline percentage.
No, you're just assuming the people running the model didn't do their job properly.
It is supposed to adjust for the location of elections in any one year to give a view on the national picture - read the single sentence summary from Steve Fisher above.
As it happens, I too am struggling to believe the adjustment has been done properly, but we will see.
I'm amazed at the confusion over projected national share.
There are still a lot of people in various places saying things like "UKIP have done worse this year with the projected national share because London was voting this year".
The whole point of the projected national share is that it shouldn't matter whether or not London was voting this year, or wasn't voting last year. The projected national share is supposed to take that into account, otherwise you'd just use actual votes cast.
I'm going to continue tallying real votes in the local elections so we can compare them with the various national projected shares that will be published. (I'm using highest party vote in multi-member wards).
I'm going to continue tallying real votes in the local elections so we can compare them with the various national projected shares that will be published. (I'm using highest party vote in multi-member wards).
State of play in English locals from BBC figs. All numbers are net compared to seat numbers they were defending. Conservatives down 13.5%. Lib Dems down 41.2% Lab up 18.6%.
Lib Dem figures now amongst the highest % loss in any set of English local elections. 282 LD losses are at the top end of expectations.
I'm amazed at the confusion over projected national share.
There are still a lot of people in various places saying things like "UKIP have done worse this year with the projected national share because London was voting this year".
The whole point of the projected national share is that it shouldn't matter whether or not London was voting this year, or wasn't voting last year. The projected national share is supposed to take that into account, otherwise you'd just use actual votes cast.
Fair enough, my argument earlier was based on ignorance.
I'm going to continue tallying real votes in the local elections so we can compare them with the various national projected shares that will be published. (I'm using highest party vote in multi-member wards).
I was hoping to do 65 councils last night, and I was working constantly at it for 10 hours, but I wasted a lot of time trying to find websites with the results.
I'm amazed at the confusion over projected national share.
There are still a lot of people in various places saying things like "UKIP have done worse this year with the projected national share because London was voting this year".
The whole point of the projected national share is that it shouldn't matter whether or not London was voting this year, or wasn't voting last year. The projected national share is supposed to take that into account, otherwise you'd just use actual votes cast.
I am not sure that certain people can stomach the fact that using projected national share correctly (the way you describe) indicates that (as Mike has indicated in the header) UKIP's support is actually declining quite substantially.
I'm going to continue tallying real votes in the local elections so we can compare them with the various national projected shares that will be published. (I'm using highest party vote in multi-member wards).
I was hoping to do 65 councils last night, and I was working constantly at it for 10 hours, but I wasted a lot of time trying to find websites with the results.
Kippers on 18% with your subset so far - interesting to see how that develops - would be rather poor if it turns out the BBC experts have decided this is above average target land for UKIP and adjusted them down, or even just left flat given how clear it is that London is a voting black hole for them.
I'm amazed at the confusion over projected national share.
There are still a lot of people in various places saying ithings like "UKIP have done worse this year with the projected national share because London was voting this year".
The whole point of the projected national share is that it shouldn't matter whether or not London was voting this year, or wasn't voting last year. The projected national share is supposed to take that into account, otherwise you'd just use actual votes cast.
Shouldn't. Supposed to. But in reality doesn't. All the psephologists offer projections based on a 3 party world with UKIP " not in the model" so has to be adjusted in. Which is has been - badly.
And again, we are taking elections in parts of England and using them to make assumptions about the results across the UK. Again, in a 4 party world previous standards of electoral hurdles and performance are obsolete. Time for a rethink on electoral systems, as FPTP is also obsolete.
Tragedy that Glasgow's finest building went up in flames today. Surely they could have got some fire engines there a bit quicker to save part of the building?
They already do it with help to buy, now they need help to build.
My daughter has just started work in London after uni. We live in surrey and don;t charge any rent so she gets to save what she earns.
Its much worse for every one of her friends. After rent, tax, travel and food they have nothing. Zip. Nada. Nix. They can't dream of a deposit, never mind a home of their own. When I started working in London thirty years ago central properties were expensive, but what were then the grottier boroughs were within some sort of compass. Now nothing is. Nothing at all.
We have some young people at the office I work who are the same. They have nothing, bless em and no prospect whatsoever of owning.
What do they do? If they're single on £25,000 a year, then that's £1662 a month. If you rent with three mates, you could get somewhere at £2500 pcm, or £625 each. £50 on groceries a week. £100 a month on a travel card. You've got £700 left. Knock off £200 for socialising and other things that come up, and you've got £500 to save each month. £6k a year.
I think travel cards are generally a bit more than £100 per month. Zone 1-5 on the tube is more than £200, and I don't think that even includes use of the bus.
Plus your putative renter hasn't paid for any electricity, water, council tax, etc, assuming that's not included in their rent.
Fair enough. Just looked up a Zone 1-3 travel card, which were the sort of properties I'm looking at. That's £140. Four bedroom house would have bills or maybe £100 a month, and council tax the same, divided by the four residents. So let's say it's £400 saving a month.
Hmm, most interesting discussion. Obviously £25K is the gross salary. But if they are young professionals you need to add at least £60 or so pcm for student loan, and a bit more for professional development, including fees, books, PC, etc. So saving could be now down to £300pcm?
Since when do you have to pay for your own PC and books for professional development?
Even in the1980s I did (though qualified just before I got an Amstrad PCW, but I used that for pro devt of another kind anyway). I did get course fees and time off in working time to go on courses/have meets with my tutor. The climate now is very different, and even those who do get course fees paid are liable to have them deducted if they leave the employer within n years of completion.
It is very easy to square a UKIP PNS lower than Euro National Share. In the Euros UKIP appeared on everyone's ballots the same is categorically not true in the Locals. In my ward in Warrington the only candidates on my ballots were the three main parties. So the traditional 3 main parties must have had 100% of valid votes cast.
PNS as per intro assumes the three main parties stand in all constituencies. It does not to the same for UKIP.
I'm amazed at the confusion over projected national share.
There are still a lot of people in various places saying things like "UKIP have done worse this year with the projected national share because London was voting this year".
The whole point of the projected national share is that it shouldn't matter whether or not London was voting this year, or wasn't voting last year. The projected national share is supposed to take that into account, otherwise you'd just use actual votes cast.
I am not sure that certain people can stomach the fact that using projected national share correctly (the way you describe) indicates that (as Mike has indicated in the header) UKIP's support is actually declining quite substantially.
The word you're looking for is believe, not stomach.
UKIP have won more seats than last year, in significantly less favourable areas overall, and we are being asked to believe their support has fallen by 25%.
Based on AndyJS's figures so far, their actual vote share seems to be above 17% (in a sub sample which includes large councils scoring 1%, 3% and 4% for UKIP). If it turns out the models are downweighting UKIP's actual votes then they're going to be pretty discredited unless somewhat wants to tell me a sample of areas over-weighted towards London is good for UKIP.
For those who think UKIP 17% nationally is 'too low'. Look at the results, at their best they are high 20s (one or two freak results notwithstanding) and in places they are nowhere. Add in London and Scotland where they are relatively weak and 17% feels spot on. Look at the polls. The Euros is where they will do much better.
I'm going to continue tallying real votes in the local elections so we can compare them with the various national projected shares that will be published. (I'm using highest party vote in multi-member wards).
I was hoping to do 65 councils last night, and I was working constantly at it for 10 hours, but I wasted a lot of time trying to find websites with the results.
Kippers on 18% with your subset so far - interesting to see how that develops - would be rather poor if it turns out the BBC experts have decided this is above average target land for UKIP and adjusted them down, or even just left flat given how clear it is that London is a voting black hole for them.
I did it last year and got exactly 20% for UKIP's real votes in the local elections.
On that occasion I thought it was strange that the national projected share for UKIP was actually higher — at 23% — given that London wasn't voting. I would have expected the 20% to be downgraded if you were projecting to include London.
Seems like the opposite thing has happened this year.
Apologies if already posted: the BBC analysis of the results projected to the whjole country at a GE: Labour: 322 seats, Conservatives: 255, Lib Dems: 45
- Sky has a similar analysis. It's 4 seats short of an overall majority.
Just not good enough Nick, nowhere near good enough for Labour just under a year from the general election.
The question for you and other Labour burghers is what are you going to do to turn this impending disaster around ?
You are indeed correct that disaster is most likely impending for Labour and something needs to be done, but you and other PBTories surely don't still think the way for them is by moving to the supposed "centre ground" and saying they'd cut spending? People are quite obviously not voting for UKIP because they're desperate for "economic credibility", in fact by UKIP's own admission they stand for the very opposite of "credibility" (since "credibility" essentially means maintaining the economic status quo which has driven so many people to such fury).
Not possible that their overall share might have been dramitically overestimated in 2013 based on thoughts they'd do far better in London? It's not rocket science.
It is very easy to square a UKIP PNS lower than Euro National Share. In the Euros UKIP appeared on everyone's ballots the same is categorically not true in the Locals. In my ward in Warrington the only candidates on my ballots were the three main parties. So the traditional 3 main parties must have had 100% of valid votes cast.
PNS as per intro assumes the three main parties stand in all constituencies. It does not to the same for UKIP.
The projection assumes all 3 Westminster parties stood in all wards to remove this source of bias between then - given the way it's phrased in the thread header, it seems very likely that UKIP were not given the same advantage which would offer a potential explanation for the disconnect between seat gains and votes.
I think the so-called experts are making fools of themselves by saying UKIP got 17% this year compared to 23% in 2013. If UKIP did indeed get a projected share of 17% this year, last year's projected share should have been around 15%.
London is the hole in UKIP's bucket. Clearly it will have to be attended to.
Ukip's strategy for London has to deal with the problem that people living there are "cultured and educated" and,on the whole,appreciate living in a multi-cultural international capital as a benefit,not the imagined threat Ukip inspires.Nevertheless,here's one or two suggestions, Take as many of them as possible into camps. "First they came for the cultured and educated....." Mandatory conscription into the armed forces is another possible choice,if they start showing any signs of being cultured.The Daily Mail could be read out at tube stations to help uneducate them too. There is always the military option.Would you call for an air-strike?
Surely they could have got some fire engines there a bit quicker to save part of the building?
How long did it take them to get there?
Channel 4 news pointedly commenting on the fire service refusing to state whether sprinklers were fitted - a black day for Scotland, the UK and the world.
"...UKIP's support is actually declining quite substantially."
Of course it is, as yesterday's elections will show. By next May UKIP will be collecting less than 3% of the vote share. By the same token we can see the Lib Dems powering ahead, picking up support from right, left and centre. We can expect the Lib Dems to be challenging for the top spot in the GE. It is obvious that any party that is growing in membership, support and vote numbers is in fact in terminal decline, whilst a party that is shedding members, support and votes is a growing force in UK politics..
Not to bore everyone! But how many councils did they top the vote in? How many are they the official opposition? Why in the hell would anyone think they were on over 20 based on that?!
They already do it with help to buy, now they need help to build.
My daughter has just started work in London after uni. We live in surrey and don;t charge any rent so she gets to save what she earns.
Its much worse for every one of her friends. After rent, tax, travel and food they have nothing. Zip. Nada. Nix. They can't dream of a deposit, never mind a home of their own. When I started working in London thirty years ago central properties were expensive, but what were then the grottier boroughs were within some sort of compass. Now nothing is. Nothing at all.
We have some young people at the office I work who are the same. They have nothing, bless em and no prospect whatsoever of owning.
What do they do? If they're single on £25,000 a year, then that's £1662 a month. If you rent with three mates, you could get somewhere at £2500 pcm, or £625 each. £50 on groceries a week. £100 a month on a travel card. You've got £700 left. Knock off £200 for socialising and other things that come up, and you've got £500 to save each month. £6k a year.
I think travel cards are generally a bit more than £100 per month. Zone 1-5 on the tube is more than £200, and I don't think that even includes use of the bus.
Plus your putative renter hasn't paid for any electricity, water, council tax, etc, assuming that's not included in their rent.
Fair enough. Just looked up a Zone 1-3 travel card, which were the sort of properties I'm looking at. That's £140. Four bedroom house would have bills or maybe £100 a month, and council tax the same, divided by the four residents. So let's say it's £400 saving a month.
Hmm, most interesting discussion. Obviously £25K is the gross salary. But if they are young professionals you need to add at least £60 or so pcm for student loan, and a bit more for professional development, including fees, books, PC, etc. So saving could be now down to £300pcm?
Since when do you have to pay for your own PC and books for professional development?
Even in the1980s I did (though qualified just before I got an Amstrad PCW, but I used that for pro devt of another kind anyway). I did get course fees and time off in working time to go on courses/have meets with my tutor. The climate now is very different, and even those who do get course fees paid are liable to have them deducted if they leave the employer within n years of completion.
I have taken professional development courses and my employer paid for everything. Had I left for another job, it is custom for the new employer to pay these off for you.
I mean if they were on 23% nationally, with London and Scotland weak they'd be on for 15-20 seats. Get real.
This is not about what they will actually do in the GE - no one believes they would match council performances in a GE - the fact they would not is not an adjusting factor in the projected national share.
Not to bore everyone! But how many councils did they top the vote in? How many are they the official opposition? Why in the hell would anyone think they were on over 20 based on that?!
Do you believe UKIP's voting share dropped by 25% over the last year?
Not to bore everyone! But how many councils did they top the vote in? How many are they the official opposition? Why in the hell would anyone think they were on over 20 based on that?!
Do you believe UKIP's voting share dropped by 25% over the last year?
They certainly weren't on 23% last year. It's that figure that is the problem, not this one.
Thrasher on SkyNews now making the same confusion as this thread.
If the bloody experts can't talk about national equivalent share without using the location of the elections as an excuse, how are we supposed to trust them to make these calculations?
Surely they could have got some fire engines there a bit quicker to save part of the building?
How long did it take them to get there?
Channel 4 news pointedly commenting on the fire service refusing to state whether sprinklers were fitted - a black day for Scotland, the UK and the world.
I left Glasgow this morning without getting around to going back there - too much time wasted in pubs!
Thrasher on SkyNews now making the same confusion as this thread.
If the bloody experts can't talk about national equivalent share without using the location of the elections as an excuse, how are we supposed to trust them to make these calculations?
And yet Andys subset of actual votes cast has them on about the same as the PNV. Go figure.
It is much simpler than that. They already have the policy of no welfare for immigrants with less than five years residence, which should depoputate a lot of housing fairly quickly. The resultant squatter camps could be dealt with by stern policing and back up from expanded armed forces.
I think the so-called experts are making fools of themselves by saying UKIP got 17% this year compared to 23% in 2013. If UKIP did indeed get a projected share of 17% this year, last year's projected share should have been around 15%.
London is the hole in UKIP's bucket. Clearly it will have to be attended to.
Ukip's strategy for London has to deal with the problem that people living there are "cultured and educated" and,on the whole,appreciate living in a multi-cultural international capital as a benefit,not the imagined threat Ukip inspires.Nevertheless,here's one or two suggestions, Take as many of them as possible into camps. "First they came for the cultured and educated....." Mandatory conscription into the armed forces is another possible choice,if they start showing any signs of being cultured.The Daily Mail could be read out at tube stations to help uneducate them too. There is always the military option.Would you call for an air-strike?
Thrasher on SkyNews now making the same confusion as this thread.
If the bloody experts can't talk about national equivalent share without using the location of the elections as an excuse, how are we supposed to trust them to make these calculations?
And yet Andys subset of actual votes cast has them on about the same as the PNV. Go figure.
In locations which, per Thrasher "are not anywhere near as favourable as last year"
Their actual vote has fallen 2-3% from what we can see so far, in constituencies which are massively less receptive. Fisher and co have turned that in to a 6% fall. This is faulty Psephology being used to push an untrue narrative (x-ref the Krishnan Guru Murphy quote just shared).
Thrasher - "yes UKIP are marginally down from last year's national equivalent share, but these are much less favourable constituencies for them."
He also called attempts to say this is a poor performance by UKIP - "mean" on this basis.
It's a fine performance, to be only 12-14 down on the government! I wouldn't be heading back to my constituency to prepare for government though.
That's a bit of a straw man. My only issue here is that the media will now push this line that UKIP's votes have dropped, when the basis for that is not there. Their real votes have fallen very slightly in much less ripe areas than the comparison, and this projection has some how multiplied that small fall rather than wiping it out, after adjusting for the locations involved.
Surely its good news that UKIP are performing better in terms of seats with a lower vote share. It means they have begun to adjust to the realities of FPTP. Fewer wasted votes means they have less chance of splitting the centre right base and letting Labour in through the back door. Clumpy support is desirable. Its no use winning 30% of the national vote and coming second in all 650 seats.
Not possible that their overall share might have been dramitically overestimated in 2013 based on thoughts they'd do far better in London? It's not rocket science.
In votes cast in 2013 they topped the poll in 10 Westminster constituencies.
Surely its good news that UKIP are performing better in terms of seats with a lower vote share. It means they have begun to adjust to the realities of FPTP. Fewer wasted votes means they have less chance of splitting the centre right base and letting Labour in through the back door. Clumpy support is desirable. Its no use winning 30% of the national vote and coming second in all 650 seats.
Yes, not wasting votes in London is a positive.
But it would be nice if a narrative wasn't constructed that UKIP are in decline based on a projection which looks very odd when compared to the actual votes Andy is compiling.
Thrasher on SkyNews now making the same confusion as this thread.
If the bloody experts can't talk about national equivalent share without using the location of the elections as an excuse, how are we supposed to trust them to make these calculations?
And yet Andys subset of actual votes cast has them on about the same as the PNV. Go figure.
In locations which, per Thrasher "are not anywhere near as favourable as last year"
Their actual vote has fallen 2-3% from what we can see so far, in constituencies which are massively less receptive. Fisher and co have turned that in to a 6% fall. This is faulty Psephology being used to push an untrue narrative (x-ref the Krishnan Guru Murphy quote just shared).
Lol. 200 gains, fewer council seats won than the Lib Dems, not in control of any councils (the Lib Dems are and have a lower national share), not the official opposition anywhere new today as far as I know and yet they should be 'higher' than 17% of the national vote?! Ridiculous. They are where they are. They got overestimated in 2013 precisely because it was ripe territory. They had better results in places, too.
Surely they could have got some fire engines there a bit quicker to save part of the building?
How long did it take them to get there?
Channel 4 news pointedly commenting on the fire service refusing to state whether sprinklers were fitted - a black day for Scotland, the UK and the world.
I left Glasgow this morning without getting around to going back there - too much time wasted in pubs!
Not hunting the elusive Scottish UKIP voter?
What a waste!
Oh well, between the Labour council and the SNP government they'll probably find a way to blame the Tories in general and Thatcher in particular!
Interesting results in Newcastle under Lyme. UKIP making gains from Lab in the old pit villages of Chesterton and Silverdale. A green elected in the university ward of Keele. Poor results for Labour and LD.
Is the Llin Golding who lost in Silverdale the former MP, or a daughter or granddaughter?
Milliband needs to say something meaningful to the WWC and he needs to say it soon.
Not possible that their overall share might have been dramitically overestimated in 2013 based on thoughts they'd do far better in London? It's not rocket science.
In votes cast in 2013 they topped the poll in 10 Westminster constituencies.
There you go. In these elections they didn't. Progress not maintained.
Thrasher on SkyNews now making the same confusion as this thread.
If the bloody experts can't talk about national equivalent share without using the location of the elections as an excuse, how are we supposed to trust them to make these calculations?
And yet Andys subset of actual votes cast has them on about the same as the PNV. Go figure.
In locations which, per Thrasher "are not anywhere near as favourable as last year"
Their actual vote has fallen 2-3% from what we can see so far, in constituencies which are massively less receptive. Fisher and co have turned that in to a 6% fall. This is faulty Psephology being used to push an untrue narrative (x-ref the Krishnan Guru Murphy quote just shared).
Lol. 200 gains, fewer council seats won than the Lib Dems, not in control of any councils (the Lib Dems are and have a lower national share), not the official opposition anywhere new today as far as I know and yet they should be 'higher' than 17% of the national vote?! Ridiculous. They are where they are. They got overestimated in 2013 precisely because it was ripe territory. They had better results in places, too.
The only important outcome of this is the media narrative, and it may now be falsely set due to an incorrect impression of changed momentum.
So far on Andy's numbers they've scored 17% of actual votes in below average areas for them.
This is only 3% less than last year in real votes. The change in national equivalent share should be 3% or less based on this and yet it's 6% apparently.
Not possible that their overall share might have been dramitically overestimated in 2013 based on thoughts they'd do far better in London? It's not rocket science.
In votes cast in 2013 they topped the poll in 10 Westminster constituencies.
There you go. In these elections they didn't. Progress not maintained.
We've already seen they topped the poll in Rotherham. Thurrock, Castle Point, Great Yarmouth, Basildon appear to have been strong performances too. Tomorrow's newspapers should have a post-mortem.
I don't expect to be able to do the final update for a few more hours, so here are how things stand in terms of who won seats of who at the election with 87% of the seats inputted:
Interesting results in Newcastle under Lyme. UKIP making gains from Lab in the old pit villages of Chesterton and Silverdale. A green elected in the university ward of Keele. Poor results for Labour and LD.
Is the Llin Golding who lost in Silverdale the former MP, or a daughter or granddaughter?
Milliband needs to say something meaningful to the WWC and he needs to say it soon.
To answer my own question re: Llin Golding, yes it is Baroness Golding. Unbelievable for her to lose so badly, and the Council leader lost his seat in Chesterton.
This same projection believes the areas are so left wing slanted that a 10% gap in actual votes between Labour and the Tories becomes a 2% national equivalent gap (caveat, assuming Andy's current sub-sample is directionally representative). And the Tories are capable of topping 5% in London.
Its sad to see the clutching at straws that this headline seems to show. Hodges is apparently trying a similar line. These seats are mainly metropolitan, extrapolating them onto the far more rural set of seats fought last year is to my mind little more than speculation especially as London and the former metropolitan counties didn't vote last year and nearly all the shires did.
It is also the case that the Euros likely resulted in a bigger turnout for the council elections further distorting comparisons
I'm afraid apples and pears cannot be compared and this to my mind smacks of desperation by the BBC et al.
I don't expect to be able to do the final update for a few more hours, so here are how things stand in terms of who won seats of who at the election with 87% of the seats inputted:
Thrasher on SkyNews now making the same confusion as this thread.
If the bloody experts can't talk about national equivalent share without using the location of the elections as an excuse, how are we supposed to trust them to make these calculations?
And yet Andys subset of actual votes cast has them on about the same as the PNV. Go figure.
In locations which, per Thrasher "are not anywhere near as favourable as last year"
Their actual vote has fallen 2-3% from what we can see so far, in constituencies which are massively less receptive. Fisher and co have turned that in to a 6% fall. This is faulty Psephology being used to push an untrue narrative (x-ref the Krishnan Guru Murphy quote just shared).
Lol. 200 gains, fewer council seats won than the Lib Dems, not in control of any councils (the Lib Dems are and have a lower national share), not the official opposition anywhere new today as far as I know and yet they should be 'higher' than 17% of the national vote?! Ridiculous. They are where they are. They got overestimated in 2013 precisely because it was ripe territory. They had better results in places, too.
The only important outcome of this is the media narrative, and it may now be falsely set due to an incorrect impression of changed momentum.
So far on Andy's numbers they've scored 17% of actual votes in below average areas for them.
This is only 3% less than last year in real votes. The change in national equivalent share should be 3% or less based on this and yet it's 6% apparently.
How many London councils up on Andys tally? 17% feels right 20% last year seems more accurate. I agree it's unfortunate for the narrative, unfairly so given either last year or this is clearly wrong (last year seeming more likely)
Narrative wise, wait till Sunday night when they win a national election at a canter.
Surely they could have got some fire engines there a bit quicker to save part of the building?
How long did it take them to get there?
"Fire crews were on the scene within four minutes of the alarm being raised."
A bit harsh saying they should have gotten there quicker than that!
I suspect the investigation will focus on why an occupied building could go up so quickly - delay in raising the alarm, or was a hundred year old internally wooden building simply a bonfire just waiting for something to set it off?
Not possible that their overall share might have been dramitically overestimated in 2013 based on thoughts they'd do far better in London? It's not rocket science.
In votes cast in 2013 they topped the poll in 10 Westminster constituencies.
There you go. In these elections they didn't. Progress not maintained.
We've already seen they topped the poll in Rotherham. Thurrock, Castle Point, Great Yarmouth, Basildon appear to have been strong performances too. Tomorrow's newspapers should have a post-mortem.
Yes, one top versus ten tops. Of course they had so,e strong performances, you don't get 17% nationally otherwise! Anyway, I'm off on the sauce. Laters all
Comments
Time for bookies to start offering odds on Ed managing over/under Brown it seems. Woeful.
The experts then plugged that in to their 2.5 party system models and decided this was such ripe UKIP territory that it needed to be reduced by 25%. Daft.
UKIP not party of power yet but are party with power to disrupt. BBC National Vote Share - Lab 29%, Con 25%, UKIP 23% & Lib Dems 14%.
http://democracy.havering.gov.uk/mgElectionResults.aspx?ID=3&RPID=1001286383
Where do the Residents Association votes go in a GE??
This is interesting Carynx. 60 pcm is also the cost of part-time tution - a very nice equilibrium
No opposition has done this badly so close to the GE and gone on to win.
But we'll see on Sunday - this projection is extremely hard to square with anything over about 27% for UKIP in the euros.
This has a major effect on PSV
Yes, Andy, that's the way I understand it too, but it leaves us with a puzzle. As RichardN pointed out earlier, it would imply that everybody has done badly.
Does not compute.
Respect for the planet cannot be "bought off" in this way.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/23/fracking-southern-england-compensation_n_5377412.html
What date should we pencil in for the party to celebrate your richly-deserved elevation to the Lords?
Lab 38,357 (36.08%)
Con 35,734 (33.61%)
UKIP 15,190 (14.29%)
Green 9,160 (8.62%)
LD 6,062 (5.70%)
Changes since 2010 locals:
Lab +4.73%
Con -3.42%
UKIP +11.91%
Green +1.15%
LD -12.70%
Swing, Con to Lab: 4.08%
This year the ratios are reversed - so UKIP get 15% of the vote (25% of 5000 + 10% of 1000)/15000
This year also - it is not the big votes in Sunderland that are counting, it is also the low percentage in London. London is a massive weighting factor in national percentages.
What this does mean, is that UKIP are polling well above the headline figure away from London - which probably offers opportunities if matching bets being placed on the headline percentage.
90's
Is Havering unusual in the popularity of its Residents Associations? Looks like they are going to gain control of Council at this rate
http://democracy.havering.gov.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?ID=20&RPID=1001297350
So far I've done 34 out of 161 councils:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dGZMVENacEVqMUI0bWZaQk13c041S3c&usp=sheets_web#gid=0
It is supposed to adjust for the location of elections in any one year to give a view on the national picture - read the single sentence summary from Steve Fisher above.
As it happens, I too am struggling to believe the adjustment has been done properly, but we will see.
There are still a lot of people in various places saying things like "UKIP have done worse this year with the projected national share because London was voting this year".
The whole point of the projected national share is that it shouldn't matter whether or not London was voting this year, or wasn't voting last year. The projected national share is supposed to take that into account, otherwise you'd just use actual votes cast.
Conservatives down 13.5%.
Lib Dems down 41.2%
Lab up 18.6%.
Lib Dem figures now amongst the highest % loss in any set of English local elections. 282 LD losses are at the top end of expectations.
Cheers for clearing it up.
Those poor candidates they are working to death need to join a union
.http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/05/candidate-fury-at-cchq-campaign-demands/
And again, we are taking elections in parts of England and using them to make assumptions about the results across the UK. Again, in a 4 party world previous standards of electoral hurdles and performance are obsolete. Time for a rethink on electoral systems, as FPTP is also obsolete.
PNS as per intro assumes the three main parties stand in all constituencies. It does not to the same for UKIP.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-27541883
UKIP have won more seats than last year, in significantly less favourable areas overall, and we are being asked to believe their support has fallen by 25%.
Based on AndyJS's figures so far, their actual vote share seems to be above 17% (in a sub sample which includes large councils scoring 1%, 3% and 4% for UKIP). If it turns out the models are downweighting UKIP's actual votes then they're going to be pretty discredited unless somewhat wants to tell me a sample of areas over-weighted towards London is good for UKIP.
Look at the polls.
The Euros is where they will do much better.
On that occasion I thought it was strange that the national projected share for UKIP was actually higher — at 23% — given that London wasn't voting. I would have expected the 20% to be downgraded if you were projecting to include London.
Seems like the opposite thing has happened this year.
Take as many of them as possible into camps. "First they came for the cultured and educated....."
Mandatory conscription into the armed forces is another possible choice,if they start showing any signs of being cultured.The Daily Mail could be read out at tube stations to help uneducate them too.
There is always the military option.Would you call for an air-strike?
Of course it is, as yesterday's elections will show. By next May UKIP will be collecting less than 3% of the vote share. By the same token we can see the Lib Dems powering ahead, picking up support from right, left and centre. We can expect the Lib Dems to be challenging for the top spot in the GE. It is obvious that any party that is growing in membership, support and vote numbers is in fact in terminal decline, whilst a party that is shedding members, support and votes is a growing force in UK politics..
If the bloody experts can't talk about national equivalent share without using the location of the elections as an excuse, how are we supposed to trust them to make these calculations?
He also called attempts to say this is a poor performance by UKIP - "mean" on this basis.
"Your national projected share went down from 23% to 17%. You lost."
http://blogs.ft.com/money-supply/2014/05/23/data-problems-with-capital-in-the-21st-century/
Piketty picking and mixing data badly?
Capital in 21st Century ffs - fat finger syndrome or just a rush to publish?
Their actual vote has fallen 2-3% from what we can see so far, in constituencies which are massively less receptive. Fisher and co have turned that in to a 6% fall. This is faulty Psephology being used to push an untrue narrative (x-ref the Krishnan Guru Murphy quote just shared).
But it would be nice if a narrative wasn't constructed that UKIP are in decline based on a projection which looks very odd when compared to the actual votes Andy is compiling.
They are where they are. They got overestimated in 2013 precisely because it was ripe territory. They had better results in places, too.
What a waste!
Oh well, between the Labour council and the SNP government they'll probably find a way to blame the Tories in general and Thatcher in particular!
Is the Llin Golding who lost in Silverdale the former MP, or a daughter or granddaughter?
Milliband needs to say something meaningful to the WWC and he needs to say it soon.
So far on Andy's numbers they've scored 17% of actual votes in below average areas for them.
This is only 3% less than last year in real votes. The change in national equivalent share should be 3% or less based on this and yet it's 6% apparently.
http://www.ukip.org/local_election_results
http://goo.gl/4AJwpD
It is also the case that the Euros likely resulted in a bigger turnout for the council elections further distorting comparisons
I'm afraid apples and pears cannot be compared and this to my mind smacks of desperation by the BBC et al.
17% feels right
20% last year seems more accurate.
I agree it's unfortunate for the narrative, unfairly so given either last year or this is clearly wrong (last year seeming more likely)
Narrative wise, wait till Sunday night when they win a national election at a canter.
Anyway, I'm off on the sauce. Laters all