Thanks to Rod for this. That regression chart is really quite remarkable: R² of 0.95 - that means it's a pretty damned good fit of the data.
Problem is that the 0.95 is driven by two data points (-2, -15) and (+13.5, +7) which means that excel can force a line where there is insufficient data
Not so. Removing those to data points reduces R^2 only fractionally to .9356 and leaves the forecast essentially unchanged at -8.4%. (y=1.5254-0.1225)
The Media Blog @TheMediaTweets · 59m "Let's stage a photocall." "Great idea. Those things never backfire." (via @Independent) pic.twitter.com/2srvliqVfB
On your graph it does look as though Ed Milliband is the most ineffective LOTO for Labour since Michael Foot, LOL.
The writings on the wall for Labour and has been for some time.
Still think it's going to be Conservatives most votes and seats, but if Labour does lose by 8.4% next year it will surely end up in a Conservative majority.
I just whacked some figures into electoral calculus of con 39 lab 31 ld 18 and UKIP 5.5 which gave seats of 327:262:33:0 for a majority of 4.
A Tory party with a majority of four would be ungovernable... the Eurosceptics would run riot.
Imagine how funny it would be if neither Lib + Con or Lib + Lab or even the addition of UKIP added up to 326...
Add that to a YES vote - power held in theory by the nats for a year.
That'd be pretty damned funny.
I think you would find that it wasn't funny at all. The risk of such an outcome, or of an outcome where a coalition including the LibDems was possible numerically but not politically, is why I'm moving my pension fund and other investments away from dependence on the UK economy.
On your graph it does look as though Ed Milliband is the most ineffective LOTO for Labour since Michael Foot, LOL.
The writings on the wall for Labour and has been for some time.
Still think it's going to be Conservatives most votes and seats, but if Labour does lose by 8.4% next year it will surely end up in a Conservative majority.
I just whacked some figures into electoral calculus of con 39 lab 31 ld 18 and UKIP 5.5 which gave seats of 327:262:33:0 for a majority of 4.
A Tory party with a majority of four would be ungovernable... the Eurosceptics would run riot.
Oh I'm sure the idiots would throw a regular nutty, but they'll do that regardless of how big a majority is achieved.
Labour has a playbook ready to dust off to tackle the UKIP threat - Blue Labour. It looks like the latte-sippers of Islington are in the bag, so we need to focus on the working class natural Labour supporters, and bring them back home for next May. Let's make a start by pledging a significant increase in the minimum wage, rather than just aspiring to do so.
Oh, and Ed says 'friends' because he dare not say 'comrades'!
Imagine how funny it would be if neither Lib + Con or Lib + Lab or even the addition of UKIP added up to 326...
Add that to a YES vote - power held in theory by the nats for a year.
That'd be pretty damned funny.
I think you would find that it wasn't funny at all. The risk of such an outcome, or of an outcome where a coalition including the LibDems was possible numerically but not politically, is why I'm moving my pension fund and other investments away from dependence on the UK economy.
Quite Mr Nabavi, it would desperately undermine international confidence
Former Tories will be (anecdotally - are) terrified of the possibility of Prime Minister Ed Miliband.
70% or more of the country will be deeply committed to the 'Keep the weirdo out' bandwagon. Just look at that face. Just listen to that voice. PM? Nah.
Thanks to Rod for this. That regression chart is really quite remarkable: R² of 0.95 - that means it's a pretty damned good fit of the data.
Problem is that the 0.95 is driven by two data points (-2, -15) and (+13.5, +7) which means that excel can force a line where there is insufficient data
Not so. Removing those to data points reduces R^2 only fractionally to .9356 and leaves the forecast essentially unchanged at -8.4%. (y=1.5254-0.1225)
As an aside, for the last 10 years or so, I've been musing about S-curve regression lines. Have you seen any papers on them? Rational is that regression analysis only works within an upper and lower band & then the relationships shift (admittedly I focus on the correlation between growth and value)
She went down in just 14 minutes, and still holds the record for the most number of passengers killed on a liner in peacetime, more than the Titanic...
Thanks to Rod for this. That regression chart is really quite remarkable: R² of 0.95 - that means it's a pretty damned good fit of the data.
Problem is that the 0.95 is driven by two data points (-2, -15) and (+13.5, +7) which means that excel can force a line where there is insufficient data
Not so. Removing those to data points reduces R^2 only fractionally to .9356 and leaves the forecast essentially unchanged at -8.4%. (y=1.5254-0.1225)
As an aside, for the last 10 years or so, I've been musing about S-curve regression lines. Have you seen any papers on them? Rational is that regression analysis only works within an upper and lower band & then the relationships shift (admittedly I focus on the correlation between growth and value)
Thanks to Rod for this. That regression chart is really quite remarkable: R² of 0.95 - that means it's a pretty damned good fit of the data.
Problem is that the 0.95 is driven by two data points (-2, -15) and (+13.5, +7) which means that excel can force a line where there is insufficient data
Not so. Removing those to data points reduces R^2 only fractionally to .9356 and leaves the forecast essentially unchanged at -8.4%. (y=1.5254-0.1225)
As an aside, for the last 10 years or so, I've been musing about S-curve regression lines. Have you seen any papers on them? Rational is that regression analysis only works within an upper and lower band & then the relationships shift (admittedly I focus on the correlation between growth and value)
As in logisitic regression? Works well with bounded sets (so for example, a percentage outcome like vote share).
I would like to know why Dave and George "raised the Titanic" then rebuilt it exactly the same, but without any lifeboats this time, and set sail to break the Atlantic crossing record.
Can you show us the data showing the massive increase in consumer home lending to back up this silly claim ?
Essentially in past Parliaments the Opposition picked up a lot of floating votes which then in whole or in part floated back. This time, the Opposition hasn't picked up much (partly because of UKIP), but equally there isn't much to float back. Rod's case depends assuming that people who have been persistently Labour since 2011 would now suddenly vote Tory or LibDem. Looking at the past doesn't give a basis for that.
The polls and the Euros and the local elections are all pointing to the same modest Labour lead over the Tories. Cameron's hopes really hinge on differential swingback from UKIP.
You're forgetting the red liberals Labour have picked up from the government. Eds hopes hinge on them not drifting back, too.
No, that's the voters I was talking about who have been steadily Labour since 2011. Do you think a sudden LibDem revival is likely? As I've said for at least a year, I'm more confident of these than I am of habitual Labour voters (some of whom have indeed since drifted off to UKIP).
Of course, Clegg's departure and the dissolution of the coalition (into confidence & supply) could be fatal for this final bulwark. I can't see it happening this week but autumn or the New Year are still possibilities.
Just as soon as you show me the country being held aloft by "The march of the makers", and factories investing heavily in new manufacturing methods instead of state subsidised labour.
@philipjcowley: ICM's @martinboon reports that the BPC have said they've broken no rule. In which case the client declaration requirement is meaningless.
@philipjcowley: ICM's @martinboon reports that the BPC have said they've broken no rule. In which case the client declaration requirement is meaningless.
Just as soon as you show me the country being held aloft by "The march of the makers", and factories investing heavily in new manufacturing methods instead of state subsidised labour.
You want me to prove your wild assertions for you ?
George W. Bush had approval ratings over 90% after 9/11. His clear denunciations of al-Qaeda and impromptu speeches led to Democrats praising his "moral clarity".
But yes, Tony Blair does look very poorly. I would generally think a good Western leader would achieve the following:
- Sound economic management - Prudent and effective foreign policy - Preservation of protections on individual liberty - Expansion of opportunity
So, just as I've finished going through the individual council websites - the North-West Votes website adds a pdf of the individual Counting Area Results - Here
Imagine how funny it would be if neither Lib + Con or Lib + Lab or even the addition of UKIP added up to 326...
Add that to a YES vote - power held in theory by the nats for a year.
That'd be pretty damned funny.
I think you would find that it wasn't funny at all. The risk of such an outcome, or of an outcome where a coalition including the LibDems was possible numerically but not politically, is why I'm moving my pension fund and other investments away from dependence on the UK economy.
*cough*
As someone with a bit of money to park, in coming months, where do you advise me to put it? So I can avoid UK/indyref/eurogeddon instability?
It's difficult to find safe havens. I am already invested in London property and don't want to duplicate that.
You're still a way off retirement, so equities is the usual recommendation. If you want to avoid the UK/Europe, you could put it in a S&P 500 fund or an MSCI developing markets one.
You're forgetting the red liberals Labour have picked up from the government. Eds hopes hinge on them not drifting back, too.
No, that's the voters I was talking about who have been steadily Labour since 2011. Do you think a sudden LibDem revival is likely? As I've said for at least a year, I'm more confident of these than I am of habitual Labour voters (some of whom have indeed since drifted off to UKIP).
There's been a steady, gradual decline in Labour's poll share among 2010 LibDems.
I've been tracking the numbers semi-regularly. excluding those who say they won't vote/don't know, Labour had 39.4% last ten polls of July 2012, 37.2 in Jan 2013, and 32.6 in July 13. I've just checked the last 5 regular yougovs, and they averaged 29.8%. Some improvement in all of UKIP, LD, Grn and Con over period.
Just as soon as you show me the country being held aloft by "The march of the makers", and factories investing heavily in new manufacturing methods instead of state subsidised labour.
"... state subsidised labour"
I do wish people wouldn't use that expression because it gives a false impression of what is actually going on. If people instead said private company profits today are being made possible by the government stealing from the wealth of our children and grandchildren then we might start to get a sensible debate about welfare, in particular in-work and housing benefits, wealth creation and where that wealth is going. Who knows it might even lead to a system of taxation that is equitable, just and efficient.
"Business investment is enjoying its longest period of sustained growth in 16 years, in further signs that Britain's economic recovery is broadening out. The UK economy expanded at its fastest annual pace since 2007 in the first three months of the year, official data confirmed on Thursday, as a strong increase in business investment was supported by a rise in consumer spending."
"Growth in services output was unrevised at 0.9pc on the quarter, while the manufacturing sector expanded by 1.4pc, up from an initial estimate of 1.3pc. A survey by the Confederation of Business Industry on Thursday indicated that manufacturers, which power around a tenth of the economy, are on course for another quarter of strong growth.
Order books picked up slightly in the three months to May, the CBI said, while business optimism for the next three months remained close to a 15-year high. Construction output grew by 0.6pc, according to the ONS, up from an initial estimate of 0.3pc."
"In spite of 20% rise in spending, outstanding balances fall by £8.9 billion in 5 years as customers use their cards more wisely UK credit card debt has fallen by 13% since 2008 while spending has increased by £26 billion as consumers use their cards more prudently, according to data published today [30.01.2014] by The UK Cards Association. Outstanding balances on all credit cards in the UK have fallen by £8.9 billion - down from £65.8 billion in 2008 to £56.9 billion by December 2013."
As someone with a bit of money to park, in coming months, where do you advise me to put it? So I can avoid UK/indyref/eurogeddon instability?
It's difficult to find safe havens. I am already invested in London property and don't want to duplicate that.
I can't give you advice, but I can tell you what my thinking is. I don't think there are any 'safe havens' as such unless you are prepared to accept zero or negative real returns. I'm still mainly invested in shares, but I'm shifting investments away from mid-range UK companies (which depend on the performance of the UK economy) towards a mixture of foreign (especially US and some European) markets and UK-quoted large cap companies with an international reach and which are not in industries likely to be shafted by Miliband. Examples are Rolls Royce, Compass, Unilever, Diageo, GlaxoSmithKline etc etc. In fact, overall the FTSE100 is not particularly closely linked to the UK economy, but I'm staying away from utilities and retailers, and I shall probably move out of housebuilders before the Labour conference.
I think you posted a comment a while back saying you didn't want to manage investments yourself, which is very good sense if you don't want to spend the time researching and/or you don't think you've got the right skills. In that case a simple option is a mixture of low-cost tracker funds which track the FTSE100, the S & P 500, the European market, and a small proportion in emerging/Far East markets. Something like 40%, 30%, 20%, 10% makes sense to me, although it's a higher non-UK percentage than most people would recommend.
Traditionally the advice has been to keep at least some of the portfolio in bonds rather than shares, but they are a bit tricky at the moment because of the expectation that interest rates will rise (which means the capital value of existing bonds, stuck on low interest rates, will fall).
1 - What relevance do we think the political events of the 1980s have for today given demographic change, the rise of UKIP, the decline in class voting and partisanship? If we think it has relatively little relevance then how useful is it in predicting election outcomes today?
2 - If anyone went to a scientific journal with data based on a sample size 8 they would certainly not get through the peer-review process. This is an intractable problem with this type of analysis.
Those points don't mean it is useless information but that it is of limited value. What it shows is that generally there is a movement from opposition to government in the last year and that this varies from 1% to 17%.
So it is likely that there will be some movement this time but I would suggest what happened in 82 to 83 or 86 to 87 won't tell us much about what will happen this time.
One thing I would be interested in is any research on differential voting patterns. We see this in America where demographic groups that support the Democrats are much less likely to turn out in a mid term year than demographic groups which support the Republicans. Hence part of the reason why the Democrats will do badly this year. Is there any evidence to suggest this has started to happen in the UK.
I only mention this as groups that are more likely to support Labour - young people, ethnic minorities and DE social group voters are probably less likely to vote in local elections than GEs. This could be important given the increased age skew in party support and the rising number of ethnic minority voters. But I'm not sure if the turnout differential actually is worse in LEs than GEs.
THe average bod will see that they've WON and so won't think UKIP is a wasted vote. You know how little the man on the street pays attention...
Wouldn't be surprised. Be interested to see if there's shift as the Euros get further into past.
Depends how close they get in Newark. If UKIP win there (Which I hope they don't, and judging by the Euro results shouldn't...) then well all bets are off.
Imagine how funny it would be if neither Lib + Con or Lib + Lab or even the addition of UKIP added up to 326...
Add that to a YES vote - power held in theory by the nats for a year.
That'd be pretty damned funny.
I think you would find that it wasn't funny at all. The risk of such an outcome, or of an outcome where a coalition including the LibDems was possible numerically but not politically, is why I'm moving my pension fund and other investments away from dependence on the UK economy.
*cough*
As someone with a bit of money to park, in coming months, where do you advise me to put it? So I can avoid UK/indyref/eurogeddon instability?
It's difficult to find safe havens. I am already invested in London property and don't want to duplicate that.
Why not use it? are you saying it is inaccurate? A turd by any other name ......smells the same.
I'd prefer that it wasn't used because it gives the impression that the state has money of its own. It doesn't, every penny that the state spends comes from taxpayers, either current ones or those of the future. So the state doesn't subsidise employers, taxpayers do or the children and grandchildren of today's taxpayers do. All the while enough people remain convinced that public spending has nothing to do with them or their's we will not have the debate that is needed and without that we cannot have a sense of common purpose.
Imagine how funny it would be if neither Lib + Con or Lib + Lab or even the addition of UKIP added up to 326...
Add that to a YES vote - power held in theory by the nats for a year.
That'd be pretty damned funny.
I think you would find that it wasn't funny at all. The risk of such an outcome, or of an outcome where a coalition including the LibDems was possible numerically but not politically, is why I'm moving my pension fund and other investments away from dependence on the UK economy.
*cough*
As someone with a bit of money to park, in coming months, where do you advise me to put it? So I can avoid UK/indyref/eurogeddon instability?
It's difficult to find safe havens. I am already invested in London property and don't want to duplicate that.
Horse-racing.
www.raceclear.co.uk is profitable providing you get on at the prices, and can get enough on. The biggest danger is being severely restricted before the 'long term' comes up though...
I did it for a few months for smallish stakes, not sure how upscalable it is though because apparently its difficult to put even £25 ew on a decent 5-1 chance in an 8 runner race....
In note that Mr. Crosby's work above is based on this thing called the National Equivalent Vote Share (NEV). Now, according to OGH last week, by this measure (or projection, if you feel that way) UKIP's showing in the locals was a disaster for them and their public support is actually dropping like a paralysed falcon. So if OGH is correct how much of an impact will UKIP actually have on the GE?
Effectively none. They'll poll about 5.5%, win no seats, assist a few noxious europhiles such as Ted Balls back into Parliament, Farage will duly be knifed by the Campaign for a Free Galilee, and once they lose the referendum in 2017, they'll fizzle.
They'll end up like the SDP by about 1990, coming last in a by-election behind the Monster Raving Loonies.
The wikipedia article about that is hilariously surreal:
"The little media attention that the by-election attracted was focused on a bizarre row between Labour and the Raving Loonies. Relations between the Labour Party and the Loonies had never been good, but they reached a new low when the Labour agent tried erroneously to have the Loony candidate, party leader Screaming Lord Sutch, arrested ... In the event, when the votes were counted the SDP candidate, Jack Holmes, finished far behind the Official Monster Raving Loony Party... Within a week of the result, Owen announced that the party's National Executive had voted to dissolve the party, saying that it could not possibly continue after being beaten by the Raving Loonies."
So, just as I've finished going through the individual council websites - the North-West Votes website adds a pdf of the individual Counting Area Results - Here
And the North-West counting areas in which UKIP won?
Wyre (35.4%); South Ribble (34.6%); Hyndburn (34.6%); Blackpool (33.9%); Rossendale (31.5%); Cheshire West and Chester (29.9%); Carlisle (29.6%); Lancaster (26.7%); Stockport (26.1%)
Worst performance was in Manchester with 15.9% (and they still came 2nd to Labour there)
One thing I have noticed from the local election results in Croydon is that the net swing from Conservative to Labour was less in the wards where UKIP did best, compared with the borough average. Thus it is misleading to think that UKIP merely "split" the Conservative vote, or "stole" Conservative votes.
The Labour leads of only 636 votes in Croydon Central constituency sounds quite encouraging when I think of the contrast between the local election in 1986 and the general election in 1987.
Rod, if your central forecast, via the regression, is 8.4%, why do you only say that the Tories have "an outside, but not insignificant chance of a majority"? Surely a majority should be odds-on at that forecast?
It'll be interesting to see where the Tory gains come from. I'd say it's pretty certain that Labour in London is off the table, so they are going to have to pick up a lot of LibDem seats and a fair few from Labour elsewhere. Presumably, factoring UKIP in renders Rod's entire thesis redundant.
@SeanT - One more thing: whatever you do, make sure you understand the charges and their effect on investment returns. That is why low-cost trackers may be a good idea, but you need to look not only at the fund itself, but also the 'platform charge'. Unfortunately this is not simple to do, as it depends a lot on how much you invest and in what. For example, Hargreaves Lansdown (the biggest 'platform') provides really excellent service, but it gets pricey for largish investments (say £100K+) if you are invested in unit-trust funds (which is what they try to sell you). It is very cheap if you're invested in ETFs, investment trusts or shares directly.
Rod, if your central forecast, via the regression, is 8.4%, why do you only say that the Tories have "an outside, but not insignificant chance of a majority"? Surely a majority should be odds-on at that forecast?
George W. Bush had approval ratings over 90% after 9/11. His clear denunciations of al-Qaeda and impromptu speeches led to Democrats praising his "moral clarity".
But yes, Tony Blair does look very poorly. I would generally think a good Western leader would achieve the following:
- Sound economic management - Prudent and effective foreign policy - Preservation of protections on individual liberty - Expansion of opportunity
At a push, you can give him 1/4.
Which 1 would you give him? If you were thinking the last I'd have to disagree - social mobility declined under Labour. Did you mean expansion of opportunity to immigrate here?
Tony Blair was as insane as Thatcher was, but we are where we are, except that if the excrement contacts the rotating vortex creator again, we really will get covered in it.
Presumably, factoring UKIP in renders Rod's entire thesis redundant.
Why would it do that? Rod's thesis presumes that Governments recover vis-a-vis the Opposition in the last year of a Parliament. Recovering votes from UKIP would seem to be a blindingly obvious way for the Tories to do that over the next year.
It'll be interesting to see where the Tory gains come from. I'd say it's pretty certain that Labour in London is off the table, so they are going to have to pick up a lot of LibDem seats and a fair few from Labour elsewhere.
So, just as I've finished going through the individual council websites - the North-West Votes website adds a pdf of the individual Counting Area Results - Here
And the North-West counting areas in which UKIP won?
Wyre (35.4%); South Ribble (34.6%); Hyndburn (34.6%); Blackpool (33.9%); Rossendale (31.5%); Cheshire West and Chester (29.9%); Carlisle (29.6%); Lancaster (26.7%); Stockport (26.1%)
Worst performance was in Manchester with 15.9% (and they still came 2nd to Labour there)
Confirms - Sale & Wythenshawe East By-Election held in a bad spot for UKIP..
#BritainElects @britainelects 26m We would strongly advise discounting the ICM poll given it's stark contrast to the real votes of the local elections.
#BritainElects @britainelects 27m We take issue with the ICM poll, a sample size of 500, compared to the real votes of the local elections: 32,000. --------------- #BritainElects @britainelects · 28m Sheffield Hallam (Local Elections 2014) constituency: LDEM - 37.7% LAB - 23.0% UKIP - 14.1% GRN - 12.2% CON - 10.4% OTH - 2.
Presumably, factoring UKIP in renders Rod's entire thesis redundant.
Why would it do that? Rod's thesis presumes that Governments recover vis-a-vis the Opposition in the last year of a Parliament. Recovering votes from UKIP would seem to be a blindingly obvious way for the Tories to do that over the next year.
Quite. In fact, we've been in a three-party system (four in Scotland & Wales) for a while.
"A significant microcosm of both the problem and the solution is London - where, significantly, UKIP resonated less and performed less well than elsewhere.
Part of the explanation is that globalisation - which gives many a sense that they have little direct control over their economic destiny - enriches London.
Much of the rest of the UK sees globalisation and its manifestations - such as immigration - as disempowering, impoverishing and a threat. Whereas for Londoners, globalisation is an economic competition they are apparently winning."
The political class have imported poverty into the cities on a massive scale which is giving Lab increasing electoral dominance. The Con leadership colludes with this for cheap labour reasons although ultimately it is harmful to the vast majortiy of their voters.
No doubt the City brings a lot of money into London but the majority of London isn't prosperous at all. It's the opposite and getting poorer. That's the reason for Lab success in London - importing poverty.
The only people who benefit from this are the private sector rich of the City and the public sector rich like the BBC who can now have lots of cheap servants.
Ed Miliband @Ed_Miliband · 2 mins The last Labour government was right to be open to the world but there is no future in saying we can pick up from where we left off in 2010
In other words: STFU working class, and be grateful...
#BritainElects @britainelects 26m We would strongly advise discounting the ICM poll given it's stark contrast to the real votes of the local elections.
#BritainElects @britainelects 27m We take issue with the ICM poll, a sample size of 500, compared to the real votes of the local elections: 32,000. --------------- #BritainElects @britainelects · 28m Sheffield Hallam (Local Elections 2014) constituency: LDEM - 37.7% LAB - 23.0% UKIP - 14.1% GRN - 12.2% CON - 10.4% OTH - 2.
"A significant microcosm of both the problem and the solution is London - where, significantly, UKIP resonated less and performed less well than elsewhere.
Part of the explanation is that globalisation - which gives many a sense that they have little direct control over their economic destiny - enriches London.
Much of the rest of the UK sees globalisation and its manifestations - such as immigration - as disempowering, impoverishing and a threat. Whereas for Londoners, globalisation is an economic competition they are apparently winning."
The political class have imported poverty into the cities on a massive scale which is giving Lab increasing electoral dominance. The Con leadership colludes with this for cheap labour reasons although ultimately it is harmful to the vast majortiy of their voters.
No doubt the City brings a lot of money into London but the majority of London isn't prosperous at all. It's the opposite and getting poorer. That's the reason for Lab success in London - importing poverty.
The only people who benefit from this are the private sector rich of the City and the public sector rich like the BBC who can now have lots of cheap servants.
Inner London's GDP per head is (IIRC) twice that of the UK, but that reflects the immense wealth of a minority of super-rich people, not the standard of living of the majority.
Just as much as ethnicity, it's the huge gap between rich and poor that drives Labour's support in London.
Thanks to Rod for this. That regression chart is really quite remarkable: R² of 0.95 - that means it's a pretty damned good fit of the data.
Problem is that the 0.95 is driven by two data points (-2, -15) and (+13.5, +7) which means that excel can force a line where there is insufficient data
Not so. Removing those to data points reduces R^2 only fractionally to .9356 and leaves the forecast essentially unchanged at -8.4%. (y=1.5254-0.1225)
As an aside, for the last 10 years or so, I've been musing about S-curve regression lines. Have you seen any papers on them? Rational is that regression analysis only works within an upper and lower band & then the relationships shift (admittedly I focus on the correlation between growth and value)
Thanks to Rod for this. That regression chart is really quite remarkable: R² of 0.95 - that means it's a pretty damned good fit of the data.
Problem is that the 0.95 is driven by two data points (-2, -15) and (+13.5, +7) which means that excel can force a line where there is insufficient data
Not so. Removing those to data points reduces R^2 only fractionally to .9356 and leaves the forecast essentially unchanged at -8.4%. (y=1.5254-0.1225)
As an aside, for the last 10 years or so, I've been musing about S-curve regression lines. Have you seen any papers on them? Rational is that regression analysis only works within an upper and lower band & then the relationships shift (admittedly I focus on the correlation between growth and value)
As in logisitic regression? Works well with bounded sets (so for example, a percentage outcome like vote share).
I'm not a mathmo or a statistician... is there a ready reckoner? Traditional regression analysis works most of the time, but logistic analysis would be cool...
#BritainElects @britainelects 26m We would strongly advise discounting the ICM poll given it's stark contrast to the real votes of the local elections.
#BritainElects @britainelects 27m We take issue with the ICM poll, a sample size of 500, compared to the real votes of the local elections: 32,000. --------------- #BritainElects @britainelects · 28m Sheffield Hallam (Local Elections 2014) constituency: LDEM - 37.7% LAB - 23.0% UKIP - 14.1% GRN - 12.2% CON - 10.4% OTH - 2.
The political class have imported poverty into the cities on a massive scale which is giving Lab increasing electoral dominance. The Con leadership colludes with this for cheap labour reasons although ultimately it is harmful to the vast majortiy of their voters. No doubt the City brings a lot of money into London but the majority of London isn't prosperous at all. It's the opposite and getting poorer. That's the reason for Lab success in London - importing poverty. The only people who benefit from this are the private sector rich of the City and the public sector rich like the BBC who can now have lots of cheap servants.
Spot on. I remember when London streets were literally paved with gold and everyone voted Tory. It was certainly that way in solid blue Kentish Town where I grew up. The wealth was unimaginable to those grovelling a living there now. Labour changed it all when they rigged the 1997 election. What I never understood, though, was why so many people chose to leave London when it was so prosperous back in the day and so many people choose to live there now when it is so poor. I blame the BBC and Bankstas.
Just as much as ethnicity, it's the huge gap between rich and poor that drives Labour's support in London.
I think it was MaxPB who had some other interesting ideas on labour's london support. A number of 20/30 somethings liked the rent cap thing (possibly because it showed at least some interest in their current struggles in the housing market).
#BritainElects @britainelects 26m We would strongly advise discounting the ICM poll given it's stark contrast to the real votes of the local elections.
#BritainElects @britainelects 27m We take issue with the ICM poll, a sample size of 500, compared to the real votes of the local elections: 32,000. --------------- #BritainElects @britainelects · 28m Sheffield Hallam (Local Elections 2014) constituency: LDEM - 37.7% LAB - 23.0% UKIP - 14.1% GRN - 12.2% CON - 10.4% OTH - 2.
#BritainElects @britainelects 26m We would strongly advise discounting the ICM poll given it's stark contrast to the real votes of the local elections.
#BritainElects @britainelects 27m We take issue with the ICM poll, a sample size of 500, compared to the real votes of the local elections: 32,000. --------------- #BritainElects @britainelects · 28m Sheffield Hallam (Local Elections 2014) constituency: LDEM - 37.7% LAB - 23.0% UKIP - 14.1% GRN - 12.2% CON - 10.4% OTH - 2.
Is it possible that polls of 500± are worse than useless. If so, what is the optimum poll sample?
AFAIK BritainElects doesn't have any particular authority - it's a website, just like us, meh. In general, a weighted poll of how people will vote in a GE is MORE reliable than a by-election or a local election, because the likelihood to vote for the latter and who the voters will support is often quite different. That said, a sample of 500 is small and the MOE is substantial. The poll suggests that it's probable that at that moment the LibDems were behind, but all you can safely say is that they're at best likely to be level.
In that case a simple option is a mixture of low-cost tracker funds which track the FTSE100, the S & P 500, the European market, and a small proportion in emerging/Far East markets. Something like 40%, 30%, 20%, 10% makes sense to me, although it's a higher non-UK percentage than most people would recommend.
Traditionally the advice has been to keep at least some of the portfolio in bonds rather than shares, but they are a bit tricky at the moment because of the expectation that interest rates will rise (which means the capital value of existing bonds, stuck on low interest rates, will fall).
That's spookily similar to my portfolio, although I tend to go longer on the US (35%) and emerging markets (15%) with a bit in Japan (5%) and lighter on the FTSE (25%). Obviously have 10% in bonds for now. This is for my pension though, with 30 years to run, so quite an aggressive position with an international spin.
Thanks to Rod for this. That regression chart is really quite remarkable: R² of 0.95 - that means it's a pretty damned good fit of the data.
Problem is that the 0.95 is driven by two data points (-2, -15) and (+13.5, +7) which means that excel can force a line where there is insufficient data
Not so. Removing those to data points reduces R^2 only fractionally to .9356 and leaves the forecast essentially unchanged at -8.4%. (y=1.5254-0.1225)
As an aside, for the last 10 years or so, I've been musing about S-curve regression lines. Have you seen any papers on them? Rational is that regression analysis only works within an upper and lower band & then the relationships shift (admittedly I focus on the correlation between growth and value)
Thanks to Rod for this. That regression chart is really quite remarkable: R² of 0.95 - that means it's a pretty damned good fit of the data.
Problem is that the 0.95 is driven by two data points (-2, -15) and (+13.5, +7) which means that excel can force a line where there is insufficient data
Not so. Removing those to data points reduces R^2 only fractionally to .9356 and leaves the forecast essentially unchanged at -8.4%. (y=1.5254-0.1225)
As an aside, for the last 10 years or so, I've been musing about S-curve regression lines. Have you seen any papers on them? Rational is that regression analysis only works within an upper and lower band & then the relationships shift (admittedly I focus on the correlation between growth and value)
As in logisitic regression? Works well with bounded sets (so for example, a percentage outcome like vote share).
I'm not a mathmo or a statistician... is there a ready reckoner? Traditional regression analysis works most of the time, but logistic analysis would be cool...
If Rod gives me his data set I'll see what I can do....
On your graph it does look as though Ed Milliband is the most ineffective LOTO for Labour since Michael Foot, LOL.
The writings on the wall for Labour and has been for some time.
Still think it's going to be Conservatives most votes and seats, but if Labour does lose by 8.4% next year it will surely end up in a Conservative majority.
I just whacked some figures into electoral calculus of con 39 lab 31 ld 18 and UKIP 5.5 which gave seats of 327:262:33:0 for a majority of 4.
Take 8 off LD and give it to UKIP. That's nearer the mark.
My GE2015 expectation is Tory 38 Labour 32 LibDem 15 UKIP 10
but realise it could be a swap between LibDem and UKIP. If Ed keeps trying hard to show his superior intellect we could see Labour go sub 29.
Forgive me for pointing it out Easterross but just a couple of days before the Euro vote you were predicting a clear Tory win.
You're forgetting the red liberals Labour have picked up from the government. Eds hopes hinge on them not drifting back, too.
No, that's the voters I was talking about who have been steadily Labour since 2011. Do you think a sudden LibDem revival is likely? As I've said for at least a year, I'm more confident of these than I am of habitual Labour voters (some of whom have indeed since drifted off to UKIP).
There's been a steady, gradual decline in Labour's poll share among 2010 LibDems.
I've been tracking the numbers semi-regularly. excluding those who say they won't vote/don't know, Labour had 39.4% last ten polls of July 2012, 37.2 in Jan 2013, and 32.6 in July 13. I've just checked the last 5 regular yougovs, and they averaged 29.8%. Some improvement in all of UKIP, LD, Grn and Con over period.
Not, I'd suggest, in Con/Lab marginals, at least the one I'm basing my comments on. Cf. Ashcroft poll (41% of 2010 LDs planning to vote Lab in Broxtowe).
Comments
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-corporate/electoral-commission-statement-on-tower-hamlets
Add that to a YES vote - power held in theory by the nats for a year.
That'd be pretty damned funny.
The Media Blog @TheMediaTweets · 59m
"Let's stage a photocall." "Great idea. Those things never backfire." (via @Independent)
pic.twitter.com/2srvliqVfB
Political Scrapbook @PSbook · 2h
NEW → Reverse ferret from Tory @AmberRuddMP, who has decided her marginal seat isn't "depressing" any more http://read.ps/1op6UwJ
Oh, and Ed says 'friends' because he dare not say 'comrades'!
Rats, sinking ships, But the Titanic is "unsinkable*.
OK. I know no one at the time actually said that. but it sounds better
70% or more of the country will be deeply committed to the 'Keep the weirdo out' bandwagon. Just look at that face. Just listen to that voice. PM? Nah.
Lord, it's hard to be humble,
When you'r perfect in every way.
...(Dr Hook "Bankrupt")
I know the feeling well Sean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empress_of_Ireland
She went down in just 14 minutes, and still holds the record for the most number of passengers killed on a liner in peacetime, more than the Titanic...
The skipper lived in Crosby.
Just as soon as you show me the country being held aloft by "The march of the makers", and factories investing heavily in new manufacturing methods instead of state subsidised labour.
Not really, just stick to your usual routine.
George W. Bush had approval ratings over 90% after 9/11. His clear denunciations of al-Qaeda and impromptu speeches led to Democrats praising his "moral clarity".
But yes, Tony Blair does look very poorly. I would generally think a good Western leader would achieve the following:
- Sound economic management
- Prudent and effective foreign policy
- Preservation of protections on individual liberty
- Expansion of opportunity
At a push, you can give him 1/4.
Cayman Islands?
It finds favour with many of our leading lights.
I've been tracking the numbers semi-regularly. excluding those who say they won't vote/don't know, Labour had 39.4% last ten polls of July 2012, 37.2 in Jan 2013, and 32.6 in July 13. I've just checked the last 5 regular yougovs, and they averaged 29.8%. Some improvement in all of UKIP, LD, Grn and Con over period.
I do wish people wouldn't use that expression because it gives a false impression of what is actually going on. If people instead said private company profits today are being made possible by the government stealing from the wealth of our children and grandchildren then we might start to get a sensible debate about welfare, in particular in-work and housing benefits, wealth creation and where that wealth is going. Who knows it might even lead to a system of taxation that is equitable, just and efficient.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10848628/Business-investment-growth-suggests-UK-economic-recovery-is-broadening.html
"Business investment is enjoying its longest period of sustained growth in 16 years, in further signs that Britain's economic recovery is broadening out.
The UK economy expanded at its fastest annual pace since 2007 in the first three months of the year, official data confirmed on Thursday, as a strong increase in business investment was supported by a rise in consumer spending."
"Growth in services output was unrevised at 0.9pc on the quarter, while the manufacturing sector expanded by 1.4pc, up from an initial estimate of 1.3pc. A survey by the Confederation of Business Industry on Thursday indicated that manufacturers, which power around a tenth of the economy, are on course for another quarter of strong growth.
Order books picked up slightly in the three months to May, the CBI said, while business optimism for the next three months remained close to a 15-year high.
Construction output grew by 0.6pc, according to the ONS, up from an initial estimate of 0.3pc."
http://www.theukcardsassociation.org.uk/news/DebtFigures2014.asp
"In spite of 20% rise in spending, outstanding balances fall by £8.9 billion in 5 years as customers use their cards more wisely
UK credit card debt has fallen by 13% since 2008 while spending has increased by £26 billion as consumers use their cards more prudently, according to data published today [30.01.2014] by The UK Cards Association. Outstanding balances on all credit cards in the UK have fallen by £8.9 billion - down from £65.8 billion in 2008 to £56.9 billion by December 2013."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25547562
"Homeowners are not yet relying on rising house prices to withdraw equity from their homes for other purchases, figures suggest.
The Bank of England said that housing equity withdrawal remained negative in the third quarter of the year.
There was a £10.4bn injection of equity into UK homes, as sales remained low compared with the housing boom years."
Reports police are investigating attempts to fix Scotland v Nigeria friendly in London tomorrow. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10858328/Police-investigate-World-Cup-friendly-between-Scotland-and-Nigeria.html …
Scotland can't be that desperate to win, can they?
Why not use it? are you saying it is inaccurate? A turd by any other name ......smells the same.
@Sun_Politics: First Minister of Silly Walks
(Picture: PA) twitter.com/Sun_Politics/status/471293406606786560/photo/1
THe average bod will see that they've WON and so won't think UKIP is a wasted vote. You know how little the man on the street pays attention...
"Thursday indicated that manufacturers, which power around a tenth of the economy"
This is where the problem lay, and still lies.
I think you posted a comment a while back saying you didn't want to manage investments yourself, which is very good sense if you don't want to spend the time researching and/or you don't think you've got the right skills. In that case a simple option is a mixture of low-cost tracker funds which track the FTSE100, the S & P 500, the European market, and a small proportion in emerging/Far East markets. Something like 40%, 30%, 20%, 10% makes sense to me, although it's a higher non-UK percentage than most people would recommend.
Traditionally the advice has been to keep at least some of the portfolio in bonds rather than shares, but they are a bit tricky at the moment because of the expectation that interest rates will rise (which means the capital value of existing bonds, stuck on low interest rates, will fall).
1 - What relevance do we think the political events of the 1980s have for today given demographic change, the rise of UKIP, the decline in class voting and partisanship? If we think it has relatively little relevance then how useful is it in predicting election outcomes today?
2 - If anyone went to a scientific journal with data based on a sample size 8 they would certainly not get through the peer-review process. This is an intractable problem with this type of analysis.
Those points don't mean it is useless information but that it is of limited value. What it shows is that generally there is a movement from opposition to government in the last year and that this varies from 1% to 17%.
So it is likely that there will be some movement this time but I would suggest what happened in 82 to 83 or 86 to 87 won't tell us much about what will happen this time.
One thing I would be interested in is any research on differential voting patterns. We see this in America where demographic groups that support the Democrats are much less likely to turn out in a mid term year than demographic groups which support the Republicans. Hence part of the reason why the Democrats will do badly this year. Is there any evidence to suggest this has started to happen in the UK.
I only mention this as groups that are more likely to support Labour - young people, ethnic minorities and DE social group voters are probably less likely to vote in local elections than GEs. This could be important given the increased age skew in party support and the rising number of ethnic minority voters. But I'm not sure if the turnout differential actually is worse in LEs than GEs.
All under Labour.
I did it for a few months for smallish stakes, not sure how upscalable it is though because apparently its difficult to put even £25 ew on a decent 5-1 chance in an 8 runner race....
They'll end up like the SDP by about 1990, coming last in a by-election behind the Monster Raving Loonies.
The wikipedia article about that is hilariously surreal:
"The little media attention that the by-election attracted was focused on a bizarre row between Labour and the Raving Loonies. Relations between the Labour Party and the Loonies had never been good, but they reached a new low when the Labour agent tried erroneously to have the Loony candidate, party leader Screaming Lord Sutch, arrested ... In the event, when the votes were counted the SDP candidate, Jack Holmes, finished far behind the Official Monster Raving Loony Party... Within a week of the result, Owen announced that the party's National Executive had voted to dissolve the party, saying that it could not possibly continue after being beaten by the Raving Loonies."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_(UK,_1988)#The_end
Very common at most Premiership football clubs.
"The swine are only paying me £200,00 a week and they forgot my birthday. After all I've done for them!"
Wyre (35.4%); South Ribble (34.6%); Hyndburn (34.6%); Blackpool (33.9%); Rossendale (31.5%); Cheshire West and Chester (29.9%); Carlisle (29.6%); Lancaster (26.7%); Stockport (26.1%)
Worst performance was in Manchester with 15.9% (and they still came 2nd to Labour there)
The Labour leads of only 636 votes in Croydon Central constituency sounds quite encouraging when I think of the contrast between the local election in 1986 and the general election in 1987.
https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/17982645/forecasting-british-elections-stony-brook-university
http://www.dcern.org.uk/documents/LeboandNorpothForecast2010.pdf
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/231982539_The_PM_and_the_Pendulum_Dynamic_Forecasting_of_British_Elections/file/3deec52c594e893d0e.pdf
Tony Blair was as insane as Thatcher was, but we are where we are, except that if the excrement contacts the rotating vortex creator again, we really will get covered in it.
I checked my area, North East Derbyshire:
An Independence from Europe - 525
BNP - 451
Conservatives - 5350
English Democrats - 256
Greens - 1218
Harmony - 50
Labour - 7603
Liberal Democrats - 910
UKIP - 8583
#BritainElects @britainelects 26m
We would strongly advise discounting the ICM poll given it's stark contrast to the real votes of the local elections.
#BritainElects @britainelects 27m
We take issue with the ICM poll, a sample size of 500, compared to the real votes of the local elections: 32,000.
---------------
#BritainElects @britainelects · 28m
Sheffield Hallam (Local Elections 2014) constituency:
LDEM - 37.7%
LAB - 23.0%
UKIP - 14.1%
GRN - 12.2%
CON - 10.4%
OTH - 2.
Turnout: 32K
-----------------------------
#BritainElects
@britainelects
Sheffield Hallam (ICM) constituency poll:
LAB - 31%
CON - 26%
LDEM - 23%
UKIP - 11%
GRN - 8%
Sample size: 500
[src: http://www.icmresearch.com/data/media/pdf/2014_libdems_4polls.pdf …]
-----------------------
Is it possible that polls of 500± are worse than useless.
If so, what is the optimum poll sample?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27585765
"A significant microcosm of both the problem and the solution is London - where, significantly, UKIP resonated less and performed less well than elsewhere.
Part of the explanation is that globalisation - which gives many a sense that they have little direct control over their economic destiny - enriches London.
Much of the rest of the UK sees globalisation and its manifestations - such as immigration - as disempowering, impoverishing and a threat. Whereas for Londoners, globalisation is an economic competition they are apparently winning."
True version of reality
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/datablog/2012/apr/12/deprivation-poverty-london
The political class have imported poverty into the cities on a massive scale which is giving Lab increasing electoral dominance. The Con leadership colludes with this for cheap labour reasons although ultimately it is harmful to the vast majortiy of their voters.
No doubt the City brings a lot of money into London but the majority of London isn't prosperous at all. It's the opposite and getting poorer. That's the reason for Lab success in London - importing poverty.
The only people who benefit from this are the private sector rich of the City and the public sector rich like the BBC who can now have lots of cheap servants.
The last Labour government was right to be open to the world but there is no future in saying we can pick up from where we left off in 2010
In other words: STFU working class, and be grateful...
Ashcroft National Poll, 23-25 May: Con 29%, Lab 31%, LD 8%, UKIP 17%. Details on @ConHome, 4pm.
Con 29
Lab 31
Kip 17
Lib 8
Just as much as ethnicity, it's the huge gap between rich and poor that drives Labour's support in London.
Seems a bit excessive ;D
Very close to Thursday's Local Election Projected National Vote Share:
L - 31
C - 29
UKIP - 17
LD - 13
http://metro.co.uk/2014/05/24/have-ukip-really-caused-a-political-earthquake-national-projections-show-vote-share-has-dropped-4739251/
Except the Lib Dems maybe ?
Not serious political analysis - but bound to get noticed in the wider media...
http://order-order.com/2014/05/27/like-brown-ed-picks-his-nose-on-camera/
Ever heard of a rebase?
No doubt the City brings a lot of money into London but the majority of London isn't prosperous at all. It's the opposite and getting poorer. That's the reason for Lab success in London - importing poverty.
The only people who benefit from this are the private sector rich of the City and the public sector rich like the BBC who can now have lots of cheap servants.
Spot on. I remember when London streets were literally paved with gold and everyone voted Tory. It was certainly that way in solid blue Kentish Town where I grew up. The wealth was unimaginable to those grovelling a living there now. Labour changed it all when they rigged the 1997 election. What I never understood, though, was why so many people chose to leave London when it was so prosperous back in the day and so many people choose to live there now when it is so poor. I blame the BBC and Bankstas.
I think it was MaxPB who had some other interesting ideas on labour's london support. A number of 20/30 somethings liked the rent cap thing (possibly because it showed at least some interest in their current struggles in the housing market).
Not at that level.
And UKIP actually finished at the lower end of their polling range at the Euros.
:-)