I'm puzzled why (from your point of view) you're so pessimistic.
Because the polls are simply not shifting. For a period after the budget it looked as if we might get crossover but June has been a terrible month for the tories as Bigjohnowls has consistently and correctly pointed out.
Several other things are not happening that are needed for a tory win. Firstly, so far, the UKIP vote is proving more robust than anticipated after the Euros. Secondly, the Lib Dems are getting absolutely nowhere in recovering their support from Labour, in fact it is getting marginally worse. Thirdly, although the economic news is generally good to excellent the latest household stats showed real standards of living for the majority are still falling, RochdalePioneers point. Fourthly, and disastrously, the tories are talking about Europe again which is always a mistake.
Labour could implode. Ed underwhelms much of his shadow cabinet and that breaking into the open could create the perception of a divided party unfit for government. But can the tories really count on Labour committing hari kari? The same party that was willing to follow Brown over the precipice?
Why would you expect the polls to shift at this point? They weren't shifting to the Tories in June 1986. Labour showed no sign of recovery in June 2009. Yet, shift they did, in the end.
I would not be expecting a tory lead at this point unless they were going to win very big indeed. But I would expect there to be some sort of discernible trend in the growth of their support and I am not seeing that at all.
I have tried to identify the factors that "ought" to be helping them and they are already out there. We already have the fastest growing economy in the G7, record employment, very low inflation, a modestly falling deficit. We have had most of those things for the best part of a year now. And...nothing. Why is this going to change? That was my original question and no one is suggesting an answer.
"These people are like advertising men stuck with a product that is no good, a car that breaks down, a soap that crumbles into powdery grease when it touches water, a foodstuff that tastes disgusting and cleaves to the tongue. Yet they have signed a contract to promote it.
At all costs they must keep the consumer from seeing the truth until after he has bought the merchandise. One way of doing this is to spread negative stories about rival products.
The shameful and childish personal abuse directed against Ed Miliband has now reached a point where honourable Conservatives must be tempted to vote Labour in protest against it.
The reason for this Stalinist destruction of personal credit is simple. There is no political difference of any significance between the two men. So instead we are supposed to make up our minds on the basis of the size of Mr Miliband’s teeth. Heaven itself cannot help a nation which settles its future on this basis."
If you actually look at what the Government has achieved despite being a coalition and with a terrible starting point it's actually pretty good. It's not perfect...or even nearly perfect... but anyone who believes that a Miliband/Balls government would have been - or will be - the same is just a fool.
Those also sound pretty abusive to me. And directly aimed at Cameron et al.
Personal abuse is calling Ed a geek, taking the mick out of his teeth etc
If it were aimed at Cameron, personal abuse might mention a bald spot or a red face
But Hitchens doesn't do that, he attacks Cameron for having no substance, and for pretending to be a conservative without acting like one.
The fact this is true is borne out by the votes he has lost to ukip
Calling someone a liar or a Stalinist is abusive and personal.
It's not reasoned political argument.
He doesn't call him a liar or Stalinist, he says the tactic of abusing your rival is Stalinist
He says that he is selling a product that doesn't work by lying to the consumer.
He accuses him of spreading negative stories, which he describes as a Stalinist tactic.
No, he says Cameron supporters are selling a product that doesn't work. Cameron is the product
Morning all and just tweeted Survation to ask if they seriously believe the numbers in their poll as it looks they are heading for a 1992 moment.
What's the average for UKIP with the other pollsters?
If - for the sake of argument - you think UKIP is around 17% (I think that's at the top end of the range of the other pollsters), with the balance being Tories, then that makes the Survation poll 36/32 L/T which is more or less in line with the other polls.
I have no beef against the conservatives but those are two of the most desperate posts I have seen on here
Ukip on 22%? Just take off the amount we think they are wrong by and give it to the conservatives'!
I've tweeted the pollster to tell them they are wrong!!
Have you told CCHQ they have got the membership numbers wrong as well?!
ISAM party membership numbers are irrelevant. We now live in a society where younger people generally do not "join things". However the Tories have mobilised a growing number of supporters who help when they want to. If you don't believe it, ask the people of Newark who say 600 Conservative campaigners descend on them on the Saturday before polling day. The Scots Tories have pioneered this concept which is why we have seen increasing Tory votes at council by-election after by-election, the Euro elections etc over the past 2 years enabling us to win 5 counts at the Euro elections.
''Even Peter Kellner is now saying the notion of 4-7% leads to secure a Tory win is no longer relevant, provided the LibDems remain in the doldrums.''
What's instructive for me is the shellacking Ed continues to get from his own side. Some Labour people don't believe polls like this any more than some tories here do.
For goodness sake man, grow a pair!! The UK polling report average is sitting at 32/35. The fact that YouGov fluctuates on a daily basis from 1 to 7 leads for Labour is more an indication of problems with their weighting. Survation showed the difference between 1st and 3rd in the Euro elections at 9% whereas in reality it was 3.6%. A poll on Friday had the parties back to 1% apart and ICM has the difference at 2%. The Ashcroft Tory/Lib Dem marginals has us winning 15 LibDem seats and all this almost a year before the GE.
Both Margaret Thatcher and John Major trailed Labour heavily, in the latter case right up to polling day and both still won overall majorities. The GE2015 looks like the 1st since 1983 when the LibDems will be back to a fringe party. The Tories just need to beat Labour by 326 votes provided each of those votes is in separate seats. Even Peter Kellner is now saying the notion of 4-7% leads to secure a Tory win is no longer relevant, provided the LibDems remain in the doldrums.
So he agrees with me then. I made that point here a week or two ago, much to the annoyance of certain libdem supporters :-)
The tories polled low before the 87 and 92 elections because although people didn't like them much the alternative on polling day was perceived to be far worse.
I suspect that something similar will happen this time when people seriously consider voting Miliband, Balls and Harman into power, helped I suspect by some pretty negative tory campagining. The trend away from tories in opinion polls will also be exacerbated this side of Christmas by the election date already being known for the first time in UK history with no prospect of a snap poll.
Morning all and just tweeted Survation to ask if they seriously believe the numbers in their poll as it looks they are heading for a 1992 moment.
What's the average for UKIP with the other pollsters?
If - for the sake of argument - you think UKIP is around 17% (I think that's at the top end of the range of the other pollsters), with the balance being Tories, then that makes the Survation poll 36/32 L/T which is more or less in line with the other polls.
I have no beef against the conservatives but those are two of the most desperate posts I have seen on here
Ukip on 22%? Just take off the amount we think they are wrong by and give it to the conservatives'!
I've tweeted the pollster to tell them they are wrong!!
Have you told CCHQ they have got the membership numbers wrong as well?!
ISAM party membership numbers are irrelevant. We now live in a society where younger people generally do not "join things". However the Tories have mobilised a growing number of supporters who help when they want to. If you don't believe it, ask the people of Newark who say 600 Conservative campaigners descend on them on the Saturday before polling day. The Scots Tories have pioneered this concept which is why we have seen increasing Tory votes at council by-election after by-election, the Euro elections etc over the past 2 years enabling us to win 5 counts at the Euro elections.
Ok so we are both happy with the membership rates of our parties, happy to agree
"These people are like advertising men stuck with a product that is no good, a car that breaks down, a soap that crumbles into powdery grease when it touches water, a foodstuff that tastes disgusting and cleaves to the tongue. Yet they have signed a contract to promote it.
At all costs they must keep the consumer from seeing the truth until after he has bought the merchandise. One way of doing this is to spread negative stories about rival products.
The shameful and childish personal abuse directed against Ed Miliband has now reached a point where honourable Conservatives must be tempted to vote Labour in protest against it.
The reason for this Stalinist destruction of personal credit is simple. There is no political difference of any significance between the two men. So instead we are supposed to make up our minds on the basis of the size of Mr Miliband’s teeth. Heaven itself cannot help a nation which settles its future on this basis."
If you actually look at what the Government has achieved despite being a coalition and with a terrible starting point it's actually pretty good. It's not perfect...or even nearly perfect... but anyone who believes that a Miliband/Balls government would have been - or will be - the same is just a fool.
None of it is personal abuse
It is criticism of someone on the basis of the job they are doing
- Promoting a product that they know is no good - Doing so by lying to the consumer (voter) - Personally spreading "shameful and childish" negative stories - "Stalinist"
Those also sound pretty abusive to me. And directly aimed at Cameron et al.
Hmm, so anything counts as personal abuse if it is aimed at a person is it? Personal abuse is to call someone a liar, as a general statement of their demeanor and/or without specifying what they are supposed to have lied about. The above selects actions which Hitchens thinks are wrong or misguided, and attacks people for doing them. That is valid criticism rather than personal abuse.
For example "Tony Blair is a liar" is personal abuse, although it happens to be true. If you append a long list of the things he has lied about, it becomes valid criticism.
Is not one of the issues with intending UKIP voters is not just how many there are but where they are?
I believe the UK would be better off if it left the EU, I can't stand Cameron and think he and his clique have mucked up big time. I'll probably be voting UKIP as will many like me in my area. However, I am in a rock solid Conservative seat (majority 15k) so it doesn't matter what way we vote but we show up in the UKIP percentage in the polls. What is UKIPs percentages in the marginals where it matters?
If I lived in a marginal then come the day I would be looking at things rather differently. Who would I prefer Cameron or Miliband? That would be my question. Would I still vote UKIP? Probably not. I would still be showing up in the UKIP percentage in the polls right now, but the reality is I'd probably hold my nose and vote Conservative.
So for Mr L. and those like him who are worried that the Conservatives don't seem to be able to break through 34% I'd say the time to worry is not yet.
The sad (from my perspective) truth is that swing back is not happening, the tories are going nowhere and the odds on a Labour majority really should be falling fast. As a predictive tool I have considerable reservations about Fisher's analysis but as a tend indicator it s proving very valuable indeed.
What it shows is that Labour were doing very poorly as the main opposition for much of the Parliament, certainly in comparison with pre-UKIP days. This meant that if previous trends were repeated the tories could be expected to win comfortably.
But these trends are not being followed and the Labour lead is holding up. Each week that goes by with this situation makes the effect of swingback less significant resulting in more Labour seats. We are getting close to the crossover point where it is more likely than not that Labour will have the most seats on the model. It simply requires the polling to remain static for a very short period of time now.
I think the trend is clear and am moving back to a Labour majority being the most likely outcome, having always believed that they were likely to have the most seats. I am really struggling to see what can change this now. Fantastic economic results have not done it. A well received budget achieved no more than a temporary boost. Europe certainly won't do it, on historical precedent it will achieve the reverse. The majority now have their view of Ed. It's not flattering but it is priced in. Tory supporters, like myself, really have to answer the question of what is going to change this? I am struggling.
I'm off for a lie down.....a common sense post from a Tory.
For goodness sake man, grow a pair!! The UK polling report average is sitting at 32/35. The fact that YouGov fluctuates on a daily basis from 1 to 7 leads for Labour is more an indication of problems with their weighting. Survation showed the difference between 1st and 3rd in the Euro elections at 9% whereas in reality it was 3.6%. A poll on Friday had the parties back to 1% apart and ICM has the difference at 2%. The Ashcroft Tory/Lib Dem marginals has us winning 15 LibDem seats and all this almost a year before the GE.
Both Margaret Thatcher and John Major trailed Labour heavily, in the latter case right up to polling day and both still won overall majorities. The GE2015 looks like the 1st since 1983 when the LibDems will be back to a fringe party. The Tories just need to beat Labour by 326 votes provided each of those votes is in separate seats. Even Peter Kellner is now saying the notion of 4-7% leads to secure a Tory win is no longer relevant, provided the LibDems remain in the doldrums.
I do agree that the tories will gain from the Lib Dem collapse, possibly by a dozen seats. Unfortunately I think Labour will gain by about the same amount (and in Scotland the SNP will dig into the carcase too).
The indication is that in tory/Labour seats the Lib Dem collapse will disproportionately benefit Labour so I do not agree that the playing field will be more level as a result.
The loss to UKIP of votes in the Shires does mean that the tory vote will be more effective overall. I suspect the Labour vote will be less depressed in some of their safe areas too making Labour slightly less efficient in terms of seats. Many of the Lib Dem votes they will get in many areas will be "wasted" in better second or third places too. So I would also agree that the tories do not need to be 7% ahead to get a majority. But the current boundaries do favour Labour to a significant extent, there is no point in pretending otherwise.
Good morning. Lousy day! My strategy game has been off the the net for more than 26 hours. UKIP still in the low twenties with Survation. The site of PoliticsHome run by that Waugh bloke gets more impossible every day. I saw Ed Balls face on Marr..... eeeeeeeeeeeekkk!!!!
Is not one of the issues with intending UKIP voters is not just how many there are but where they are?
I believe the UK would be better off if it left the EU, I can't stand Cameron and think he and his clique have mucked up big time. I'll probably be voting UKIP as will many like me in my area. However, I am in a rock solid Conservative seat (majority 15k) so it doesn't matter what way we vote but we show up in the UKIP percentage in the polls. What is UKIPs percentages in the marginals where it matters?
If I lived in a marginal then come the day I would be looking at things rather differently. Who would I prefer Cameron or Miliband? That would be my question. Would I still vote UKIP? Probably not. I would still be showing up in the UKIP percentage in the polls right now, but the reality is I'd probably hold my nose and vote Conservative.
So for Mr L. and those like him who are worried that the Conservatives don't seem to be able to break through 34% I'd say the time to worry is not yet.
I do live in a Con/Lab marginal. My local Conservative MP should be worrying.
"These people are like advertising men stuck with a product that is no good, a car that breaks down, a soap that crumbles into powdery grease when it touches water, a foodstuff that tastes disgusting and cleaves to the tongue. Yet they have signed a contract to promote it.
At all costs they must keep the consumer from seeing the truth until after he has bought the merchandise. One way of doing this is to spread negative stories about rival products.
The shameful and childish personal abuse directed against Ed Miliband has now reached a point where honourable Conservatives must be tempted to vote Labour in protest against it.
The reason for this Stalinist destruction of personal credit is simple. There is no political difference of any significance between the two men. So instead we are supposed to make up our minds on the basis of the size of Mr Miliband’s teeth. Heaven itself cannot help a nation which settles its future on this basis."
If you actually look at what the Government has achieved despite being a coalition and with a terrible starting point it's actually pretty good. It's not perfect...or even nearly perfect... but anyone who believes that a Miliband/Balls government would have been - or will be - the same is just a fool.
None of it is personal abuse
It is criticism of someone on the basis of the job they are doing
- Promoting a product that they know is no good - Doing so by lying to the consumer (voter) - Personally spreading "shameful and childish" negative stories - "Stalinist"
Those also sound pretty abusive to me. And directly aimed at Cameron et al.
Hmm, so anything counts as personal abuse if it is aimed at a person is it? Personal abuse is to call someone a liar, as a general statement of their demeanor and/or without specifying what they are supposed to have lied about. The above selects actions which Hitchens thinks are wrong or misguided, and attacks people for doing them. That is valid criticism rather than personal abuse.
For example "Tony Blair is a liar" is personal abuse, although it happens to be true. If you append a long list of the things he has lied about, it becomes valid criticism.
John, Charles does not care about the truth , it is all down to the fact that his chum is being shown up, these toffs stick together regardless of truth.
"These people are like advertising men stuck with a product that is no good, a car that breaks down, a soap that crumbles into powdery grease when it touches water, a foodstuff that tastes disgusting and cleaves to the tongue. Yet they have signed a contract to promote it.
At all costs they must keep the consumer from seeing the truth until after he has bought the merchandise. One way of doing this is to spread negative stories about rival products.
The shameful and childish personal abuse directed against Ed Miliband has now reached a point where honourable Conservatives must be tempted to vote Labour in protest against it.
The reason for this Stalinist destruction of personal credit is simple. There is no political difference of any significance between the two men. So instead we are supposed to make up our minds on the basis of the size of Mr Miliband’s teeth. Heaven itself cannot help a nation which settles its future on this basis."
Why embarrass Hitchens by giving wider circulation to such a piss-poor bit of writing? The shameful and childish personal abuse emanates from the press, the internet and the country at large. Miliband doesn't have the gravitas or personality required to make a decent managing partner of a smallish firm of solicitors, never mind to lead the country. This is obvious, it's not a malicious slur of the "x has a sexually transmitted disease" kind pioneered by labour. The reference to his teeth is baffling; his teeth have nothing to do with it and there is nothing odd about them that I can see. A quick google however reveals that Michael White writing in the Guardian on 2 April though that "And – let's be frank, since TV cameras usually are – he looks a bit odd. Those staring eyes, the teeth, the shock of black hair. Even his nice smile can disconcert, though not as much as Gordon Brown's."
I don't have spare cash to bet. Getting my roof watertight is a greater priority. However for those of you with cash to burn and balls of steel (with apologies to any PB ladies) you can probably make some good cash on the Scottish seats.
Much will be clearer post 18th September but 3 things are clear. Scottish Labour is heading south because Ed is no Gordon Brown, Scottish LibDems are disappearing down the drain and Scottish Tories are making modest recoveries in key areas. We wont know until after September how the SNP are doing but there are a fair number of seats where they are not really in contention even if they pretend they are.
The sad (from my perspective) truth is that swing back is not happening, the tories are going nowhere and the odds on a Labour majority really should be falling fast. As a predictive tool I have considerable reservations about Fisher's analysis but as a tend indicator it s proving very valuable indeed.
What it shows is that Labour were doing very poorly as the main opposition for much of the Parliament, certainly in comparison with pre-UKIP days. This meant that if previous trends were repeated the tories could be expected to win comfortably.
But these trends are not being followed and the Labour lead is holding up. Each week that goes by with this situation makes the effect of swingback less significant resulting in more Labour seats. We are getting close to the crossover point where it is more likely than not that Labour will have the most seats on the model. It simply requires the polling to remain static for a very short period of time now.
I think the trend is clear and am moving back to a Labour majority being the most likely outcome, having always believed that they were likely to have the most seats. I am really struggling to see what can change this now. Fantastic economic results have not done it. A well received budget achieved no more than a temporary boost. Europe certainly won't do it, on historical precedent it will achieve the reverse. The majority now have their view of Ed. It's not flattering but it is priced in. Tory supporters, like myself, really have to answer the question of what is going to change this? I am struggling.
I'm off for a lie down.....a common sense post from a Tory.
Yes an excellent post , however it misses out one thing. The great economic results are all being shared by the rich, everybody else is going backwards and so there is no perception of improvement unless you are already rich and coining in even more. That is why it will be Labour , which is a disaster for the country as they are just useless and will wreck everything again.
I'm puzzled why (from your point of view) you're so pessimistic.
Because the polls are simply not shifting. For a period after the budget it looked as if we might get crossover but June has been a terrible month for the tories as Bigjohnowls has consistently and correctly pointed out.
Several other things are not happening that are needed for a tory win. Firstly, so far, the UKIP vote is proving more robust than anticipated after the Euros. Secondly, the Lib Dems are getting absolutely nowhere in recovering their support from Labour, in fact it is getting marginally worse. Thirdly, although the economic news is generally good to excellent the latest household stats showed real standards of living for the majority are still falling, RochdalePioneers point. Fourthly, and disastrously, the tories are talking about Europe again which is always a mistake.
Labour could implode. Ed underwhelms much of his shadow cabinet and that breaking into the open could create the perception of a divided party unfit for government. But can the tories really count on Labour committing hari kari? The same party that was willing to follow Brown over the precipice?
I would not be expecting a tory lead at this point unless they were going to win very big indeed. But I would expect there to be some sort of discernible trend in the growth of their support and I am not seeing that at all.
I have tried to identify the factors that "ought" to be helping them and they are already out there. We already have the fastest growing economy in the G7, record employment, very low inflation, a modestly falling deficit. We have had most of those things for the best part of a year now. And...nothing. Why is this going to change? That was my original question and no one is suggesting an answer.
On a personal level, I don't care that we're the fastest growing economy in the G7. Nor do I care that we have record employment (it's a natural corollary to population growth).
Very low inflation is based on a weighted basket of goods that might not reflect individual circumstances. Our family expenditures don't resemble the CPI divisions in the slightest (26% on recreation,culture, hotels and restaurants!) and our personal rate of inflation is still high - my family income is falling in real terms. Finally, a falling deficit means...what?
That's not a bash at the coalition - if anything, on a political pov I'm more hawkish on the deficit than Osborne. However, to many people these positive indicators are at best, non sequiturs and at worst, a joke in bad taste.
"These people are like advertising men stuck with a product that is no good, a car that breaks down, a soap that crumbles into powdery grease when it touches water, a foodstuff that tastes disgusting and cleaves to the tongue. Yet they have signed a contract to promote it.
At all costs they must keep the consumer from seeing the truth until after he has bought the merchandise. One way of doing this is to spread negative stories about rival products.
The shameful and childish personal abuse directed against Ed Miliband has now reached a point where honourable Conservatives must be tempted to vote Labour in protest against it.
The reason for this Stalinist destruction of personal credit is simple. There is no political difference of any significance between the two men. So instead we are supposed to make up our minds on the basis of the size of Mr Miliband’s teeth. Heaven itself cannot help a nation which settles its future on this basis."
So have been - or will be - the same is just a fool.
None of it is personal abuse
It is criticism of someone on the basis of the job they are doing
- Promoting a product that they know is no good - Doing so by lying to the consumer (voter) - Personally spreading "shameful and childish" negative stories - "Stalinist"
Those also sound pretty abusive to me. And directly aimed at Cameron et al.
Hmm, so anything counts as personal abuse if it is aimed at a person is it? Personal abuse is to call someone a liar, as a general statement of their demeanor and/or without specifying what they are supposed to have lied about. The above selects actions which Hitchens thinks are wrong or misguided, and attacks people for doing them. That is valid criticism rather than personal abuse.
For example "Tony Blair is a liar" is personal abuse, although it happens to be true. If you append a long list of the things he has lied about, it becomes valid criticism.
John, Charles does not care about the truth , it is all down to the fact that his chum is being shown up, these toffs stick together regardless of truth.
I think Charles must have had a heavy night. Misunderstandings of this magnitude are unusual for him.
It can't be that the Tories have had a bad poll because he has a formula for rectifying those
Is not one of the issues with intending UKIP voters is not just how many there are but where they are?
I believe the UK would be better off if it left the EU, I can't stand Cameron and think he and his clique have mucked up big time. I'll probably be voting UKIP as will many like me in my area. However, I am in a rock solid Conservative seat (majority 15k) so it doesn't matter what way we vote but we show up in the UKIP percentage in the polls. What is UKIPs percentages in the marginals where it matters?
If I lived in a marginal then come the day I would be looking at things rather differently. Who would I prefer Cameron or Miliband? That would be my question. Would I still vote UKIP? Probably not. I would still be showing up in the UKIP percentage in the polls right now, but the reality is I'd probably hold my nose and vote Conservative.
So for Mr L. and those like him who are worried that the Conservatives don't seem to be able to break through 34% I'd say the time to worry is not yet.
It's obvious for us, but tactical voting turns out to be quite hard to get right, and it can take quite a bit of practice. All the parties lie, so you have to be quite determined to get good information about who to vote for. And the media narrative about who's up and who's down can be quite misleading, especially if you've got big moves like UKIP going up a lot and the LibDems going down a lot.
"You call that personal abuse? I'll show you some personal abuse."
David, it was merely a statement of the facts. No doubt Charles will be on whinging about the injustice of it or perhaps he will just go and shout at a servant or two to vent his frustrations.
I'm puzzled why (from your point of view) you're so pessimistic.
I would not be expecting a tory lead at this point unless they were going to win very big indeed. But I would expect there to be some sort of discernible trend in the growth of their support and I am not seeing that at all.
I have tried to identify the factors that "ought" to be helping them and they are already out there. We already have the fastest growing economy in the G7, record employment, very low inflation, a modestly falling deficit. We have had most of those things for the best part of a year now. And...nothing. Why is this going to change? That was my original question and no one is suggesting an answer.
On a personal level, I don't care that we're the fastest growing economy in the G7. Nor do I care that we have record employment (it's a natural corollary to population growth). Very low inflation is based on a weighted basket of goods that might not reflect individual circumstances. Our family expenditures don't resemble the CPI divisions in the slightest and our personal rate of inflation is still high - my family income is falling in real terms. Finally, a falling deficit means...what?
That's not a bash at the coalition - if anything, on a political pov I'm more hawkish on the deficit than Osborne. However, to many people these positive indicators are at best, non sequiturs and at worst, a joke in bad taste.
That is exactly my point John. I could quibble about a few of your comments but they reflect widely shared points of view, hence current polling. What is going to change?
I'm puzzled why (from your point of view) you're so pessimistic.
Because the polls are simply not shifting. For a period after the budget it looked as if we might get crossover but June has been a terrible month for the tories as Bigjohnowls has consistently and correctly pointed out.
Several other things are not happening that are needed for a tory win. Firstly, so far, the UKIP vote is proving more robust than anticipated after the Euros. Secondly, the Lib Dems are getting absolutely nowhere in recovering their support from Labour, in fact it is getting marginally worse. Thirdly, although the economic news is generally good to excellent the latest household stats showed real standards of living for the majority are still falling, RochdalePioneers point. Fourthly, and disastrously, the tories are talking about Europe again which is always a mistake.
Labour could implode. Ed underwhelms much of his shadow cabinet and that breaking into the open could create the perception of a divided party unfit for government. But can the tories really count on Labour committing hari kari? The same party that was willing to follow Brown over the precipice?
Why would you expect the polls to shift at this point? They weren't shifting to the Tories in June 1986. Labour showed no sign of recovery in June 2009. Yet, shift they did, in the end.
I would not be expecting a tory lead at this point unless they were going to win very big indeed. But I would expect there to be some sort of discernible trend in the growth of their support and I am not seeing that at all.
I have tried to identify the factors that "ought" to be helping them and they are already out there. We already have the fastest growing economy in the G7, record employment, very low inflation, a modestly falling deficit. We have had most of those things for the best part of a year now. And...nothing. Why is this going to change? That was my original question and no one is suggesting an answer.
Labour's lead peaked at c11% two years ago, and has gradually drifted down, but there've been ups and downs along the way. The trend seems fairly clear to me.
I'm puzzled why (from your point of view) you're so pessimistic.
I would not be expecting a tory lead at this point unless they were going to win very big indeed. But I would expect there to be some sort of discernible trend in the growth of their support and I am not seeing that at all.
I have tried to identify the factors that "ought" to be helping them and they are already out there. We already have the fastest growing economy in the G7, record employment, very low inflation, a modestly falling deficit. We have had most of those things for the best part of a year now. And...nothing. Why is this going to change? That was my original question and no one is suggesting an answer.
On a personal level, I don't care that we're the fastest growing economy in the G7. Nor do I care that we have record employment (it's a natural corollary to population growth). Very low inflation is based on a weighted basket of goods that might not reflect individual circumstances. Our family expenditures don't resemble the CPI divisions in the slightest and our personal rate of inflation is still high - my family income is falling in real terms. Finally, a falling deficit means...what?
That's not a bash at the coalition - if anything, on a political pov I'm more hawkish on the deficit than Osborne. However, to many people these positive indicators are at best, non sequiturs and at worst, a joke in bad taste.
That is exactly my point John. I could quibble about a few of your comments but they reflect widely shared points of view, hence current polling. What is going to change?
David, the only salvation for the Tories is to hope for a YES vote in September. They gain in the rump UK and can start to be a real Scottish Conservative party in Scotland and build up to where they could be if they were not as now, just a puppet regime of Westminster party.
Major hike in benefits in kind threshold from £8,500 to £25,000. This will exempt white van man from taxes on his van and also encourage companies to grant cars via salary sacrifice, ie pay cut to below £25k in return for car+fuel. Good for strivers, hard working families and business.
This is hardly a conservative tax policy. White van man already pays little or no tax on his van as long as he mostly uses it for work and due to the low scale charge applied to vans as opposed to cars. You are simply giving tax incentives to companies to pay people in stuff rather than money, and piss off people who need the money rather than the company car. You will further piss off public sector workers, who rarely get such BICs, yes they (still) get a better pension than most people but can't contribute to it by salary sacrifice. We should be making the tax system simpler, tax everything similarly and let people and employers decide what they attach the most value to. If you do want to offer tax breaks for some things, such as childcare vouchers, they should simply change the law to allow them to be offered as part of salary without incurring tax, rather than making people jump through the hoop of salary sacrifice.
Abolition in means testing for council tax benefit for pensioners who have less than £20,000 income. No funding to councils to pay for it, instead they will be free to cut council tax benefit for shirkers under 65.
Again a disincentive for people to save for the future by buying their own home. You would also have to have stringent capital requirements otherwise people would sell their houses, rent off the Council, and spend the money on having fun. Also - are you really suggesting that someone on £20K and no dependants should have their whole housing costs paid for by the state? Ludicrous.
After one year self employment, tax credits to be based on you earning minimum wage, even if you don't [which is what will happen with UC].
Do you really mean this? A successful self-employed plumber earning £80,000 a year will be paid tax credits as if he earned £10K? Why should a single employed person earning say £20K pay taxes to support the lifestyle of such a plutocrat?
I agree with you on reducing the tax rate to a flat rate 30% (including NI) but would argue that once we have done so there will be no need for tax breaks such as a married couples allowance. I disagree with it anyway, as a dyed-in-the-wool singleton, but once we get to the position where we leave money in people's pockets to spend as they will, I see no need to further subsidise their lifestyles.
I've done predictions before - can't seem to find them though anyway here is the latest...
If anyone can find my old ones I am quite sure they are pretty close to this !
Pulpstar's General Election prediction:
CON 275 LAB 312 LIB 28 NAT 14 UKIP 3
Seats to watch:
Dumfries & Galloway: Falls to the Conservatives in Scotland. Labour has a bad night in Scotland despite doing well elsewhere.
Hallam: Clegg holds on in Hallam, but his majority is slashed to a thousand votes, Conservative tactical voting keeps him in place.
Inverness, Bairn & Strathspey - Unconfined Joy for the SNP as they narrowly unseat Danny Alexander.
Pudsey: Conservative hold somewhat unexpectedly.
Reading West: Joy for Labour as Reading West unexpectedly falls
Sherwood: Conservative hold - WWC vote UKIP, one of the best results on the night for the Conservatives.
Southampton Itchen: Con Gain from Lab - The only one of the night, in England..
Thurrock: UKIP Gain - Joy for UKIP as Thurrock is gained, however Nigel is outdone by anti-UKIP tactical voting in Thanet South. UKIP take a couple more too.
Torbay - Adrian Sanders holds on narrowly from Kevin Foster (50 votes) as the Lib Dems defy national trends in urban Southwest seats. Eastleigh held comfortably.
Clegg & Cameron announce their resignations, Farron takes the helm of the Lib Dems and goes into coalition with Ed Miliband.
I'm puzzled why (from your point of view) you're so pessimistic.
I would not be expecting a tory lead at this point unless they were going to win very big indeed. But I would expect there to be some sort of discernible trend in the growth of their support and I am not seeing that at all.
I have tried to identify the factors that "ought" to be helping them and they are already out there. We already have the fastest growing economy in the G7, record employment, very low inflation, a modestly falling deficit. We have had most of those things for the best part of a year now. And...nothing. Why is this going to change? That was my original question and no one is suggesting an answer.
On a personal level, I don't care that we're the fastest growing economy in the G7. Nor do I care that we have record employment (it's a natural corollary to population growth). Very low inflation is based on a weighted basket of goods that might not reflect individual circumstances. Our family expenditures don't resemble the CPI divisions in the slightest and our personal rate of inflation is still high - my family income is falling in real terms. Finally, a falling deficit means...what?
That's not a bash at the coalition - if anything, on a political pov I'm more hawkish on the deficit than Osborne. However, to many people these positive indicators are at best, non sequiturs and at worst, a joke in bad taste.
That is exactly my point John. I could quibble about a few of your comments but they reflect widely shared points of view, hence current polling. What is going to change?
David, the only salvation for the Tories is to hope for a YES vote in September. They gain in the rump UK and can start to be a real Scottish Conservative party in Scotland and build up to where they could be if they were not as now, just a puppet regime of Westminster party.
Hmm...You think an independent Scotland is going to vote for a tory government? And that I should vote yes in the confident expectation of this?
I think you are going to have to try harder than that Malcolm.
"These people are like advertising men stuck with a product that is no good, a car that breaks down, a soap that crumbles into powdery grease when it touches water, a foodstuff that tastes disgusting and cleaves to the tongue. Yet they have signed a contract to promote it.
At all costs they must keep the consumer from seeing the truth until after he has bought the merchandise. One way of doing this is to spread negative stories about rival products.
The shameful and childish personal abuse directed against Ed Miliband has now reached a point where honourable Conservatives must be tempted to vote Labour in protest against it.
The reason for this Stalinist destruction of personal credit is simple. There is no political difference of any significance between the two men. So instead we are supposed to make up our minds on the basis of the size of Mr Miliband’s teeth. Heaven itself cannot help a nation which settles its future on this basis."
Why embarrass Hitchens by giving wider circulation to such a piss-poor bit of writing? The shameful and childish personal abuse emanates from the press, the internet and the country at large. Miliband doesn't have the gravitas or personality required to make a decent managing partner of a smallish firm of solicitors, never mind to lead the country. This is obvious, it's not a malicious slur of the "x has a sexually transmitted disease" kind pioneered by labour. The reference to his teeth is baffling; his teeth have nothing to do with it and there is nothing odd about them that I can see. A quick google however reveals that Michael White writing in the Guardian on 2 April though that "And – let's be frank, since TV cameras usually are – he looks a bit odd. Those staring eyes, the teeth, the shock of black hair. Even his nice smile can disconcert, though not as much as Gordon Brown's."
Is Michael White one of these Tory Stalinists?
You know full well that Ed M is attacked on his appearance and image as much as any politics, but well done for finding a left winger making the same point, I'm sure you've won the argument in your mind
I googled too,... Interesting what Quentin Letts said in 2009 about Ed...
"Mr Miliband looks youthful. He seems to have some zest. He is slightly less twitchy than his brother, though his words sometimes have difficulty escaping past his sizeable collection of teeth. He also has a Centrist feel. It does not take too much imagination to picture Ed Miliband sitting on the Tory benches. Certainly not while they contain the drippingly moist Mr Clark."
The fact that YouGov fluctuates on a daily basis from 1 to 7 leads for Labour is more an indication of problems with their weighting.
Absolutely not - it's normal fluctuation for polls (givien that the actual movement is more often 1-2 for YG, rather more for Populus). We are far too preoccupied with daily shifts, because they give something new to talk about. In reality, nothing much is happening.
By the way, although Charles is a fairly solid Tory, I don't see that he deserves any of the personal stuff chucked at him here. He's a civil, likeable poster.
"These people are like advertising men stuck with a product that is no good, a car that breaks down, a soap that crumbles into powdery grease when it touches water, a foodstuff that tastes disgusting and cleaves to the tongue. Yet they have signed a contract to promote it.
At all costs they must keep the consumer from seeing the truth until after he has bought the merchandise. One way of doing this is to spread negative stories about rival products.
The shameful and childish personal abuse directed against Ed Miliband has now reached a point where honourable Conservatives must be tempted to vote Labour in protest against it.
The reason for this Stalinist destruction of personal credit is simple. There is no political difference of any significance between the two men. So instead we are supposed to make up our minds on the basis of the size of Mr Miliband’s teeth. Heaven itself cannot help a nation which settles its future on this basis."
If you actually look at what the Government has achieved despite being a coalition and with a terrible starting point it's actually pretty good. It's not perfect...or even nearly perfect... but anyone who believes that a Miliband/Balls government would have been - or will be - the same is just a fool.
None of it is personal abuse
It is criticism of someone on the basis of the job they are doing
- Promoting a product that they know is no good - Doing so by lying to the consumer (voter) - Personally spreading "shameful and childish" negative stories - "Stalinist"
Those also sound pretty abusive to me. And directly aimed at Cameron et al.
Personal abuse is calling Ed a geek, taking the mick out of his teeth etc
If it were aimed at Cameron, personal abuse might mention a bald spot or a red face
But Hitchens doesn't do that, he attacks Cameron for having no substance, and for pretending to be a conservative without acting like one.
The fact this is true is borne out by the votes he has lost to ukip
Calling someone a liar or a Stalinist is abusive and personal.
It's not reasoned political argument.
To the contrary, if you think someone is lying about something, it is entirely reasoned political argument to call them a liar.
@sean-fear; Labour's lead peaked at c11% two years ago, and has gradually drifted down, but there've been ups and downs along the way. The trend seems fairly clear to me.
Agreed and we know how soft the Labour vote is in real elections as shown last month - they don't come much more real than the one next year with the prospect of Miliband as PM - I find it hard to believe that will happen.
I'm puzzled why (from your point of view) you're so pessimistic.
I have tried to identify the factors that "ought" to be helping them and they are already out there. We already have the fastest growing economy in the G7, record employment, very low inflation, a modestly falling deficit. We have had most of those things for the best part of a year now. And...nothing. Why is this going to change? That was my original question and no one is suggesting an answer.
On a personal level, I don't care that we're the fastest growing economy in the G7. Nor do I care that we have record employment (it's a natural corollary to population growth). Very low inflation is based on a weighted basket of goods that might not reflect individual circumstances. Our family expenditures don't resemble the CPI divisions in the slightest and our personal rate of inflation is still high - my family income is falling in real terms. Finally, a falling deficit means...what?
That's not a bash at the coalition - if anything, on a political pov I'm more hawkish on the deficit than Osborne. However, to many people these positive indicators are at best, non sequiturs and at worst, a joke in bad taste.
That is exactly my point John. I could quibble about a few of your comments but they reflect widely shared points of view, hence current polling. What is going to change?
David, the only salvation for the Tories is to hope for a YES vote in September. They gain in the rump UK and can start to be a real Scottish Conservative party in Scotland and build up to where they could be if they were not as now, just a puppet regime of Westminster party.
Hmm...You think an independent Scotland is going to vote for a tory government? And that I should vote yes in the confident expectation of this?
I think you are going to have to try harder than that Malcolm.
Anyone who has experienced a damascene conversion to BOO this week should be hoping for a 'Yes' on September 18th. All the craptacular economic arguments being deployed against the Scots will be used on rUK by the Europhiles.
A successful independent Scotland would refute their position and strengthen the arguments for smaller, leaner states in the future. Written with tongue slightly in cheek, but it's the only way I've been able to reconcile my unionist & BOO sentiments.
Labour's lead peaked at c11% two years ago, and has gradually drifted down, but there've been ups and downs along the way. The trend seems fairly clear to me.
Agreed and we know how soft the Labour vote is in real elections as shown last month - they don't come much more real than the one next year with the prospect of Miliband as PM - I find it hard to believe that will happen.
Labour vote is softest in low turnout elections, and "foregone conclusions" I reckon.
The conservative's best hope is that a hurricane hits Britain on polling day. Although the amount of seats UKIP would gain in such a scenario would be stunning.
Credit to isam where it is due, he's been pushing this bet for months (UKIP outpolling the LDs at GE). What was once 5/1 is now 4/5! I barely got better than evens...
There's no point in people making themselves feel better about our "high UKIP scores" and our "friendliness" to UKIP. What is clear that we do differently is mention the party at random in the voting prompt (fair treatment in our view) and do not perform an "adjustment" along lines of party ID based on a historical assumption of what "association" with UKIP should *really* be in the final step. Without this, our numbers would be in line with Populus and YouGov. Mike Smithson does not think party ID weighting manual adjustment is an appropriate measure and has written about it extensively.
As for us "overstating UKIP in the EP election so there's your proof" we were not the high on UKIP. If people want to compare our EP work and accuracy fairly to others, do cast an eye over the 2 YouGov polls and others conducted at a similar fieldwork time.
The media conducted a full on barrage on Farage in the final week week of the campaign and the final days were particularly forceful. Clearly a very large poll conducted just the day before with a very large sample size and low MOE is going to be the most likely to be accurate.
Finally YouGov's final EP poll used a changed, similar methodology to Survation's in the end for their EP polls, naming UKIP in the voting prompt. This was after defending NOT naming UKIP in the voting prompt - you can read Peter K's previous views on the link below:
Credit to isam where it is due, he's been pushing this bet for months (UKIP outpolling the LDs at GE). What was once 5/1 is now 4/5! I barely got better than evens...
I've done predictions before - can't seem to find them though anyway here is the latest...
If anyone can find my old ones I am quite sure they are pretty close to this !
Pulpstar's General Election prediction:
CON 275 LAB 312 LIB 28 NAT 14 UKIP 3
Seats to watch:
Dumfries & Galloway: Falls to the Conservatives in Scotland. Labour has a bad night in Scotland despite doing well elsewhere.
Hallam: Clegg holds on in Hallam, but his majority is slashed to a thousand votes, Conservative tactical voting keeps him in place.
Inverness, Bairn & Strathspey - Unconfined Joy for the SNP as they narrowly unseat Danny Alexander.
Pudsey: Conservative hold somewhat unexpectedly.
Reading West: Joy for Labour as Reading West unexpectedly falls
Sherwood: Conservative hold - WWC vote UKIP, one of the best results on the night for the Conservatives.
Southampton Itchen: Con Gain from Lab - The only one of the night, in England..
Thurrock: UKIP Gain - Joy for UKIP as Thurrock is gained, however Nigel is outdone by anti-UKIP tactical voting in Thanet South. UKIP take a couple more too.
Torbay - Adrian Sanders holds on narrowly from Kevin Foster (50 votes) as the Lib Dems defy national trends in urban Southwest seats. Eastleigh held comfortably.
Clegg & Cameron announce their resignations, Farron takes the helm of the Lib Dems and goes into coalition with Ed Miliband.
If the Lib Dems are down to 28 (which I accept is entirely possible) the tories will pick up a slew of seats in the south west.
They would almost certainly pick up Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk too.
I'm puzzled why (from your point of view) you're so pessimistic.
That is exactly my point John. I could quibble about a few of your comments but they reflect widely shared points of view, hence current polling. What is going to change?
David, the only salvation for the Tories is to hope for a YES vote in September. They gain in the rump UK and can start to be a real Scottish Conservative party in Scotland and build up to where they could be if they were not as now, just a puppet regime of Westminster party.
Hmm...You think an independent Scotland is going to vote for a tory government? And that I should vote yes in the confident expectation of this?
I think you are going to have to try harder than that Malcolm.
David, will be a long time if ever that they will be a majority government in an independent Scotland. However they could and should be doing an awful lot better than they currently do as a puppet regime for Westminster. If they were a real Scottish Conservative Party they would play a much bigger part and likely to be much better represented in Holyrood, given at present they have a handful due to list system. How you vote is obviously your choice , merely an observation. I myself am centre right but as there is only one Scottish party I can vote for at present, choice is limited. The remaining ragbag of London puppet regimes who are bereft of ideas for Scotland cannot be considered.
The fact that YouGov fluctuates on a daily basis from 1 to 7 leads for Labour is more an indication of problems with their weighting.
Absolutely not - it's normal fluctuation for polls (givien that the actual movement is more often 1-2 for YG, rather more for Populus). We are far too preoccupied with daily shifts, because they give something new to talk about. In reality, nothing much is happening.
By the way, although Charles is a fairly solid Tory, I don't see that he deserves any of the personal stuff chucked at him here. He's a civil, likeable poster.
LOL, the establishment chaps support each other, after you at the trough old chap.
There's no point in people making themselves feel better about our "high UKIP scores" and our "friendliness" to UKIP. What is clear that we do differently is mention the party at random in the voting prompt (fair treatment in our view) and do not perform an "adjustment" along lines of party ID based on a historical assumption of what "association" with UKIP should *really* be in the final step. Without this, our numbers would be in line with Populus and YouGov. Mike Smithson does not think party ID weighting manual adjustment is an appropriate measure and has written about it extensively.
As for us "overstating UKIP in the EP election so there's your proof" we were not the high on UKIP. If people want to compare our EP work and accuracy fairly to others, do cast an eye over the 2 YouGov polls and others conducted at a similar fieldwork time.
The media conducted a full on barrage on Farage in the final week week of the campaign and the final days were particularly forceful. Clearly a very large poll conducted just the day before with a very large sample size and low MOE is going to be the most likely to be accurate.
Finally YouGov's final EP poll used a changed, similar methodology to Survation's in the end for their EP polls, naming UKIP in the voting prompt. This was after defending NOT naming UKIP in the voting prompt - you can read Peter K's previous views on the link below:
Credit to isam where it is due, he's been pushing this bet for months (UKIP outpolling the LDs at GE). What was once 5/1 is now 4/5! I barely got better than evens...
To my discredit, and due to financial circumstances, I'm only on this bet against a couple of PBers at 6/4... Hills are still 11/8 arent they? Worth a pop still
I've done predictions before - can't seem to find them though anyway here is the latest...
If anyone can find my old ones I am quite sure they are pretty close to this !
Pulpstar's General Election prediction:
CON 275 LAB 312 LIB 28 NAT 14 UKIP 3
Seats to watch:
Dumfries & Galloway: Falls to the Conservatives in Scotland. Labour has a bad night in Scotland despite doing well elsewhere.
Hallam: Clegg holds on in Hallam, but his majority is slashed to a thousand votes, Conservative tactical voting keeps him in place.
Inverness, Bairn & Strathspey - Unconfined Joy for the SNP as they narrowly unseat Danny Alexander.
Pudsey: Conservative hold somewhat unexpectedly.
Reading West: Joy for Labour as Reading West unexpectedly falls
Sherwood: Conservative hold - WWC vote UKIP, one of the best results on the night for the Conservatives.
Southampton Itchen: Con Gain from Lab - The only one of the night, in England..
Thurrock: UKIP Gain - Joy for UKIP as Thurrock is gained, however Nigel is outdone by anti-UKIP tactical voting in Thanet South. UKIP take a couple more too.
Torbay - Adrian Sanders holds on narrowly from Kevin Foster (50 votes) as the Lib Dems defy national trends in urban Southwest seats. Eastleigh held comfortably.
Clegg & Cameron announce their resignations, Farron takes the helm of the Lib Dems and goes into coalition with Ed Miliband.
If the Lib Dems are down to 28 (which I accept is entirely possible) the tories will pick up a slew of seats in the south west.
They would almost certainly pick up Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk too.
I'm puzzled why (from your point of view) you're so pessimistic.
That is exactly my point John. I could quibble about a few of your comments but they reflect widely shared points of view, hence current polling. What is going to change?
David, the only salvation for the Tories is to hope for a YES vote in September. They gain in the rump UK and can start to be a real Scottish Conservative party in Scotland and build up to where they could be if they were not as now, just a puppet regime of Westminster party.
Hmm...You think an independent Scotland is going to vote for a tory government? And that I should vote yes in the confident expectation of this?
I think you are going to have to try harder than that Malcolm.
Anyone who has experienced a damascene conversion to BOO this week should be hoping for a 'Yes' on September 18th. All the craptacular economic arguments being deployed against the Scots will be used on rUK by the Europhiles.
A successful independent Scotland would refute their position and strengthen the arguments for smaller, leaner states in the future. Written with tongue slightly in cheek, but it's the only way I've been able to reconcile my unionist & BOO sentiments.
I don't have that difficulty at all. The UK is a large enough economic unit to ensure that its trading partners will want to have access to its markets and will offer reciprocal access in return. It is a large enough unit to cope with the vicissitudes of international affairs. It offers a range of international services and expertise that other countries need. It has its own currency, a currency with an extremely long history and a credit rating to match.
Scotland has none of these things which are some of the reasons I don't think it would be successful as an independent country, despite Malcolm's blandishments.
I've done predictions before - can't seem to find them though anyway here is the latest...
If anyone can find my old ones I am quite sure they are pretty close to this !
Pulpstar's General Election prediction:
CON 275 LAB 312 LIB 28 NAT 14 UKIP 3
[Snip] Clegg & Cameron announce their resignations, Farron takes the helm of the Lib Dems and goes into coalition with Ed Miliband.
I think your forecast is an excellent one. That's pretty much where I would put the LibDems, UKIP and Nigel Farage. I suspect - much as I quite like him - that Danny Alexander will lose by quite a large margin in Inverness...
The only things I question are: (1) Will Farron be unopposed? If not, he still has the hurdle of winning a membership ballot. And most remaining LibDem members are to the right of the party (viz my dad). (2) Are the LibDems ready for another coalition? The first one has seen their vote share decimated. A second one (with a different party) could see a similar effect. LibDems (and UKIP I suspect) prefer the easy lack of intellectual consistency that comes with opposition.
Credit to isam where it is due, he's been pushing this bet for months (UKIP outpolling the LDs at GE). What was once 5/1 is now 4/5! I barely got better than evens...
To my discredit, and due to financial circumstances, I'm only on this bet against a couple of PBers at 6/4... Hills are still 11/8 arent they? Worth a pop still
They're down to 1.73. Pulpstar: What's your prediction for Watford?
Credit to isam where it is due, he's been pushing this bet for months (UKIP outpolling the LDs at GE). What was once 5/1 is now 4/5! I barely got better than evens...
To my discredit, and due to financial circumstances, I'm only on this bet against a couple of PBers at 6/4... Hills are still 11/8 arent they? Worth a pop still
Damn and drat, I've just checked and am on at 11-8 with Hills.
I've done predictions before - can't seem to find them though anyway here is the latest...
If anyone can find my old ones I am quite sure they are pretty close to this !
Pulpstar's General Election prediction:
CON 275 LAB 312 LIB 28 NAT 14 UKIP 3
[Snip] Clegg & Cameron announce their resignations, Farron takes the helm of the Lib Dems and goes into coalition with Ed Miliband.
I think your forecast is an excellent one. That's pretty much where I would put the LibDems, UKIP and Nigel Farage. I suspect - much as I quite like him - that Danny Alexander will lose by quite a large margin in Inverness...
The only things I question are: (1) Will Farron be unopposed? If not, he still has the hurdle of winning a membership ballot. And most remaining LibDem members are to the right of the party (viz my dad). (2) Are the LibDems ready for another coalition? The first one has seen their vote share decimated. A second one (with a different party) could see a similar effect. LibDems (and UKIP I suspect) prefer the easy lack of intellectual consistency that comes with opposition.
No chance Farron will be unopposed. Leadership elections bring all sort out of the woodwork. He'll probably win, though don't be certain of anything.
I've done predictions before - can't seem to find them though anyway here is the latest...
If anyone can find my old ones I am quite sure they are pretty close to this !
Pulpstar's General Election prediction:
CON 275 LAB 312 LIB 28 NAT 14 UKIP 3
Seats to watch:
Dumfries & Galloway: Falls to the Conservatives in Scotland. Labour has a bad night in Scotland despite doing well elsewhere.
Hallam: Clegg holds on in Hallam, but his majority is slashed to a thousand votes, Conservative tactical voting keeps him in place.
Inverness, Bairn & Strathspey - Unconfined Joy for the SNP as they narrowly unseat Danny Alexander.
Pudsey: Conservative hold somewhat unexpectedly.
Reading West: Joy for Labour as Reading West unexpectedly falls
Sherwood: Conservative hold - WWC vote UKIP, one of the best results on the night for the Conservatives.
Southampton Itchen: Con Gain from Lab - The only one of the night, in England..
Thurrock: UKIP Gain - Joy for UKIP as Thurrock is gained, however Nigel is outdone by anti-UKIP tactical voting in Thanet South. UKIP take a couple more too.
Torbay - Adrian Sanders holds on narrowly from Kevin Foster (50 votes) as the Lib Dems defy national trends in urban Southwest seats. Eastleigh held comfortably.
Clegg & Cameron announce their resignations, Farron takes the helm of the Lib Dems and goes into coalition with Ed Miliband.
If the Lib Dems are down to 28 (which I accept is entirely possible) the tories will pick up a slew of seats in the south west.
They would almost certainly pick up Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk too.
Con gain rural southwest, but not urban I think.
Yep. If they are gaining the urban ones as well they are probably on their way to the largest party.
Thank you Pulpstar, yes there is a longer list of online polling companies with high raw UKIP figures.
We're not being complacent in the least but what I take away from the EP polling is that the large sample, eve of polling, YouGov poll that NAMED UKIP in the prompt and did not use a party ID adjustment I believe) was also the most accurate -an approach similar to our Westminster method which some criticise despite lack of evidence to the contrary.
@Rcs1000 I think the Conservatives will win the popular vote - 35 to 34...
Farron has kept an arm's length from the coalition, and all of his views are not massively left wing. On some social issues he is actually to the right(ish). THe Lib Dems will realise they need to get back the red liberals that deserted them for Labour.
That all being said I'm not actually backing Farron for next leader at the moment but I do think the odds are correct in that he is the most likely choice 13-8 is a fair price but not a great one.
Credit to isam where it is due, he's been pushing this bet for months (UKIP outpolling the LDs at GE). What was once 5/1 is now 4/5! I barely got better than evens...
To my discredit, and due to financial circumstances, I'm only on this bet against a couple of PBers at 6/4... Hills are still 11/8 arent they? Worth a pop still
They're down to 1.73. Pulpstar: What's your prediction for Watford?
Watford - hmm... God only knows !
The Lib Dem chance is certainly better than the 2.4% that is shown on Electoral calculus.
Conservative Hold I think.
Keeping my money away from it though, really not sure where the value lies let alone who will win.
I've done predictions before - can't seem to find them though anyway here is the latest...
If anyone can find my old ones I am quite sure they are pretty close to this !
Pulpstar's General Election prediction:
CON 275 LAB 312 LIB 28 NAT 14 UKIP 3
[Snip] Clegg & Cameron announce their resignations, Farron takes the helm of the Lib Dems and goes into coalition with Ed Miliband.
I think your forecast is an excellent one. That's pretty much where I would put the LibDems, UKIP and Nigel Farage. I suspect - much as I quite like him - that Danny Alexander will lose by quite a large margin in Inverness...
The only things I question are: (1) Will Farron be unopposed? If not, he still has the hurdle of winning a membership ballot. And most remaining LibDem members are to the right of the party (viz my dad). (2) Are the LibDems ready for another coalition? The first one has seen their vote share decimated. A second one (with a different party) could see a similar effect. LibDems (and UKIP I suspect) prefer the easy lack of intellectual consistency that comes with opposition.
Credit to isam where it is due, he's been pushing this bet for months (UKIP outpolling the LDs at GE). What was once 5/1 is now 4/5! I barely got better than evens...
To my discredit, and due to financial circumstances, I'm only on this bet against a couple of PBers at 6/4... Hills are still 11/8 arent they? Worth a pop still
They're down to 1.73. Pulpstar: What's your prediction for Watford?
Watford - hmm... God only knows !
The Lib Dem chance is certainly better than the 2.4% that is shown on Electoral calculus.
Conservative Hold I think.
Keeping my money away from it though, really not sure where the value lies let alone who will win.
Definitely a toughie, I'm on Labour but not entirely happy with my position. Reckon they'll sneak it but I'd want at least the 6/4 currently on offer. Not the slightly...shorterrrrr...well you know how it goes...
Credit to isam where it is due, he's been pushing this bet for months (UKIP outpolling the LDs at GE). What was once 5/1 is now 4/5! I barely got better than evens...
To my discredit, and due to financial circumstances, I'm only on this bet against a couple of PBers at 6/4... Hills are still 11/8 arent they? Worth a pop still
They're down to 1.73. Pulpstar: What's your prediction for Watford?
LADBROKES cut UKIP 10-15% to 15/8 making it joint fav with 5-10%
I've done predictions before - can't seem to find them though anyway here is the latest...
If anyone can find my old ones I am quite sure they are pretty close to this !
Pulpstar's General Election prediction:
CON 275 LAB 312 LIB 28 NAT 14 UKIP 3
[Snip] Clegg & Cameron announce their resignations, Farron takes the helm of the Lib Dems and goes into coalition with Ed Miliband.
I think your forecast is an excellent one. That's pretty much where I would put the LibDems, UKIP and Nigel Farage. I suspect - much as I quite like him - that Danny Alexander will lose by quite a large margin in Inverness...
The only things I question are: (1) Will Farron be unopposed? If not, he still has the hurdle of winning a membership ballot. And most remaining LibDem members are to the right of the party (viz my dad). (2) Are the LibDems ready for another coalition? The first one has seen their vote share decimated. A second one (with a different party) could see a similar effect. LibDems (and UKIP I suspect) prefer the easy lack of intellectual consistency that comes with opposition.
More wishes for fishes dreaming. Yawn......
In Dune one of the characters, I think Gurney Halleck, says: "If wishes were fishes we'd all cast nets."
I have always wondered if Herbert made up the phrase or simply used an existing one. Were you aware of his use of it?
I've done predictions before - can't seem to find them though anyway here is the latest...
If anyone can find my old ones I am quite sure they are pretty close to this !
Pulpstar's General Election prediction:
CON 275 LAB 312 LIB 28 NAT 14 UKIP 3
[Snip] Clegg & Cameron announce their resignations, Farron takes the helm of the Lib Dems and goes into coalition with Ed Miliband.
I think your forecast is an excellent one. That's pretty much where I would put the LibDems, UKIP and Nigel Farage. I suspect - much as I quite like him - that Danny Alexander will lose by quite a large margin in Inverness...
The only things I question are: (1) Will Farron be unopposed? If not, he still has the hurdle of winning a membership ballot. And most remaining LibDem members are to the right of the party (viz my dad). (2) Are the LibDems ready for another coalition? The first one has seen their vote share decimated. A second one (with a different party) could see a similar effect. LibDems (and UKIP I suspect) prefer the easy lack of intellectual consistency that comes with opposition.
More wishes for fishes dreaming. Yawn......
In Dune one of the characters, I think Gurney Halleck, says: "If wishes were fishes we would all cast nets."
I have always wondered if Herbert made up the phrase or simply used an existing one. Were you aware of his use of it?
I was probably subconsciously aware, but "if wishes were fishes" is a very old saying and is common in Europe as well as England.
Tomorrow will see substantial revisions to UK GDP being announced for the period 1997-2009, essentially the last Labour government.
The general trend in these sorts of revisions is that GDP goes up and recessions tend to become less severe and shorter than was thought at the time. The early 90s was a particularly strong example of this with poor Norman Lamont being mocked about green shoots which were in fact very much present and indeed thriving.
My guess is that the recession in 2008/9 will be shallowed out somewhat from its current 7.2% drop. The increase in unemployment was simply not large enough for such a drop. Will this be a chance for Ed Balls to argue that Labour's mismanagement was not as catastrophic after all or will this be strictly for the nerds?
We will get revisions of more recent data in a couple of months.
Credit to isam where it is due, he's been pushing this bet for months (UKIP outpolling the LDs at GE). What was once 5/1 is now 4/5! I barely got better than evens...
To my discredit, and due to financial circumstances, I'm only on this bet against a couple of PBers at 6/4... Hills are still 11/8 arent they? Worth a pop still
They're down to 1.73. Pulpstar: What's your prediction for Watford?
Watford - hmm... God only knows !
The Lib Dem chance is certainly better than the 2.4% that is shown on Electoral calculus.
Conservative Hold I think.
Keeping my money away from it though, really not sure where the value lies let alone who will win.
I agree with JackW who lives in neighbouring constituency: If Mayor Dorothy Thornhill stands then the LDs have a better than 50% chance of winning. I've got bets on from 5/1.
@Pulpstar You predict that Clegg & Cameron both resign in the aftermath. That must be likely. Which will got first? I'm at 7/1 with Hills that it will be Cameron.
@Pulpstar You predict that Clegg & Cameron both resign in the aftermath. That must be likely. Which will got first? I'm at 7/1 with Hills that it will be Cameron.
Is that still available ?
Hmm I think your 7-1 could well be a winner. Coin toss I reckon if Lab most seats, however Con most seats and Clegg is first out if Lib Dems are down to near 30 seats.
I am on all three leaders to stay till the next GE @ 1-2. Clegg isn't going anywhere in the meantime and neither is Cameron/Miliband.
Credit to isam where it is due, he's been pushing this bet for months (UKIP outpolling the LDs at GE). What was once 5/1 is now 4/5! I barely got better than evens...
To my discredit, and due to financial circumstances, I'm only on this bet against a couple of PBers at 6/4... Hills are still 11/8 arent they? Worth a pop still
They're down to 1.73. Pulpstar: What's your prediction for Watford?
Watford - hmm... God only knows !
The Lib Dem chance is certainly better than the 2.4% that is shown on Electoral calculus.
Conservative Hold I think.
Keeping my money away from it though, really not sure where the value lies let alone who will win.
I agree with JackW who lives in neighbouring constituency: If Mayor Dorothy Thornhill stands then the LDs have a better than 50% chance of winning. I've got bets on from 5/1.
Look at how badly CON did in last mayoral election
Like I said I haven't touched Watford with a barge pole, Con losing it to the Lib Dems would surely be one of their worst results of the night though if it pans out.
Yes an excellent post , however it misses out one thing. The great economic results are all being shared by the rich, everybody else is going backwards and so there is no perception of improvement unless you are already rich and coining in even more. That is why it will be Labour , which is a disaster for the country as they are just useless and will wreck everything again.
The way that the GDP calculations were changed will mean until all historical years have been revised, comparisons will be tricky.
Will it influence the way people think about the present, future or past governments? I think not, they might as well revise the last recession to an economic boom in a hundred years time at it will still not make an impact on daily perceptions.
Yes an excellent post , however it misses out one thing. The great economic results are all being shared by the rich, everybody else is going backwards and so there is no perception of improvement unless you are already rich and coining in even more. That is why it will be Labour , which is a disaster for the country as they are just useless and will wreck everything again.
Plus for the "blues" I reckon, the older the data, the less people relate to it. The changes were brought in to make the data more compatible with international standards, and absolutely nothing to do with giving the figures a boost.
Major hike in benefits in kind threshold from £8,500 to £25,000. This will exempt white van man from taxes on his van and also encourage companies to grant cars via salary sacrifice, ie pay cut to below £25k in return for car+fuel. Good for strivers, hard working families and business.
This is hardly a conservative tax policy. White van man already pays little or no tax on his van as long as he mostly uses it for work and due to the low scale charge applied to vans as opposed to cars.
£3,000 pa value equates to £600 pa in tax. Hardly low.
Abolition in means testing for council tax benefit for pensioners who have less than £20,000 income. No funding to councils to pay for it, instead they will be free to cut council tax benefit for shirkers under 65.
Again a disincentive for people to save for the future by buying their own home. You would also have to have stringent capital requirements otherwise people would sell their houses, rent off the Council, and spend the money on having fun. Also - are you really suggesting that someone on £20K and no dependants should have their whole housing costs paid for by the state? Ludicrous.
Sorry but you are talking utter rubbish. I said council tax benefit, not housing benefit.
After one year self employment, tax credits to be based on you earning minimum wage, even if you don't [which is what will happen with UC].
Do you really mean this? A successful self-employed plumber earning £80,000 a year will be paid tax credits as if he earned £10K? Why should a single employed person earning say £20K pay taxes to support the lifestyle of such a plutocrat?
Again you have the wrong end of the stick. This IS going to happen under UC. Anyone earning under minimum wage under UC will be treated as if they are earning mininum wage. Anyone earning over minimum wage will be treated as if they earn the wage they earn. I take it you are not aware of the legions of so called self employed with children who work a few hours a week and claim massive amounts of tax credits?
I agree with you on reducing the tax rate to a flat rate 30% (including NI) but would argue that once we have done so there will be no need for tax breaks such as a married couples allowance. I disagree with it anyway, as a dyed-in-the-wool singleton, but once we get to the position where we leave money in people's pockets to spend as they will, I see no need to further subsidise their lifestyles.
Osborne disagrees with it as well, but he wants to win the next election and it will get his party votes. Whether it is right or wrong is immaterial.
Re - tax ideas - any merging of I-T and NI would need some consideration for pension income. I currently pay 20% - your suggestion implies that could rise to 30%. I would not be a happy man!
I've done predictions before - can't seem to find them though anyway here is the latest...
If anyone can find my old ones I am quite sure they are pretty close to this !
Pulpstar's General Election prediction:
CON 275 LAB 312 LIB 28 NAT 14 UKIP 3
Seats to watch:
Dumfries & Galloway: Falls to the Conservatives in Scotland. Labour has a bad night in Scotland despite doing well elsewhere.
Hallam: Clegg holds on in Hallam, but his majority is slashed to a thousand votes, Conservative tactical voting keeps him in place.
Inverness, Bairn & Strathspey - Unconfined Joy for the SNP as they narrowly unseat Danny Alexander.
Pudsey: Conservative hold somewhat unexpectedly.
Reading West: Joy for Labour as Reading West unexpectedly falls
Sherwood: Conservative hold - WWC vote UKIP, one of the best results on the night for the Conservatives.
Southampton Itchen: Con Gain from Lab - The only one of the night, in England..
Thurrock: UKIP Gain - Joy for UKIP as Thurrock is gained, however Nigel is outdone by anti-UKIP tactical voting in Thanet South. UKIP take a couple more too.
Torbay - Adrian Sanders holds on narrowly from Kevin Foster (50 votes) as the Lib Dems defy national trends in urban Southwest seats. Eastleigh held comfortably.
Clegg & Cameron announce their resignations, Farron takes the helm of the Lib Dems and goes into coalition with Ed Miliband.
On the basis of these numbers Labour wouldn't need the LibDems as coalition patners as I don't see any conceivable combination of opposition parties acting together which would bring down Labour ....... Tories + Farron, I hardly think so, or at least not this side of Hell freezing over.
Sorry but you are talking utter rubbish. I said council tax benefit, not housing benefit.
Again you have the wrong end of the stick. This IS going to happen under UC. Anyone earning under minimum wage under UC will be treated as if they are earning mininum wage. Anyone earning over minimum wage will be treated as if they earn the wage they earn. I take it you are not aware of the legions of so called self employed with children who work a few hours a week and claim massive amounts of tax credits?
I agree with you on reducing the tax rate to a flat rate 30% (including NI) but would argue that once we have done so there will be no need for tax breaks such as a married couples allowance. I disagree with it anyway, as a dyed-in-the-wool singleton, but once we get to the position where we leave money in people's pockets to spend as they will, I see no need to further subsidise their lifestyles.
Osborne disagrees with it as well, but he wants to win the next election and it will get his party votes. Whether it is right or wrong is immaterial.£600pa may be "hardly low" but it is £50 per month. If you are getting a free van, it seems reasonable to me. You haven't answered any of my other points about why it is a stupid idea to allow benefits in kind to be tax free.
My bad about Council Tax Benefit, I misread. I still disagree. Why should an employed person on £20k pay council tax and a retired person not? The retiree is actually better off, they don't pay NI and don't have travel-to-work costs to find.
If you had said "less than minimum wage" on the self-employed thing I may have understood better. You are right, to claim WTC you have to work at least 16hpw if you are a lone parent or are disabled, 24 as a parent (I think) or otherwise 30. It is definitely a scam to claim you work 30 hours a week at less than NMW. If you claiming less than NMW you should be looking for a better job. If you want the benefits of self-employed tax, you should be prepared to run the risks.
Increasing the married couples tax allowance might be popular among some married couples, but you will piss off some people who aren't married. You are also giving the impression of a party that is prepared to skew the tax system towards the narrow sectional interests of certain groupls of people, rather than one that is fair across the board. As a single person I have never understood why I should subsidise married people who may already benefit from two incomes and benefits of scale.
Very interesting predictions from Pulpster, but I think I'll stick with Jack's ARSE for now, if that's OK?
I'm not jittery about backing losers.... Yet!
If things don't pick up for Team Blue by autumn I may have t think about abandoning ship, as I don't back losers if I can help it.
Mr. Gin, the fixed term parliament act has changed the rules of the game. The people who are not political anoraks like us no longer need to even think about politics until the start of the Spring net year. Because they do not need to they won't, unless there is some serious event. If the rules have changed comparison with polls in previous periods are unlikely to be valid.
The point of this site ought to be giving its denizens a chance to get ahead of the curve so that when the masses start thinking about politics we have already got our bets on before the odds start shrinking, as they will from about March onwards.
Re - tax ideas - any merging of I-T and NI would need some consideration for pension income. I currently pay 20% - your suggestion implies that could rise to 30%. I would not be a happy man!
Well, the NI system can discriminate between earned income and pension income. You would simply set a lower income tax rate for pensions, and maybe set a 10% differential in the legislation. Similarly, entitlement to contribution-related benefits could depend on how much income tax you have paid, rather than NI as at present.
Alternatively, keep NI and IT separate, and set the rates and earnings thresholds so that the combined rate is always 30% for non-pension income.
Re - tax ideas - any merging of I-T and NI would need some consideration for pension income. I currently pay 20% - your suggestion implies that could rise to 30%. I would not be a happy man!
Well, the NI system can discriminate between earned income and pension income. You would simply set a lower income tax rate for pensions, and maybe set a 10% differential in the legislation. Similarly, entitlement to contribution-related benefits could depend on how much income tax you have paid, rather than NI as at present.
Alternatively, keep NI and IT separate, and set the rates and earnings thresholds so that the combined rate is always 30% for non-pension income.
May I suggest that merging NI and income tax is to move in the wrong direction. Return NI to its original intention and increase it accordingly (actually I'd split it between a NHS charge to be paid by everyone and a welfare insurance scheme, from which pensioners are exempt) and reduce other taxes to compensate. People will then have a very clear view of how much the NHS and the welfare budget costs them. Get some damn transparency into the system and by doing so get people to face up to reality.
Very interesting predictions from Pulpster, but I think I'll stick with Jack's ARSE for now, if that's OK?
I'm not jittery about backing losers.... Yet!
If things don't pick up for Team Blue by autumn I may have t think about abandoning ship, as I don't back losers if I can help it.
Mr. Gin, the fixed term parliament act has changed the rules of the game. The people who are not political anoraks like us no longer need to even think about politics until the start of the Spring net year. Because they do not need to they won't, unless there is some serious event. If the rules have changed comparison with polls in previous periods are unlikely to be valid.
The point of this site ought to be giving its denizens a chance to get ahead of the curve so that when the masses start thinking about politics we have already got our bets on before the odds start shrinking, as they will from about March onwards.
Lol. Do you realise how daft it sounds to talk about people who aren't political anoraks now leaving it later to think about politics because of a law they have never heard of?
Why are not more people benefiting from the good stats?
1. We are very slowly emerging from a very deep trough which has affected most of the EU (some more than others) and it is very easy to slip back into that trough. This has boosted employment but it we had not emerged from that trough then unemployment would have been far worse. (agreed not a vote winner)
2, At the same time the growing economies of the developing nations demanded more food and energy and so prices increased. At the same time our home-produced energy sources declined because nothing had been done about replacement energy sources in the 1995-2010,
3, Our skill sets had declined rapidly over the 1990s and 2000s whilst the BRIC and others skill sets have rapidly increased and we have become reliant on immigrants for much of these. At the same time we lost/exported manufacturing capacity to which we cannot send apprentices.
4. Notwithstanding 3 above, it became HMG policy to rely upon imports (to pay for which we had to borrow money) and at the same time we paid ourselves more in salary, pensions and benefits - a recipe for bankruptcy.
5.The interest charges on our resultant and unnecessary debt is wasted money that could be better spent on our antique infrastructure, education and health. This puts us further behind our global competition.
6. The public sector has not changed its thinking towards customer-focus and efficient economic working. Reaction to reduced budgets is either put up council tax or reduce services - not to strip away layers of management as well as staff on unnecessary things like diversity support etc. Also NHS has far too many managers and too few medical and care specialists, resulting in lack of performance.
7. Much of the world can provide better products and services than us and at a lower cost. So until we make vast efforts to rebalancing that cost-performance ratio then wages will not rise. To get a better-off feel, we have to cut costs, improve efficiency and make better products/services. this means working longer hours for the same pay (not increased pay), e.g. longer school hours to reduce child-care costs.
8. We have not come to terms with the effects of technology advance and globalisation - so resulting in lack of effective education, communication and working practices - so resulting in lack of export performance. One private school I know has pupils preparing for exams in Mandarin, Arabic & Russian - how many state schools have even thought that afr. We are not preparing our children to compete and perform globally.
So school report by 2015. have done quite well, could have done better if not held back by dinosauric thinking by coalition friends, EU, much of public sector, not being competitive and lack of risk-taking. A return to the thinking, methodology and practices of the 1995-2010 would be disastrous for the electorate and their families. More of the same required but at a faster pace - an economy cannot be repaired in 5 years.
Very interesting predictions from Pulpster, but I think I'll stick with Jack's ARSE for now, if that's OK?
I'm not jittery about backing losers.... Yet!
If things don't pick up for Team Blue by autumn I may have t think about abandoning ship, as I don't back losers if I can help it.
Mr. Gin, the fixed term parliament act has changed the rules of the game. The people who are not political anoraks like us no longer need to even think about politics until the start of the Spring net year. Because they do not need to they won't, unless there is some serious event. If the rules have changed comparison with polls in previous periods are unlikely to be valid.
The point of this site ought to be giving its denizens a chance to get ahead of the curve so that when the masses start thinking about politics we have already got our bets on before the odds start shrinking, as they will from about March onwards.
Lol. Do you realise how daft it sounds to talk about people who aren't political anoraks now leaving it later to think about politics because of a law they have never heard of?
Nope. Pre the Act the papers and the BBC would have been full of will he won't he stories, the result of which would have been to get people thinking about politics (especially at the four year mark). Those stories are there, people aren't thinking about politics. In the new year that will start to change, but I don't expect many heads will come up before March 2015.
Feel free to disagree but in doing so please give me a counter argument.
Very interesting predictions from Pulpster, but I think I'll stick with Jack's ARSE for now, if that's OK?
I'm not jittery about backing losers.... Yet!
If things don't pick up for Team Blue by autumn I may have t think about abandoning ship, as I don't back losers if I can help it.
Mr. Gin, the fixed term parliament act has changed the rules of the game. The people who are not political anoraks like us no longer need to even think about politics until the start of the Spring net year. Because they do not need to they won't, unless there is some serious event. If the rules have changed comparison with polls in previous periods are unlikely to be valid.
The point of this site ought to be giving its denizens a chance to get ahead of the curve so that when the masses start thinking about politics we have already got our bets on before the odds start shrinking, as they will from about March onwards.
Lol. Do you realise how daft it sounds to talk about people who aren't political anoraks now leaving it later to think about politics because of a law they have never heard of?
Nope. Pre the Act the papers and the BBC would have been full of will he won't he stories, the result of which would have been to get people thinking about politics (especially at the four year mark). Those stories are there, people aren't thinking about politics. In the new year that will start to change, but I don't expect many heads will come up before March 2015.
Feel free to disagree but in doing so please give me a counter argument.
How long has it been since we had 2 elections within 4 years of each other? It is straightforwardly amusing to claim that non anoraks are behaving differently because of a 'game changing' law which is only game changing in the mind of anoraks. People don't seriously engage until an election is actually called, and no one expects one to be by this stage regardless of a this law.
Very nice analysis. Got all the main bases well covered. A shame that people in power do not have the same analytical ability.
An even bigger shame that even when they do recognise the problem they don't have the courage to implement a real solution. For example in 1997 Blair said the priority should be education. He was correct, what he did about it was anti-education but could be dressed up as improving standards. Result, we are worse off now than we were in 1997.
Apparently the Wimbledon schedule's been rejigged so Nadal and Federer (assuming they win) will both have to play Tuesday and Wednesday (Wawrinka will, theoretically, have to play Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday).
Best for Murray, I suspect, who's been playing perhaps the best of anyone. Also handy for Djokovic.
Very interesting predictions from Pulpster, but I think I'll stick with Jack's ARSE for now, if that's OK?
I'm not jittery about backing losers.... Yet!
If things don't pick up for Team Blue by autumn I may have t think about abandoning ship, as I don't back losers if I can help it.
Mr. Gin, the fixed term parliament act has changed the rules of the game. The people who are not political anoraks like us no longer need to even think about politics until the start of the Spring net year. Because they do not need to they won't, unless there is some serious event. If the rules have changed comparison with polls in previous periods are unlikely to be valid.
The point of this site ought to be giving its denizens a chance to get ahead of the curve so that when the masses start thinking about politics we have already got our bets on before the odds start shrinking, as they will from about March onwards.
Lol. Do you realise how daft it sounds to talk about people who aren't political anoraks now leaving it later to think about politics because of a law they have never heard of?
Nope. Pre the Act the papers and the BBC would have been full of will he won't he stories, the result of which would have been to get people thinking about politics (especially at the four year mark). Those stories are there, people aren't thinking about politics. In the new year that will start to change, but I don't expect many heads will come up before March 2015.
Feel free to disagree but in doing so please give me a counter argument.
How long has it been since we had 2 elections within 4 years of each other? It is straightforwardly amusing to claim that non anoraks are behaving differently because of a 'game changing' law which is only game changing in the mind of anoraks. People don't seriously engage until an election is actually called, and no one expects one to be by this stage regardless of a this law.
Righty Ho, Mr. Maarsh. You reject my idea, I don't mind. Do you think the polls now will be very close to those of, say, April 2015? I don't, for reasons that I have explained. You may not for reasons you haven't specified or maybe you do.
I really don't mind I am not on this site for a pissing contest.
Tomorrow will see substantial revisions to UK GDP being announced for the period 1997-2009, essentially the last Labour government.
The general trend in these sorts of revisions is that GDP goes up and recessions tend to become less severe and shorter than was thought at the time. The early 90s was a particularly strong example of this with poor Norman Lamont being mocked about green shoots which were in fact very much present and indeed thriving.
My guess is that the recession in 2008/9 will be shallowed out somewhat from its current 7.2% drop. The increase in unemployment was simply not large enough for such a drop. Will this be a chance for Ed Balls to argue that Labour's mismanagement was not as catastrophic after all or will this be strictly for the nerds?
We will get revisions of more recent data in a couple of months.
David
I think this is misleading.
The changes being implemented to the calculation of GDP result from changes to National Accounting Rules to comply with new international standards, in particular ESA 2010 [European System of Accounts] and SNA 2008 [United Nations System of National Accounts]. The changes will affect not only historic GDP calculation but also the calculation of Balance of Payments due to changes to BPM6 [Balance of Payments Manual version 6] and associated Public Finances statistics. ONS has also lumped on internal methodological changes [e.g. National Rail financing] to make September 2014 a 'big bang' of change.
Between now and September, revisions will be published for historic figures up to 2009 and there will be parallel tables to enable comparisons to be made on a 'before and after big bang' basis.
The net effect of the changes will be to increase GDP and Debt by substantial amounts but they should not effect the relative fall in GDP from peak to trough as a result of the recession.
What is about to be published is a document entitled "Impact of ESA10 and BPM6 changes on chained volume estimates of GDP, Sector and Financial Accounts and Balance of Payments".
All of the methodology changes have been identified and described in prior ONS documents with high level estimates of the scale of change, but the new publication will start to put real figures to periods.
Among the major changes are:
Treatment of Research & Development Expenditure as Gross Fixed Capital Formation, i.e. capitalising R&D. Also R&D will be measured more broadly than before, when only 'market output' was captured. From the change onwards 'non-market output' and 'R&D for own final use' will be included in the measures.
Changes to GDP, BP and Public Finances calculation [Part II],.
[Among the major changes are:]
The classification of Government Military Spending will also change with Weapons systems (broadly, planes, ships and tanks etc.) become fixed capital formation, whereas single use items (ammunition and bombs etc.) become inventories. This measure will move current spending to investment.
Accounting for Pensions will change substantially with classification of schemes as 'defined benefit' and 'defined contribution', with the introduction of the actuarial valuation for funded defined benefit schemes. Essentially, where practical, pension benefit entitlements will now be separately calculated in the National Accounts. [This is a massive over-simplification of the changes. Neil will explain all!].
Examples of changes to the measurement of both GNP and Trade are as follows. Non-monetary Gold (i.e. gold used for industrial purposes) will now be classified as an intermediate goods. Remote [offshore online] Gambling will be now be measured and treated as an import and household consumption. Intermediate manufactures (e.g. wings of an Airbus plane) will now only be treated as exports if 'economic ownership' changes. Trade in illegal drugs and prostitution will now be captured in National Accounts [drug smuggling will increase imports].
Given the complexity of the changes, their scale and impact on historical series, I doubt that there will be much opportunity for party political benefit to be spun from them.
Very interesting predictions from Pulpster, but I think I'll stick with Jack's ARSE for now, if that's OK?
I'm not jittery about backing losers.... Yet!
If things don't pick up for Team Blue by autumn I may have t think about abandoning ship, as I don't back losers if I can help it.
Mr. Gin, the fixed term parliament act has changed the rules of the game. The people who are not political anoraks like us no longer need to even think about politics until the start of the Spring net year. Because they do not need to they won't, unless there is some serious event. If the rules have changed comparison with polls in previous periods are unlikely to be valid.
The point of this site ought to be giving its denizens a chance to get ahead of the curve so that when the masses start thinking about politics we have already got our bets on before the odds start shrinking, as they will from about March onwards.
Lol. Do you realise how daft it sounds to talk about people who aren't political anoraks now leaving it later to think about politics because of a law they have never heard of?
It should be fairly easy to prove or disprove Hurst's thesis by looking at other countries like Canada (and Australia?) that have fixed term Parliaments.
If opinion shift's late in those countries then it would be fairly easy to conclude that opinion could shift late here.
However, if there's no noticeable difference in countries that have "fixed" parliaments with those that do not, then Hurt's theory may no play out.
Anybody want to spend their Sunday afternoon looking at past elections in Canada (and Australia?) on Wikipedia?
Changes to GDP, BP and Public Finances calculation [Part II],.
[Among the major changes are:]
The classification of Government Military Spending will also change with Weapons systems (broadly, planes, ships and tanks etc.) become fixed capital formation, whereas single use items (ammunition and bombs etc.) become inventories. This measure will move current spending to investment.
Accounting for Pensions will change substantially with classification of schemes as 'defined benefit' and 'defined contribution', with the introduction of the actuarial valuation for funded defined benefit schemes. Essentially, where practical, pension benefit entitlements will now be separately calculated in the National Accounts. [This is a massive over-simplification of the changes. Neil will explain all!].
Examples of changes to the measurement of both GNP and Trade are as follows. Non-monetary Gold (i.e. gold used for industrial purposes) will now be classified as an intermediate goods. Remote [offshore online] Gambling will be now be measured and treated as an import and household consumption. Intermediate manufactures (e.g. wings of an Airbus plane) will now only be treated as exports if 'economic ownership' changes. Trade in illegal drugs and prostitution will now be captured in National Accounts [drug smuggling will increase imports].
Given the complexity of the changes, their scale and impact on historical series, I doubt that there will be much opportunity for party political benefit to be spun from them.
I wish I was head of an accounting firm; I'd be scooping it up, leaving the treasury in tears. It's more than likely however, that they won't care and have a major hand in the plundering themselves.
Morning all and just tweeted Survation to ask if they seriously believe the numbers in their poll as it looks they are heading for a 1992 moment.
What's the average for UKIP with the other pollsters?
If - for the sake of argument - you think UKIP is around 17% (I think that's at the top end of the range of the other pollsters), with the balance being Tories, then that makes the Survation poll 36/32 L/T which is more or less in line with the other polls.
I have no beef against the conservatives but those are two of the most desperate posts I have seen on here
Ukip on 22%? Just take off the amount we think they are wrong by and give it to the conservatives'!
I've tweeted the pollster to tell them they are wrong!!
Have you told CCHQ they have got the membership numbers wrong as well?!
Actually I don't rate Survation at all, so just ignore their output.
What I am saying is that in my view they systematically overstate UKIP and understate the Tories. That is a flaw with their methodology. I don't know how much by - but if *for the sake of argument* it is 5% then that would put them in line with the other polls.
Of course they could be right any everyone else wrong, but I'd rather trust ICM.
None of the pollsters seem to have adapted to four party politics, ICM had ukip in 20% in the euros, one poll had 38%, and they got 27%
ICM had Labour on 35% and they got nowhere near that
Another had the Tories winning, and they finished 3rd
Anyone could pick and choose favourable polls for their party and bad ones for others to make a partisan point, but none of those arguments have any solid foundation behind them.
Euro polling is different to GE polling.
I'm not making a partisan post - my view is that Survation is useless. I like ICM - if I was being partisan I'd be pushing Populous or Angus Reid ;-)
Hmm, so anything counts as personal abuse if it is aimed at a person is it? Personal abuse is to call someone a liar, as a general statement of their demeanor and/or without specifying what they are supposed to have lied about. The above selects actions which Hitchens thinks are wrong or misguided, and attacks people for doing them. That is valid criticism rather than personal abuse.
For example "Tony Blair is a liar" is personal abuse, although it happens to be true. If you append a long list of the things he has lied about, it becomes valid criticism.
No: what he said [paraphrased] was "the product is crap. They are selling it by lying to the voters."
The first part is valid criticism. The second assumes (a) that "it is crap" is fact not opinion; (b) that the Tories know it to be true; (c) that they are selling it anyway; and (d) they are doing so by lying.
(a) is legitimate criticism. The rest is abuse, not argument.
"These people are like advertising men stuck with a product that is no good, a car that breaks down, a soap that crumbles into powdery grease when it touches water, a foodstuff that tastes disgusting and cleaves to the tongue. Yet they have signed a contract to promote it.
At all costs they must keep the consumer from seeing the truth until after he has bought the merchandise. One way of doing this is to spread negative stories about rival products.
The shameful and childish personal abuse directed against Ed Miliband has now reached a point where honourable Conservatives must be tempted to vote Labour in protest against it.
The reason for this Stalinist destruction of personal credit is simple. There is no political difference of any significance between the two men. So instead we are supposed to make up our minds on the basis of the size of Mr Miliband’s teeth. Heaven itself cannot help a nation which settles its future on this basis."
So have been - or will be - the same is just a fool.
None of it is personal abuse
It is criticism of someone on the basis of the job they are doing
- Promoting a product that they know is no good - Doing so by lying to the consumer (voter) - Personally spreading "shameful and childish" negative stories - "Stalinist"
Those also sound pretty abusive to me. And directly aimed at Cameron et al.
Hmm, so anything counts as personal abuse if it is aimed at a person is it? Personal abuse is to call someone a liar, as a general statement of their demeanor and/or without specifying what they are supposed to have lied about. The above selects actions which Hitchens thinks are wrong or misguided, and attacks people for doing them. That is valid criticism rather than personal abuse.
For example "Tony Blair is a liar" is personal abuse, although it happens to be true. If you append a long list of the things he has lied about, it becomes valid criticism.
John, Charles does not care about the truth , it is all down to the fact that his chum is being shown up, these toffs stick together regardless of truth.
I think Charles must have had a heavy night. Misunderstandings of this magnitude are unusual for him.
It can't be that the Tories have had a bad poll because he has a formula for rectifying those
Tell you what: if any of the next 3 ICM polls show a 9 point lead for Labour I'll buy you a drink at the next Dirty Dicks meet up.
Morning all and just tweeted Survation to ask if they seriously believe the numbers in their poll as it looks they are heading for a 1992 moment.
What's the average for UKIP with the other pollsters?
If - for the sake of argument - you think UKIP is around 17% (I think that's at the top end of the range of the other pollsters), with the balance being Tories, then that makes the Survation poll 36/32 L/T which is more or less in line with the other polls.
I have no beef against the conservatives but those are two of the most desperate posts I have seen on here
Ukip on 22%? Just take off the amount we think they are wrong by and give it to the conservatives'!
I've tweeted the pollster to tell them they are wrong!!
Have you told CCHQ they have got the membership numbers wrong as well?!
Actually I don't rate Survation at all, so just ignore their output.
What I am saying is that in my view they systematically overstate UKIP and understate the Tories. That is a flaw with their methodology. I don't know how much by - but if *for the sake of argument* it is 5% then that would put them in line with the other polls.
Of course they could be right any everyone else wrong, but I'd rather trust ICM.
None of the pollsters seem to have adapted to four party politics, ICM had ukip in 20% in the euros, one poll had 38%, and they got 27%
ICM had Labour on 35% and they got nowhere near that
Another had the Tories winning, and they finished 3rd
Anyone could pick and choose favourable polls for their party and bad ones for others to make a partisan point, but none of those arguments have any solid foundation behind them.
Euro polling is different to GE polling.
I'm not making a partisan post - my view is that Survation is useless. I like ICM - if I was being partisan I'd be pushing Populous or Angus Reid ;-)
There hasn't been a GE since ukip started polling double figures so how can you say one firm is better than another?
"These people are like advertising men stuck with a product that is no good, a car that breaks down, a soap that crumbles into powdery grease when it touches water, a foodstuff that tastes disgusting and cleaves to the tongue. Yet they have signed a contract to promote it.
At all costs they must keep the consumer from seeing the truth until after he has bought the merchandise. One way of doing this is to spread negative stories about rival products.
The shameful and childish personal abuse directed against Ed Miliband has now reached a point where honourable Conservatives must be tempted to vote Labour in protest against it.
The reason for this Stalinist destruction of personal credit is simple. There is no political difference of any significance between the two men. So instead we are supposed to make up our minds on the basis of the size of Mr Miliband’s teeth. Heaven itself cannot help a nation which settles its future on this basis."
So have been - or will be - the same is just a fool.
None of it is personal abuse
It is criticism of someone on the basis of the job they are doing
- Promoting a product that they know is no good - Doing so by lying to the consumer (voter) - Personally spreading "shameful and childish" negative stories - "Stalinist"
Those also sound pretty abusive to me. And directly aimed at Cameron et al.
Hmm, so anything counts as personal abuse if it is aimed at a person is it? Personal abuse is to call someone a liar, as a general statement of their demeanor and/or without specifying what they are supposed to have lied about. The above selects actions which Hitchens thinks are wrong or misguided, and attacks people for doing them. That is valid criticism rather than personal abuse.
For example "Tony Blair is a liar" is personal abuse, although it happens to be true. If you append a long list of the things he has lied about, it becomes valid criticism.
John, Charles does not care about the truth , it is all down to the fact that his chum is being shown up, these toffs stick together regardless of truth.
I think Charles must have had a heavy night. Misunderstandings of this magnitude are unusual for him.
It can't be that the Tories have had a bad poll because he has a formula for rectifying those
Tell you what: if any of the next 3 ICM polls show a 9 point lead for Labour I'll buy you a drink at the next Dirty Dicks meet up.
"These people are like advertising men stuck with a product that is no good, a car that breaks down, a soap that crumbles into powdery grease when it touches water, a foodstuff that tastes disgusting and cleaves to the tongue. Yet they have signed a contract to promote it.
At all costs they must keep the consumer from seeing the truth until after he has bought the merchandise. One way of doing this is to spread negative stories about rival products.
The shameful and childish personal abuse directed against Ed Miliband has now reached a point where honourable Conservatives must be tempted to vote Labour in protest against it.
So have been - or will be - the same is just a fool.
None of it is personal abuse
It is criticism of someone on the basis of the job they are doing
- Promoting a product that they know is no good - Doing so by lying to the consumer (voter) - Personally spreading "shameful and childish" negative stories - "Stalinist"
Those also sound pretty abusive to me. And directly aimed at Cameron et al.
Hmm, so anything counts as personal abuse if it is aimed at a person is it? Personal abuse is to call someone a liar, as a general statement of their demeanor and/or without specifying what they are supposed to have lied about. The above selects actions which Hitchens thinks are wrong or misguided, and attacks people for doing them. That is valid criticism rather than personal abuse.
For example "Tony Blair is a liar" is personal abuse, although it happens to be true. If you append a long list of the things he has lied about, it becomes valid criticism.
John, Charles does not care about the truth , it is all down to the fact that his chum is being shown up, these toffs stick together regardless of truth.
I think Charles must have had a heavy night. Misunderstandings of this magnitude are unusual for him.
It can't be that the Tories have had a bad poll because he has a formula for rectifying those
Tell you what: if any of the next 3 ICM polls show a 9 point lead for Labour I'll buy you a drink at the next Dirty Dicks meet up.
Your misunderstanding was of what constitutes personal abuse, but you can buy me a drink if you like
Comments
I have tried to identify the factors that "ought" to be helping them and they are already out there. We already have the fastest growing economy in the G7, record employment, very low inflation, a modestly falling deficit. We have had most of those things for the best part of a year now. And...nothing. Why is this going to change? That was my original question and no one is suggesting an answer.
What's instructive for me is the shellacking Ed continues to get from his own side. Some Labour people don't believe polls like this any more than some tories here do.
The tories polled low before the 87 and 92 elections because although people didn't like them much the alternative on polling day was perceived to be far worse.
I suspect that something similar will happen this time when people seriously consider voting Miliband, Balls and Harman into power, helped I suspect by some pretty negative tory campagining. The trend away from tories in opinion polls will also be exacerbated this side of Christmas by the election date already being known for the first time in UK history with no prospect of a snap poll.
For example "Tony Blair is a liar" is personal abuse, although it happens to be true. If you append a long list of the things he has lied about, it becomes valid criticism.
I believe the UK would be better off if it left the EU, I can't stand Cameron and think he and his clique have mucked up big time. I'll probably be voting UKIP as will many like me in my area. However, I am in a rock solid Conservative seat (majority 15k) so it doesn't matter what way we vote but we show up in the UKIP percentage in the polls. What is UKIPs percentages in the marginals where it matters?
If I lived in a marginal then come the day I would be looking at things rather differently. Who would I prefer Cameron or Miliband? That would be my question. Would I still vote UKIP? Probably not. I would still be showing up in the UKIP percentage in the polls right now, but the reality is I'd probably hold my nose and vote Conservative.
So for Mr L. and those like him who are worried that the Conservatives don't seem to be able to break through 34% I'd say the time to worry is not yet.
The indication is that in tory/Labour seats the Lib Dem collapse will disproportionately benefit Labour so I do not agree that the playing field will be more level as a result.
The loss to UKIP of votes in the Shires does mean that the tory vote will be more effective overall. I suspect the Labour vote will be less depressed in some of their safe areas too making Labour slightly less efficient in terms of seats. Many of the Lib Dem votes they will get in many areas will be "wasted" in better second or third places too. So I would also agree that the tories do not need to be 7% ahead to get a majority. But the current boundaries do favour Labour to a significant extent, there is no point in pretending otherwise.
Lousy day!
My strategy game has been off the the net for more than 26 hours.
UKIP still in the low twenties with Survation.
The site of PoliticsHome run by that Waugh bloke gets more impossible every day.
I saw Ed Balls face on Marr..... eeeeeeeeeeeekkk!!!!
Is Michael White one of these Tory Stalinists?
"You call that personal abuse? I'll show you some personal abuse."
Much will be clearer post 18th September but 3 things are clear. Scottish Labour is heading south because Ed is no Gordon Brown, Scottish LibDems are disappearing down the drain and Scottish Tories are making modest recoveries in key areas. We wont know until after September how the SNP are doing but there are a fair number of seats where they are not really in contention even if they pretend they are.
That is why it will be Labour , which is a disaster for the country as they are just useless and will wreck everything again.
Very low inflation is based on a weighted basket of goods that might not reflect individual circumstances. Our family expenditures don't resemble the CPI divisions in the slightest (26% on recreation,culture, hotels and restaurants!) and our personal rate of inflation is still high - my family income is falling in real terms. Finally, a falling deficit means...what?
That's not a bash at the coalition - if anything, on a political pov I'm more hawkish on the deficit than Osborne. However, to many people these positive indicators are at best, non sequiturs and at worst, a joke in bad taste.
It can't be that the Tories have had a bad poll because he has a formula for rectifying those
I agree with you on reducing the tax rate to a flat rate 30% (including NI) but would argue that once we have done so there will be no need for tax breaks such as a married couples allowance. I disagree with it anyway, as a dyed-in-the-wool singleton, but once we get to the position where we leave money in people's pockets to spend as they will, I see no need to further subsidise their lifestyles.
If anyone can find my old ones I am quite sure they are pretty close to this !
Pulpstar's General Election prediction:
CON 275
LAB 312
LIB 28
NAT 14
UKIP 3
Seats to watch:
Dumfries & Galloway: Falls to the Conservatives in Scotland. Labour has a bad night in Scotland despite doing well elsewhere.
Hallam: Clegg holds on in Hallam, but his majority is slashed to a thousand votes, Conservative tactical voting keeps him in place.
Inverness, Bairn & Strathspey - Unconfined Joy for the SNP as they narrowly unseat Danny Alexander.
Pudsey: Conservative hold somewhat unexpectedly.
Reading West: Joy for Labour as Reading West unexpectedly falls
Sherwood: Conservative hold - WWC vote UKIP, one of the best results on the night for the Conservatives.
Southampton Itchen: Con Gain from Lab - The only one of the night, in England..
Thurrock: UKIP Gain - Joy for UKIP as Thurrock is gained, however Nigel is outdone by anti-UKIP tactical voting in Thanet South. UKIP take a couple more too.
Torbay - Adrian Sanders holds on narrowly from Kevin Foster (50 votes) as the Lib Dems defy national trends in urban Southwest seats. Eastleigh held comfortably.
Clegg & Cameron announce their resignations, Farron takes the helm of the Lib Dems and goes into coalition with Ed Miliband.
Hmm...You think an independent Scotland is going to vote for a tory government? And that I should vote yes in the confident expectation of this?
I think you are going to have to try harder than that Malcolm.
I googled too,... Interesting what Quentin Letts said in 2009 about Ed...
"Mr Miliband looks youthful. He seems to have some zest. He is slightly less twitchy than his brother, though his words sometimes have difficulty escaping past his sizeable collection of teeth.
He also has a Centrist feel. It does not take too much imagination to picture Ed Miliband sitting on the Tory benches. Certainly not while they contain the drippingly moist Mr Clark."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1225566/QUENTIN-LETTS-Ed-Milibands-words-struggle-escape-collection-teeth.html#ixzz361GJUOJa
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
By the way, although Charles is a fairly solid Tory, I don't see that he deserves any of the personal stuff chucked at him here. He's a civil, likeable poster.
Agreed and we know how soft the Labour vote is in real elections as shown last month - they don't come much more real than the one next year with the prospect of Miliband as PM - I find it hard to believe that will happen.
A successful independent Scotland would refute their position and strengthen the arguments for smaller, leaner states in the future. Written with tongue slightly in cheek, but it's the only way I've been able to reconcile my unionist & BOO sentiments.
The conservative's best hope is that a hurricane hits Britain on polling day. Although the amount of seats UKIP would gain in such a scenario would be stunning.
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/for-the-first-time-ukip-now-favourite-to-out-poll-lib-dems/
There's no point in people making themselves feel better about our "high UKIP scores" and our "friendliness" to UKIP. What is clear that we do differently is mention the party at random in the voting prompt (fair treatment in our view) and do not perform an "adjustment" along lines of party ID based on a historical assumption of what "association" with UKIP should *really* be in the final step. Without this, our numbers would be in line with Populus and YouGov. Mike Smithson does not think party ID weighting manual adjustment is an appropriate measure and has written about it extensively.
As for us "overstating UKIP in the EP election so there's your proof" we were not the high on UKIP. If people want to compare our EP work and accuracy fairly to others, do cast an eye over the 2 YouGov polls and others conducted at a similar fieldwork time.
The media conducted a full on barrage on Farage in the final week week of the campaign and the final days were particularly forceful. Clearly a very large poll conducted just the day before with a very large sample size and low MOE is going to be the most likely to be accurate.
Finally YouGov's final EP poll used a changed, similar methodology to Survation's in the end for their EP polls, naming UKIP in the voting prompt. This was after defending NOT naming UKIP in the voting prompt - you can read Peter K's previous views on the link below:
"Measuring UKIP’s support"
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/01/15/measuring-ukips-support/
Hope you all have a nice Sunday, it's sunny here in London let's all have a cognac for brekkie and get some fresh air.
Damian.
They would almost certainly pick up Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk too.
I've been banging on about the Populus raw UKIP score for ages. But I do think there is some self selection bias - 17% is my guess right now tbh.
To my discredit, and due to financial circumstances, I'm only on this bet against a couple of PBers at 6/4... Hills are still 11/8 arent they? Worth a pop still
The only things I question are: (1) Will Farron be unopposed? If not, he still has the hurdle of winning a membership ballot. And most remaining LibDem members are to the right of the party (viz my dad). (2) Are the LibDems ready for another coalition? The first one has seen their vote share decimated. A second one (with a different party) could see a similar effect. LibDems (and UKIP I suspect) prefer the easy lack of intellectual consistency that comes with opposition.
We're not being complacent in the least but what I take away from the EP polling is that the large sample, eve of polling, YouGov poll that NAMED UKIP in the prompt and did not use a party ID adjustment I believe) was also the most accurate -an approach similar to our Westminster method which some criticise despite lack of evidence to the contrary.
Farron has kept an arm's length from the coalition, and all of his views are not massively left wing. On some social issues he is actually to the right(ish). THe Lib Dems will realise they need to get back the red liberals that deserted them for Labour.
That all being said I'm not actually backing Farron for next leader at the moment but I do think the odds are correct in that he is the most likely choice 13-8 is a fair price but not a great one.
The Lib Dem chance is certainly better than the 2.4% that is shown on Electoral calculus.
Conservative Hold I think.
Keeping my money away from it though, really not sure where the value lies let alone who will win.
Interesting, personally I'd ban nicotinoids - though the Conservatives are in favour which I think is a mistake.
I have always wondered if Herbert made up the phrase or simply used an existing one. Were you aware of his use of it?
Tomorrow will see substantial revisions to UK GDP being announced for the period 1997-2009, essentially the last Labour government.
The general trend in these sorts of revisions is that GDP goes up and recessions tend to become less severe and shorter than was thought at the time. The early 90s was a particularly strong example of this with poor Norman Lamont being mocked about green shoots which were in fact very much present and indeed thriving.
My guess is that the recession in 2008/9 will be shallowed out somewhat from its current 7.2% drop. The increase in unemployment was simply not large enough for such a drop. Will this be a chance for Ed Balls to argue that Labour's mismanagement was not as catastrophic after all or will this be strictly for the nerds?
We will get revisions of more recent data in a couple of months.
Look at her four victories in mayoral elections. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor_of_Watford
Look at how badly CON did in last mayoral election
Hmm I think your 7-1 could well be a winner. Coin toss I reckon if Lab most seats, however Con most seats and Clegg is first out if Lib Dems are down to near 30 seats.
I am on all three leaders to stay till the next GE @ 1-2. Clegg isn't going anywhere in the meantime and neither is Cameron/Miliband.
5-1 sounds like a very good bet !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-cdBsyeOWI
One thinks that Unckie' has been licking the diesel of his personalised number plate again...
The way that the GDP calculations were changed will mean until all historical years have been revised, comparisons will be tricky.
I think not, they might as well revise the last recession to an economic boom in a hundred years time at it will still not make an impact on daily perceptions.
Plus for the "blues" I reckon, the older the data, the less people relate to it.
The changes were brought in to make the data more compatible with international standards, and absolutely nothing to do with giving the figures a boost.
£3,000 pa value equates to £600 pa in tax. Hardly low. Sorry but you are talking utter rubbish. I said council tax benefit, not housing benefit.
Do you really mean this? A successful self-employed plumber earning £80,000 a year will be paid tax credits as if he earned £10K? Why should a single employed person earning say £20K pay taxes to support the lifestyle of such a plutocrat?
Again you have the wrong end of the stick. This IS going to happen under UC. Anyone earning under minimum wage under UC will be treated as if they are earning mininum wage. Anyone earning over minimum wage will be treated as if they earn the wage they earn. I take it you are not aware of the legions of so called self employed with children who work a few hours a week and claim massive amounts of tax credits?
I agree with you on reducing the tax rate to a flat rate 30% (including NI) but would argue that once we have done so there will be no need for tax breaks such as a married couples allowance. I disagree with it anyway, as a dyed-in-the-wool singleton, but once we get to the position where we leave money in people's pockets to spend as they will, I see no need to further subsidise their lifestyles.
Osborne disagrees with it as well, but he wants to win the next election and it will get his party votes. Whether it is right or wrong is immaterial.
I'm not jittery about backing losers.... Yet!
If things don't pick up for Team Blue by autumn I may have t think about abandoning ship, as I don't back losers if I can help it.
Re - tax ideas - any merging of I-T and NI would need some consideration for pension income. I currently pay 20% - your suggestion implies that could rise to 30%. I would not be a happy man!
My bad about Council Tax Benefit, I misread. I still disagree. Why should an employed person on £20k pay council tax and a retired person not? The retiree is actually better off, they don't pay NI and don't have travel-to-work costs to find.
If you had said "less than minimum wage" on the self-employed thing I may have understood better. You are right, to claim WTC you have to work at least 16hpw if you are a lone parent or are disabled, 24 as a parent (I think) or otherwise 30. It is definitely a scam to claim you work 30 hours a week at less than NMW. If you claiming less than NMW you should be looking for a better job. If you want the benefits of self-employed tax, you should be prepared to run the risks.
Increasing the married couples tax allowance might be popular among some married couples, but you will piss off some people who aren't married. You are also giving the impression of a party that is prepared to skew the tax system towards the narrow sectional interests of certain groupls of people, rather than one that is fair across the board. As a single person I have never understood why I should subsidise married people who may already benefit from two incomes and benefits of scale.
The point of this site ought to be giving its denizens a chance to get ahead of the curve so that when the masses start thinking about politics we have already got our bets on before the odds start shrinking, as they will from about March onwards.
Alternatively, keep NI and IT separate, and set the rates and earnings thresholds so that the combined rate is always 30% for non-pension income.
Why are not more people benefiting from the good stats?
1. We are very slowly emerging from a very deep trough which has affected most of the EU (some more than others) and it is very easy to slip back into that trough. This has boosted employment but it we had not emerged from that trough then unemployment would have been far worse. (agreed not a vote winner)
2, At the same time the growing economies of the developing nations demanded more food and energy and so prices increased. At the same time our home-produced energy sources declined because nothing had been done about replacement energy sources in the 1995-2010,
3, Our skill sets had declined rapidly over the 1990s and 2000s whilst the BRIC and others skill sets have rapidly increased and we have become reliant on immigrants for much of these. At the same time we lost/exported manufacturing capacity to which we cannot send apprentices.
4. Notwithstanding 3 above, it became HMG policy to rely upon imports (to pay for which we had to borrow money) and at the same time we paid ourselves more in salary, pensions and benefits - a recipe for bankruptcy.
5.The interest charges on our resultant and unnecessary debt is wasted money that could be better spent on our antique infrastructure, education and health. This puts us further behind our global competition.
6. The public sector has not changed its thinking towards customer-focus and efficient economic working. Reaction to reduced budgets is either put up council tax or reduce services - not to strip away layers of management as well as staff on unnecessary things like diversity support etc. Also NHS has far too many managers and too few medical and care specialists, resulting in lack of performance.
7. Much of the world can provide better products and services than us and at a lower cost. So until we make vast efforts to rebalancing that cost-performance ratio then wages will not rise. To get a better-off feel, we have to cut costs, improve efficiency and make better products/services. this means working longer hours for the same pay (not increased pay), e.g. longer school hours to reduce child-care costs.
8. We have not come to terms with the effects of technology advance and globalisation - so resulting in lack of effective education, communication and working practices - so resulting in lack of export performance. One private school I know has pupils preparing for exams in Mandarin, Arabic & Russian - how many state schools have even thought that afr. We are not preparing our children to compete and perform globally.
So school report by 2015. have done quite well, could have done better if not held back by dinosauric thinking by coalition friends, EU, much of public sector, not being competitive and lack of risk-taking.
A return to the thinking, methodology and practices of the 1995-2010 would be disastrous for the electorate and their families. More of the same required but at a faster pace - an economy cannot be repaired in 5 years.
Feel free to disagree but in doing so please give me a counter argument.
Very nice analysis. Got all the main bases well covered. A shame that people in power do not have the same analytical ability.
An even bigger shame that even when they do recognise the problem they don't have the courage to implement a real solution. For example in 1997 Blair said the priority should be education. He was correct, what he did about it was anti-education but could be dressed up as improving standards. Result, we are worse off now than we were in 1997.
Apparently the Wimbledon schedule's been rejigged so Nadal and Federer (assuming they win) will both have to play Tuesday and Wednesday (Wawrinka will, theoretically, have to play Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday).
Best for Murray, I suspect, who's been playing perhaps the best of anyone. Also handy for Djokovic.
I really don't mind I am not on this site for a pissing contest.
I think this is misleading.
The changes being implemented to the calculation of GDP result from changes to National Accounting Rules to comply with new international standards, in particular ESA 2010 [European System of Accounts] and SNA 2008 [United Nations System of National Accounts]. The changes will affect not only historic GDP calculation but also the calculation of Balance of Payments due to changes to BPM6 [Balance of Payments Manual version 6] and associated Public Finances statistics. ONS has also lumped on internal methodological changes [e.g. National Rail financing] to make September 2014 a 'big bang' of change.
Between now and September, revisions will be published for historic figures up to 2009 and there will be parallel tables to enable comparisons to be made on a 'before and after big bang' basis.
The net effect of the changes will be to increase GDP and Debt by substantial amounts but they should not effect the relative fall in GDP from peak to trough as a result of the recession.
What is about to be published is a document entitled "Impact of ESA10 and BPM6 changes on chained volume estimates of GDP, Sector and Financial Accounts and Balance of Payments".
All of the methodology changes have been identified and described in prior ONS documents with high level estimates of the scale of change, but the new publication will start to put real figures to periods.
Among the major changes are:
Treatment of Research & Development Expenditure as Gross Fixed Capital Formation, i.e. capitalising R&D. Also R&D will be measured more broadly than before, when only 'market output' was captured. From the change onwards 'non-market output' and 'R&D for own final use' will be included in the measures.
[to be continued]
Changes to GDP, BP and Public Finances calculation [Part II],.
[Among the major changes are:]
The classification of Government Military Spending will also change with Weapons systems (broadly, planes, ships and tanks etc.) become fixed capital formation, whereas single use items (ammunition and bombs etc.) become inventories. This measure will move current spending to investment.
Accounting for Pensions will change substantially with classification of schemes as 'defined benefit' and 'defined contribution', with the introduction of the actuarial valuation for funded defined benefit schemes. Essentially, where practical, pension benefit entitlements will now be separately calculated in the National Accounts. [This is a massive over-simplification of the changes. Neil will explain all!].
Examples of changes to the measurement of both GNP and Trade are as follows. Non-monetary Gold (i.e. gold used for industrial purposes) will now be classified as an intermediate goods. Remote [offshore online] Gambling will be now be measured and treated as an import and household consumption. Intermediate manufactures (e.g. wings of an Airbus plane) will now only be treated as exports if 'economic ownership' changes. Trade in illegal drugs and prostitution will now be captured in National Accounts [drug smuggling will increase
imports].
Given the complexity of the changes, their scale and impact on historical series, I doubt that there will be much opportunity for party political benefit to be spun from them.
If opinion shift's late in those countries then it would be fairly easy to conclude that opinion could shift late here.
However, if there's no noticeable difference in countries that have "fixed" parliaments with those that do not, then Hurt's theory may no play out.
Anybody want to spend their Sunday afternoon looking at past elections in Canada (and Australia?) on Wikipedia?
I'm not making a partisan post - my view is that Survation is useless. I like ICM - if I was being partisan I'd be pushing Populous or Angus Reid ;-)
The first part is valid criticism. The second assumes (a) that "it is crap" is fact not opinion; (b) that the Tories know it to be true; (c) that they are selling it anyway; and (d) they are doing so by lying.
(a) is legitimate criticism. The rest is abuse, not argument.
That's not the same as "he said X, X is a lie, therefore he is a liar".
That's saying: I disagree with him, no one sensible could believe what he believes and therefore he must be a liar.