Construction Output in May follows pattern of Industrial Output
ONS published their Construction Output figures for May this morning. The key points are as follows:
• This statistical bulletin provides users with the latest estimates of output in the construction industry for May 2014. Output is defined as the amount charged by construction companies to customers for value of work (produced during the reporting period) excluding VAT and payments to sub-contractors.
• In May 2014, output in the construction industry was estimated to have fallen by 1.1% compared with April 2014, after increasing by 1.2% in April. Both new work and repair & maintenance fell by 1.1% in May 2014.
• In all new work the largest contribution to the fall came from private commercial work and public other new work. New work public housing and private industrial work increased, but due to the relatively small size of these work types, the increases did little to offset the falls elsewhere.
• Compared with May 2013, output in the construction industry increased by 3.5%. All new work and repair & maintenance both increased by 3.7% and 3.1% respectively.
• There were notable year-on-year falls in infrastructure, public other new work and private commercial.
• Housing new work provided the largest contribution to the increase in all new work compared with May 2013, with both public and private housing seeing substantial increases of 29.3% and 16.8% respectively. This resulted in all new housing increasing by 19.4%. Private industrial new work also increased compared with 2013.
So a similar story to the Production (incl. Manufacturing) Output figures earlier this week: output down on a month on previous month comparison but (significantly) up on an annual basis.
We need to see the June figures to find out whether the May figures indicate a slow down in growth of the economy or just a statistical blip. The markets and analysts ignored the monthly fall in Production believing it to be a statistical blip but since then there have been other data which has followed the Production downturn both in the UK and Europe.
Noteworthy are the massive increases in residential construction though public sector housing is growing from a very small base.
The key metric is the PMIs - because they are quickly collected, have a very broad base, and have been much better at predicting quarterly and annual GDP than monthly swings in retail sales, industrial production, etc.
And they remain broadly positive. Here are the latest Markit Manufacturing PMIs, sorted from best to worst. Remember: 50 or above is economic growth. Below 50 is recession, shrinkage.
UK 57.5 USA 57.3 Ireland 55.3 Spain 54.6 Italy 52.6 Netherlands 52.3 Germany 52.0 Japan 51.5 India 51.5 China 50.7 Poland 50.3 Russia 49.1 Brazil 48.7 South Korea 48.4 France 48.2
As an aside (and patting myself on the back), these are in almost exactly the same order as my GDP forecasts for 2014 I did at the beginning of this year. Said forecasts are looking a lot more accurate than those from the ECB, the World Bank or Goldman Sachs.
One interesting thing from that poll: a large gender divide on "don't know". 24% of the Female responders said they didn't know who they would vote for, compared to 9% for the Men. I've not noticed that before, but it seems to be a fairly consistent result from the Populus polls.
You don't see nearly as large a difference in the Lord Ashcroft Polls.
That's a curious difference between the online and phone polls.
It will cross back the next time he does it, but it will then crossover again in a couple of months if the Lab/Con positions remain relatively stable as I think they will do.
Why is anyone taking seriously the forecasts of Prof Fisher ? It seemed to me that the forecasts only received any publicity, because at one time it was showing a different election outcome to most other forecasts. Now the forecast has moved to mirror what others have shown.
Is it just a case of what data had been included and that Prof Fisher is not offering a forecasting method that is that much different to any other ?
'Cause Professor Fisher was one of the architects of the very accurate are exit poll at the last General election.
He has a good track record at developing electoral forecasting models.
You're not going to get a share of each individual asset.
What will happen is that there will be a totting up of the value of the assets owned by UK and that total value will be split between iScot and rUK. You would also take on a share of the UK's debt.
In practice, I'd imagine you will get 100% ownership of virtually all UK government assets in Scotland (I'm sure there will some exceptions, but who knows) and a proportionately lower share of assets outside the UK.
If I were iScot, I'd also look seriously at what Iceland does, which is to have a small annex/section of many Danish embassies to avoid the overhead costs of a completely separate facility. But that would be up to you.
If it were me doing it on behalf of rUK I'd also be looking at a per capita split of the UK's oil, so they'd get 8% or so of that.
Ha Ha , so you going to change International law then
You're not going to get a share of each individual asset.
What will happen is that there will be a totting up of the value of the assets owned by UK and that total value will be split between iScot and rUK. You would also take on a share of the UK's debt.
In practice, I'd imagine you will get 100% ownership of virtually all UK government assets in Scotland (I'm sure there will some exceptions, but who knows) and a proportionately lower share of assets outside the UK.
If I were iScot, I'd also look seriously at what Iceland does, which is to have a small annex/section of many Danish embassies to avoid the overhead costs of a completely separate facility. But that would be up to you.
If it were me doing it on behalf of rUK I'd also be looking at a per capita split of the UK's oil, so they'd get 8% or so of that.
Ha Ha , so you going to change International law then
So, the deal is, if it's within rUK territory it's solely an rUK asset?
You might well be, though as the Economist points out, you face tough challenges getting there.
You said Salmond had not promised Scots they would be better off.
He did.
Yes but as everyone knows it is not guaranteed, like with all politicians there are always ifs and buts. Also who knows how long either him or SNP would be in power. He thinks that we can make a better job of it than London do , it comes down to whether you think all is rosy in the garden or do you want the country to be run differently. I would like Scotland to be a better country , run by Scots with Scots deciding what we want and not with the current democratic deficit with everything at the whim of Westminster. rUK can go ahead and project their clout , fight illegal wars , have nuclear weapons, foodbanks , poverty etc I personally have a different vision of a fairer society. Despite being one of the "Haves" I do care about the "Have Nots" as well and do not see higher taxes as a disaster. I am not comfortable with the greed culture in UK, which may be just because I am not poor and unemployed etc but believe it is because I am a decent human being who would like to see a fairer society.
Why is anyone taking seriously the forecasts of Prof Fisher ?
Because (although they are NOT forecasts), they are extremely useful in assessing the degree to which opinion polling this far out from the election should be relied upon as predicting the final result, and (although this is less important) the direction in which the polls are likely to shift.
The crucial point is this: current polls shouldn't be relied upon too much, which is why his error bars on the Con vote share are plus or minus 7.7%.
By way of comparison, ICM's poll of July 2009 had Con 41%, Lab 27%, LD 20%; YouGov were reporting 40/24/17 around this time. Those 14-point or 16-point leads turned into a 7-point lead in the actual result. We should not be surprised to see that kind of shift this time around; such variability is normal.
I also came across this PoliticsHome prediction based on a detailed poll of marginals, sample size 35,000, released in October 2009:
Construction Output in May follows pattern of Industrial Output
ONS published their Construction Output figures for May this morning. The key points are as follows:
• This statistical bulletin provides users with the latest estimates of output in the construction industry for May 2014. Output is defined as the amount charged by construction companies to customers for value of work (produced during the reporting period) excluding VAT and payments to sub-contractors.
• In May 2014, output in the construction industry was estimated to have fallen by 1.1% compared with April 2014, after increasing by 1.2% in April. Both new work and repair & maintenance fell by 1.1% in May 2014.
• In all new work the largest contribution to the fall came from private commercial work and public other new work. New work public housing and private industrial work increased, but due to the relatively small size of these work types, the increases did little to offset the falls elsewhere.
• Compared with May 2013, output in the construction industry increased by 3.5%. All new work and repair & maintenance both increased by 3.7% and 3.1% respectively.
• There were notable year-on-year falls in infrastructure, public other new work and private commercial.
• Housing new work provided the largest contribution to the increase in all new work compared with May 2013, with both public and private housing seeing substantial increases of 29.3% and 16.8% respectively. This resulted in all new housing increasing by 19.4%. Private industrial new work also increased compared with 2013.
So a similar story to the Production (incl. Manufacturing) Output figures earlier this week: output down on a month on previous month comparison but (significantly) up on an annual basis.
We need to see the June figures to find out whether the May figures indicate a slow down in growth of the economy or just a statistical blip. The markets and analysts ignored the monthly fall in Production believing it to be a statistical blip but since then there have been other data which has followed the Production downturn both in the UK and Europe.
Noteworthy are the massive increases in residential construction though public sector housing is growing from a very small base.
so summing up Osborne's still crap.
Mr. Brooke.
So pleased to see you. I was getting worried.
Did you see my post on banking licences?
It contained a personal dedication.
Sorry Mr P, I missed it as I've been fairly busy on work stuff. I'm moving a factory in the next couple of months and my bank thinks it would be a good idea to stop me having access to my own cash when doing so.
One interesting thing from that poll: a large gender divide on "don't know". 24% of the Female responders said they didn't know who they would vote for, compared to 9% for the Men. I've not noticed that before, but it seems to be a fairly consistent result from the Populus polls.
You don't see nearly as large a difference in the Lord Ashcroft Polls.
That's a curious difference between the online and phone polls.
Both polls are conducted by Populus which makes it doubly interesting.
You're not going to get a share of each individual asset.
What will happen is that there will be a totting up of the value of the assets owned by UK and that total value will be split between iScot and rUK. You would also take on a share of the UK's debt.
In practice, I'd imagine you will get 100% ownership of virtually all UK government assets in Scotland (I'm sure there will some exceptions, but who knows) and a proportionately lower share of assets outside the UK.
If I were iScot, I'd also look seriously at what Iceland does, which is to have a small annex/section of many Danish embassies to avoid the overhead costs of a completely separate facility. But that would be up to you.
If it were me doing it on behalf of rUK I'd also be looking at a per capita split of the UK's oil, so they'd get 8% or so of that.
Ha Ha , so you going to change International law then
No, I'd not change it. It would be Scotland arguing that the oil now belongs to Scotland that would require a change.
And therefore the existing treaties, dating back 50 years or so, that divide the waters of the North Sea between the UK, Norway, Denmark, etc, would remain in force.
None of those accords mention Scotland. None of the oil is Scotland's. It's the UK's, and the UK will still exist, minus the trivial percentage that Scotland represents.
You may have noticed that nobody in the No camp has actually conceded this ludicrous claim that it's Scotland's oil. Why would that be, do you think?
You're not going to get a share of each individual asset.
What will happen is that there will be a totting up of the value of the assets owned by UK and that total value will be split between iScot and rUK. You would also take on a share of the UK's debt.
In practice, I'd imagine you will get 100% ownership of virtually all UK government assets in Scotland (I'm sure there will some exceptions, but who knows) and a proportionately lower share of assets outside the UK.
If I were iScot, I'd also look seriously at what Iceland does, which is to have a small annex/section of many Danish embassies to avoid the overhead costs of a completely separate facility. But that would be up to you.
If it were me doing it on behalf of rUK I'd also be looking at a per capita split of the UK's oil, so they'd get 8% or so of that.
Ha Ha , so you going to change International law then
So, the deal is, if it's within rUK territory it's solely an rUK asset?
As any fool would know it is in Scottish waters, it has been debated to death and more than 90% is in Scottish territorial waters. Only idiots question it , ie pg tips and his fondness for bananas, are you his organ grinder.
You're not going to get a share of each individual asset.
What will happen is that there will be a totting up of the value of the assets owned by UK and that total value will be split between iScot and rUK. You would also take on a share of the UK's debt.
In practice, I'd imagine you will get 100% ownership of virtually all UK government assets in Scotland (I'm sure there will some exceptions, but who knows) and a proportionately lower share of assets outside the UK.
If I were iScot, I'd also look seriously at what Iceland does, which is to have a small annex/section of many Danish embassies to avoid the overhead costs of a completely separate facility. But that would be up to you.
If it were me doing it on behalf of rUK I'd also be looking at a per capita split of the UK's oil, so they'd get 8% or so of that.
Ha Ha , so you going to change International law then
No, I'd not change it. It would be Scotland arguing that the oil now belongs to Scotland that would require a change.
And therefore the existing treaties, dating back 50 years or so, that divide the waters of the North Sea between the UK, Norway, Denmark, etc, would remain in force.
None of those accords mention Scotland. None of the oil is Scotland's. It's the UK's, and the UK will still exist, minus the trivial percentage that Scotland represents.
You may have noticed that nobody in the No camp has actually conceded this ludicrous claim that it's Scotland's oil. Why would that be, do you think?
It is Scotland's oil. Mostly.
It is probable not to say certain that the "median line" method of allocation would be used meaning Scotland would receive approx 84% of tax revenues of NSO (or rather, of UK hydrocarbon reserves).
What I think the Fisher model and its changing projections show us is that the Tories are not benefitting from the typical swing back to the party in government on which the model is based. As each week goes by with a broadly stable picture the prospects of the Tories getting the most seats get less because they have a harder hill to climb.
We have now reached the point where the model is indicating Labour as the largest party. Even if the polls remain broadly static that probability will increase with each week that passes. If we are still here in September my guess (I have not done the calculations) is that the model will be indicating a Labour majority.
I suspect there is a lot of spurious accuracy in all of this but the trends he is identifying are undeniable.
You're not going to get a share of each individual asset.
What will happen is that there will be a totting up of the value of the assets owned by UK and that total value will be split between iScot and rUK. You would also take on a share of the UK's debt.
In practice, I'd imagine you will get 100% ownership of virtually all UK government assets in Scotland (I'm sure there will some exceptions, but who knows) and a proportionately lower share of assets outside the UK.
If I were iScot, I'd also look seriously at what Iceland does, which is to have a small annex/section of many Danish embassies to avoid the overhead costs of a completely separate facility. But that would be up to you.
If it were me doing it on behalf of rUK I'd also be looking at a per capita split of the UK's oil, so they'd get 8% or so of that.
Ha Ha , so you going to change International law then
So, the deal is, if it's within rUK territory it's solely an rUK asset?
As any fool would know it is in Scottish waters, it has been debated to death and more than 90% is in Scottish territorial waters. Only idiots question it , ie pg tips and his fondness for bananas, are you his organ grinder.
So it would be Scotland's in the same way that the Falklands are Argentina's, then; because it's quite near even though Argentina arrived in the area long after the UK did. And the other countries bordering the North Sea - UK, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands - would all simply concede this point and agree to amendment of the treaties without taking the opportunity to grab more. Because Scotland, not even an EU member, would be so important to everyone that they'd rather be nice to Scotland than to the UK.
As Richard Nabavi said yesterday, the amount if YouGov polls compared to others makes that graph misleading
I've also realised there is a further very serious problem with it, specifically in the UKIP line.
The problem is that the 15-day moving average may be heavily affected by whether a given 15-day window happens to include polls by Survation and TNS BMRB, who release polls infrequently and whose UKIP figures are much bigger than YouGov's - for example, on 12 June TNS had 23% against YouGov's 12%. So what looks like a 'drop' in the UKIP moving average might simply reflect the TNS and Survation polls falling out of the figures used to make up the moving average.
This is the kind of reason why the experts don't recommend averaging polls.
Overall, the average lines should be treated with caution. Certainly for evaluating trends, you're better off looking at the trends in different polling companies separately.
Cheers
Is there a set of graphs with a line from each pollster? That would be the best graphic to see the trend for each party it seems
Clearly the all polls chart mirrors the YouGov one very closely.
Excepting for a slight difference* in the Lib Dem vote I can't see anything obviously different in the pattern** of the ICM results since 2010 than the YouGov polls.
* In ICM the Lib Dems decline to ~15% at the beginning of 2011 and then decline gradually over the following years towards ~10%. With YouGov the Lib Dems went straight to 10% at the beginning of 2011 and stayed there.
** The absolute shares are different, but this systematic (methodological) bias appears to be constant in time - with the minor Lib Dem exception.
What I think the Fisher model and its changing projections show us is that the Tories are not benefitting from the typical swing back to the party in government on which the model is based. As each week goes by with a broadly stable picture the prospects of the Tories getting the most seats get less because they have a harder hill to climb.
We have now reached the point where the model is indicating Labour as the largest party. Even if the polls remain broadly static that probability will increase with each week that passes. If we are still here in September my guess (I have not done the calculations) is that the model will be indicating a Labour majority.
I suspect there is a lot of spurious accuracy in all of this but the trends he is identifying are undeniable.
Hmm I think he will be flip flopping between Con and Lab most seats for a while tbh.
What I think the Fisher model and its changing projections show us is that the Tories are not benefitting from the typical swing back to the party in government on which the model is based. As each week goes by with a broadly stable picture the prospects of the Tories getting the most seats get less because they have a harder hill to climb.
We have now reached the point where the model is indicating Labour as the largest party. Even if the polls remain broadly static that probability will increase with each week that passes. If we are still here in September my guess (I have not done the calculations) is that the model will be indicating a Labour majority.
I suspect there is a lot of spurious accuracy in all of this but the trends he is identifying are undeniable.
I'd be careful about the use of the word "typical" - when looking at the central projection you are looking at the average swing back, which is quite different.
The average swing back is going to appear to be a lot smoother over time than any of the individual swingbacks would do. So what the model is showing is that the Conservatives have not yet achieved a typical swingback and that the time remaining for them to do so is declining, and thus the probability of a typical swingback occurring is reducing - the assumption in the model being that there is a likelihood that any swingback that will occur has already occurred (say between 2012 and now).
So I agree with Richard that the central projection is a distraction in the Fisher Model, and one is best off looking at the range. The range indicates that the election is still wide open for either side to win.
Morning all and frankly its time the Pollsters get used to the apparent fact that the Tories and Labour are +-2% from one another and the silly 7% type leads we tend to see Monday/Tuesday are just MOE froth and dodgy weighting or the lack of weighting in some cases.
I would treat any Scottish IndyRef polls with a pinch of salt until mid August. Scotland is now at the end of 2nd week full scale summer holiday mode.
As Richard Nabavi said yesterday, the amount if YouGov polls compared to others makes that graph misleading
I've also realised there is a further very serious problem with it, specifically in the UKIP line.
The problem is that the 15-day moving average may be heavily affected by whether a given 15-day window happens to include polls by Survation and TNS BMRB, who release polls infrequently and whose UKIP figures are much bigger than YouGov's - for example, on 12 June TNS had 23% against YouGov's 12%. So what looks like a 'drop' in the UKIP moving average might simply reflect the TNS and Survation polls falling out of the figures used to make up the moving average.
This is the kind of reason why the experts don't recommend averaging polls.
Overall, the average lines should be treated with caution. Certainly for evaluating trends, you're better off looking at the trends in different polling companies separately.
Cheers
Is there a set of graphs with a line from each pollster? That would be the best graphic to see the trend for each party it seems
Clearly the all polls chart mirrors the YouGov one very closely.
Excepting for a slight difference* in the Lib Dem vote I can't see anything obviously different in the pattern** of the ICM results since 2010 than the YouGov polls.
* In ICM the Lib Dems decline to ~15% at the beginning of 2011 and then decline gradually over the following years towards ~10%. With YouGov the Lib Dems went straight to 10% at the beginning of 2011 and stayed there.
** The absolute shares are different, but this systematic (methodological) bias appears to be constant in time - with the minor Lib Dem exception.
Sorry Mr P, I missed it as I've been fairly busy on work stuff. I'm moving a factory in the next couple of months and my bank thinks it would be a good idea to stop me having access to my own cash when doing so.
Good luck with the move.
With regards to your bank, have you tried wearing a balaclava? I am told it can be very persuasive.
The good news was that the Bank of England had received 25 applications for retail banking licences this year compared with only 5 last year.
So, thanks to George and Mark, you may even be able to throw away the balaclava soon.
As Richard Nabavi said yesterday, the amount if YouGov polls compared to others makes that graph misleading
I've also realised there is a further very serious problem with it, specifically in the UKIP line.
The problem is that the 15-day moving average may be heavily affected by whether a given 15-day window happens to include polls by Survation and TNS BMRB, who release polls infrequently and whose UKIP figures are much bigger than YouGov's - for example, on 12 June TNS had 23% against YouGov's 12%. So what looks like a 'drop' in the UKIP moving average might simply reflect the TNS and Survation polls falling out of the figures used to make up the moving average.
This is the kind of reason why the experts don't recommend averaging polls.
Overall, the average lines should be treated with caution. Certainly for evaluating trends, you're better off looking at the trends in different polling companies separately.
Cheers
Is there a set of graphs with a line from each pollster? That would be the best graphic to see the trend for each party it seems
Clearly the all polls chart mirrors the YouGov one very closely.
Excepting for a slight difference* in the Lib Dem vote I can't see anything obviously different in the pattern** of the ICM results since 2010 than the YouGov polls.
* In ICM the Lib Dems decline to ~15% at the beginning of 2011 and then decline gradually over the following years towards ~10%. With YouGov the Lib Dems went straight to 10% at the beginning of 2011 and stayed there.
** The absolute shares are different, but this systematic (methodological) bias appears to be constant in time - with the minor Lib Dem exception.
None of those pollsters prompt ukip?
It doesn't look like it, though it's possible Anthony Wells hasn't updated his website following a change in pollster methodology. You'd have to check.
Anyway, main point for me is that I think the overall average line on the wiki page is a reasonably good indication of the general trend in the opinion polls on a broad timescale.
Time for a McCarthyite purge of the lefty luvvie fraternity in London. Capt Picard, are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Labour Party? Baldrick, is it not the case that you were, are, and intend to remain central to the organisation of the outlawed Labour Party?
On topic Yes closer than some polling suggests, a tight race beckons. No is just ahead but events dear boy, events?
As Richard Nabavi said yesterday, the amount if YouGov polls compared to others makes that graph misleading
I've also realised there is a further very serious problem with it, specifically in the UKIP line.
The problem is that the 15-day moving average may be heavily affected by whether a given 15-day window happens to include polls by Survation and TNS BMRB, who release polls infrequently and whose UKIP figures are much bigger than YouGov's - for example, on 12 June TNS had 23% against YouGov's 12%. So what looks like a 'drop' in the UKIP moving average might simply reflect the TNS and Survation polls falling out of the figures used to make up the moving average.
This is the kind of reason why the experts don't recommend averaging polls.
Overall, the average lines should be treated with caution. Certainly for evaluating trends, you're better off looking at the trends in different polling companies separately.
Cheers
Is there a set of graphs with a line from each pollster? That would be the best graphic to see the trend for each party it seems
Clearly the all polls chart mirrors the YouGov one very closely.
Excepting for a slight difference* in the Lib Dem vote I can't see anything obviously different in the pattern** of the ICM results since 2010 than the YouGov polls.
* In ICM the Lib Dems decline to ~15% at the beginning of 2011 and then decline gradually over the following years towards ~10%. With YouGov the Lib Dems went straight to 10% at the beginning of 2011 and stayed there.
** The absolute shares are different, but this systematic (methodological) bias appears to be constant in time - with the minor Lib Dem exception.
The constant gradual decline in LD support also fits their annual May election results (16%, 15%, 13%, 11%).
Electoral Calculus' all polls graph may be preferable to Wikipedia's. They seem to be using a different method.
You're not going to get a share of each individual asset.
What will happen is that there will be a totting up of the value of the assets owned by UK and that total value will be split between iScot and rUK. You would also take on a share of the UK's debt.
In practice, I'd imagine you will get 100% ownership of virtually all UK government assets in Scotland (I'm sure there will some exceptions, but who knows) and a proportionately lower share of assets outside the UK.
If I were iScot, I'd also look seriously at what Iceland does, which is to have a small annex/section of many Danish embassies to avoid the overhead costs of a completely separate facility. But that would be up to you.
If it were me doing it on behalf of rUK I'd also be looking at a per capita split of the UK's oil, so they'd get 8% or so of that.
Ha Ha , so you going to change International law then
No, I'd not change it. It would be Scotland arguing that the oil now belongs to Scotland that would require a change.
And therefore the existing treaties, dating back 50 years or so, that divide the waters of the North Sea between the UK, Norway, Denmark, etc, would remain in force.
None of those accords mention Scotland. None of the oil is Scotland's. It's the UK's, and the UK will still exist, minus the trivial percentage that Scotland represents.
You may have noticed that nobody in the No camp has actually conceded this ludicrous claim that it's Scotland's oil. Why would that be, do you think?
It is Scotland's oil. Mostly.
It is probable not to say certain that the "median line" method of allocation would be used meaning Scotland would receive approx 84% of tax revenues of NSO (or rather, of UK hydrocarbon reserves).
Topping , Correct and when you add Gas it comes out to about 90% for Scotland given English waters have more Gas.
You're not going to get a share of each individual asset.
What will happen is that there will be a totting up of the value of the assets owned by UK and that total value will be split between iScot and rUK. You would also take on a share of the UK's debt.
In practice, I'd imagine you will get 100% ownership of virtually all UK government assets in Scotland (I'm sure there will some exceptions, but who knows) and a proportionately lower share of assets outside the UK.
If I were iScot, I'd also look seriously at what Iceland does, which is to have a small annex/section of many Danish embassies to avoid the overhead costs of a completely separate facility. But that would be up to you.
If it were me doing it on behalf of rUK I'd also be looking at a per capita split of the UK's oil, so they'd get 8% or so of that.
Ha Ha , so you going to change International law then
The SNP are trying to with their "share of UK's embassies" nonsense........
The key metric is the PMIs - because they are quickly collected, have a very broad base, and have been much better at predicting quarterly and annual GDP than monthly swings in retail sales, industrial production, etc.
And they remain broadly positive. Here are the latest Markit Manufacturing PMIs, sorted from best to worst. Remember: 50 or above is economic growth. Below 50 is recession, shrinkage.
UK 57.5 USA 57.3 Ireland 55.3 Spain 54.6 Italy 52.6 Netherlands 52.3 Germany 52.0 Japan 51.5 India 51.5 China 50.7 Poland 50.3 Russia 49.1 Brazil 48.7 South Korea 48.4 France 48.2
As an aside (and patting myself on the back), these are in almost exactly the same order as my GDP forecasts for 2014 I did at the beginning of this year. Said forecasts are looking a lot more accurate than those from the ECB, the World Bank or Goldman Sachs.
Robert
You are articulating the view of the markets and analysts, which I agree is probably correct.
The PMIs tend to overstate trends in national statistics, so more upbeat in times of growth and more downbeat when economies are slowing. This is probably because their surveys are driven by a larger proportion of soft data, e.g. confidence, which can be herdlike rather than data driven.
Still, no cause for panic yet. Just a word of caution.
However, there might be some as-yet unroosted chickens in the way:
But American sources have told me that Mr Miliband's foreign policy stance has not endeared him to the White House - he opposed their position on Palestine at the United Nations and first backed military action in Syria then opposed it.
PJ Crowley, who worked in the Obama administration as Assistant Secretary of State at the US State Department, says there are "some bruises" from how the Syrian crisis played out.
Dyedwoolies top cricket tip England to avoid the follow on, surpass Indias total and having seen Jimmy rip out the top order, fall short of bowling them out in time. Match drawn
You're not going to get a share of each individual asset.
What will happen is that there will be a totting up of the value of the assets owned by UK and that total value will be split between iScot and rUK. You would also take on a share of the UK's debt.
In practice, I'd imagine you will get 100% ownership of virtually all UK government assets in Scotland (I'm sure there will some exceptions, but who knows) and a proportionately lower share of assets outside the UK.
If I were iScot, I'd also look seriously at what Iceland does, which is to have a small annex/section of many Danish embassies to avoid the overhead costs of a completely separate facility. But that would be up to you.
If it were me doing it on behalf of rUK I'd also be looking at a per capita split of the UK's oil, so they'd get 8% or so of that.
Ha Ha , so you going to change International law then
So, the deal is, if it's within rUK territory it's solely an rUK asset?
As any fool would know it is in Scottish waters, it has been debated to death and more than 90% is in Scottish territorial waters. Only idiots question it , ie pg tips and his fondness for bananas, are you his organ grinder.
So it would be Scotland's in the same way that the Falklands are Argentina's, then; because it's quite near even though Argentina arrived in the area long after the UK did. And the other countries bordering the North Sea - UK, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands - would all simply concede this point and agree to amendment of the treaties without taking the opportunity to grab more. Because Scotland, not even an EU member, would be so important to everyone that they'd rather be nice to Scotland than to the UK.
Riiiight. I'm glad we cleared that up.
Go read International laws or just google and you will get many expert opinions on it , only fools are still debating something that was settled years ago. Do you think the unionists keep putting out scary stories about no oil revenue when they think its their money anyway. How many sandwiches short of a picnic are you.
What I think the Fisher model and its changing projections show us is that the Tories are not benefitting from the typical swing back to the party in government on which the model is based. As each week goes by with a broadly stable picture the prospects of the Tories getting the most seats get less because they have a harder hill to climb.
We have now reached the point where the model is indicating Labour as the largest party. Even if the polls remain broadly static that probability will increase with each week that passes. If we are still here in September my guess (I have not done the calculations) is that the model will be indicating a Labour majority.
I suspect there is a lot of spurious accuracy in all of this but the trends he is identifying are undeniable.
I'd be careful about the use of the word "typical" - when looking at the central projection you are looking at the average swing back, which is quite different.
The average swing back is going to appear to be a lot smoother over time than any of the individual swingbacks would do. So what the model is showing is that the Conservatives have not yet achieved a typical swingback and that the time remaining for them to do so is declining, and thus the probability of a typical swingback occurring is reducing - the assumption in the model being that there is a likelihood that any swingback that will occur has already occurred (say between 2012 and now).
So I agree with Richard that the central projection is a distraction in the Fisher Model, and one is best off looking at the range. The range indicates that the election is still wide open for either side to win.
You pick me up for using non technical words like "typical" but then use it yourself!
I also agree with Richard that this is by no means all over. All that is happening at the moment is that the playing field is slowly tilting Labour's way and the model is one of the better examples I have seen of measuring the extent of the slope. From a betting point of view that is worth noting and those who are disregarding it are, in my view, making a mistake.
Our own King of swingback was projecting fairly consistent tory leads by May. That has not happened. I miss Rod's contributions and would be interested to see what his current thinking was. He did well at the last election.
Anyone know if there are any polls due today or whether i can close the UKPR swingometer window that is permanantly on standby for EICIPM purposes
Populus is due this morning.
Fantastic may have to post from Cineworld. That should make me popular lighting up the whole cinema every 5 mins to check the UKPR window is still fully operational.
Cineworld Sheffield? I'm a frequent visitor there, and will be there today.
I've actually written three PB threads from inside that cinema.
I do visit Sheffield about 75% of the time. I am a longstanding UGC/virgin customer, but will be making use of my unlimited card in Nottingham today on my way to see another Derbyshire T20 defeat at Northampton tonight.
Sheffields 6.7. and 8 screens are brilliant and have booked for next weeks secret screening do you know what it is yet? (hopefully Planet of The Apes and not Rolf Harris) Hopefully it will be in the IMAX.
BTW I dislike allocated seating more than I do Michael Gove
I've had my card since the Virgin days.
I'm hoping next weeks showing is Guardians of the Galaxy.
Allocated seating is a pain. What makes it worse is when you have to buy tickets from the food and drinks counter, and you're stuck behind some arse who doesn't know whether to order the nachos or the hot dogs, or asks to see what the sizes the various popcorns bags are.
LET ME BOOK MORE THAN ONE TICKET ONLINE YOU BELL ENDS
However, there might be some as-yet unroosted chickens in the way:
But American sources have told me that Mr Miliband's foreign policy stance has not endeared him to the White House - he opposed their position on Palestine at the United Nations and first backed military action in Syria then opposed it.
PJ Crowley, who worked in the Obama administration as Assistant Secretary of State at the US State Department, says there are "some bruises" from how the Syrian crisis played out.
Let us never forget that the Labour Party were there as the marines stormed Obama beach.
You're not going to get a share of each individual asset.
What will happen is that there will be a totting up of the value of the assets owned by UK and that total value will be split between iScot and rUK. You would also take on a share of the UK's debt.
In practice, I'd imagine you will get 100% ownership of virtually all UK government assets in Scotland (I'm sure there will some exceptions, but who knows) and a proportionately lower share of assets outside the UK.
If I were iScot, I'd also look seriously at what Iceland does, which is to have a small annex/section of many Danish embassies to avoid the overhead costs of a completely separate facility. But that would be up to you.
If it were me doing it on behalf of rUK I'd also be looking at a per capita split of the UK's oil, so they'd get 8% or so of that.
Ha Ha , so you going to change International law then
The SNP are trying to with their "share of UK's embassies" nonsense........
So you think UK keeps all the debt then as it is UK debt.
As Richard Nabavi said yesterday, the amount if YouGov polls compared to others makes that graph misleading
I've also realised there is a further very serious problem with it, specifically in the UKIP line.
The problem is that the 15-day moving average may be heavily affected by whether a given 15-day window happens to include polls by Survation and TNS BMRB, who release polls infrequently and whose UKIP figures are much bigger than YouGov's - for example, on 12 June TNS had 23% against YouGov's 12%. So what looks like a 'drop' in the UKIP moving average might simply reflect the TNS and Survation polls falling out of the figures used to make up the moving average.
This is the kind of reason why the experts don't recommend averaging polls.
Overall, the average lines should be treated with caution. Certainly for evaluating trends, you're better off looking at the trends in different polling companies separately.
Cheers
Is there a set of graphs with a line from each pollster? That would be the best graphic to see the trend for each party it seems
Clearly the all polls chart mirrors the YouGov one very closely.
Excepting for a slight difference* in the Lib Dem vote I can't see anything obviously different in the pattern** of the ICM results since 2010 than the YouGov polls.
* In ICM the Lib Dems decline to ~15% at the beginning of 2011 and then decline gradually over the following years towards ~10%. With YouGov the Lib Dems went straight to 10% at the beginning of 2011 and stayed there.
** The absolute shares are different, but this systematic (methodological) bias appears to be constant in time - with the minor Lib Dem exception.
None of those pollsters prompt ukip?
Here is a chart of YouGov polls over the last 12 months, with the poll shares (including UKIP) expressed as as 10-day moving averages...
However, there might be some as-yet unroosted chickens in the way:
But American sources have told me that Mr Miliband's foreign policy stance has not endeared him to the White House - he opposed their position on Palestine at the United Nations and first backed military action in Syria then opposed it.
PJ Crowley, who worked in the Obama administration as Assistant Secretary of State at the US State Department, says there are "some bruises" from how the Syrian crisis played out.
Let us never forget that the Labour Party were there as the marines stormed Obama beach.
Twas merely a slip of the tongue, to which few are immune imho - however, chasing Omaha through the kitchens was a little desperate for a future PM.
"But he claimed his boss told him that the money was going to a "legitimate" organisation and that the funding was "at the request of Special Branch". "
However, there might be some as-yet unroosted chickens in the way:
But American sources have told me that Mr Miliband's foreign policy stance has not endeared him to the White House - he opposed their position on Palestine at the United Nations and first backed military action in Syria then opposed it.
PJ Crowley, who worked in the Obama administration as Assistant Secretary of State at the US State Department, says there are "some bruises" from how the Syrian crisis played out.
Let us never forget that the Labour Party were there as the marines stormed Obama beach.
Twas merely a slip of the tongue, to which few are immune imho - however, chasing Omaha through the kitchens was a little desperate for a future PM.
And what did he get for it? A couple of Region 1 DVDs out of the remainder bin. Sad old cloth cat.
"But he claimed his boss told him that the money was going to a "legitimate" organisation and that the funding was "at the request of Special Branch". "
This whole thing is going to stoke up the 'they're everywhere!' Brigade Paedogeddon is upon us
2 to 2.5% swing to the Tories in a week. Extrapolated out to GE 2015 = Tories GAIN Glasgow Look at the trend! Look at the trend!
P.s. Obviously I am joking. Tories GAIN only some of Glasgow Tommy Sheridan Gains the rest x
Sadly, I am old enough to remember tory seats in Glasgow. I think Teddy Taylor had the last one.
We were a much more united country when the tories had seats like that and Labour had more than a couple south of London.
No David your memory is failing you! Teddy Taylor was the only seat we lost in Scotland in 1979 because his seat had been cut apart by the boundaries to add chunks of Castlemilk (presumably from Rutherglen). Lord Strathclyde's father Sir Tam Galbraith was the last man standing at Glasgow Hillhead with a 2000+ majority. Ironically the 4 District council seats which made up the parliamentary one were all Tory held and had a combined majority of 6500. Sir Tam died a couple of years later which triggered the Hillhead by-election and Roy Jenkins return to Westminster as SDP MP. The boundaries were changed again before the 1987 election and Roy lost to George Galloway who had benefited from Labour held Kelvingrove being carved up and 2 strong Labour wards being added to Hillhead which by then had almost none of Hillhead in it!
2 to 2.5% swing to the Tories in a week. Extrapolated out to GE 2015 = Tories GAIN Glasgow Look at the trend! Look at the trend!
P.s. Obviously I am joking. Tories GAIN only some of Glasgow Tommy Sheridan Gains the rest x
Sadly, I am old enough to remember tory seats in Glasgow. I think Teddy Taylor had the last one.
We were a much more united country when the tories had seats like that and Labour had more than a couple south of London.
I can remember Edinburgh seats, most of the youth think the Tories only exist in parts of Dumfriesshire. Oh for the glorious renaissance
Malcolm Rifkind in Edinburgh Pentland.
My guess is that there will be tory gains in Scotland next time out but they will be at the periphery, in the boarders (maybe 2 more) and possibly Kincardine.
You're not going to get a share of each individual asset.
What will happen is that there will be a totting up of the value of the assets owned by UK and that total value will be split between iScot and rUK. You would also take on a share of the UK's debt.
In practice, I'd imagine you will get 100% ownership of virtually all UK government assets in Scotland (I'm sure there will some exceptions, but who knows) and a proportionately lower share of assets outside the UK.
If I were iScot, I'd also look seriously at what Iceland does, which is to have a small annex/section of many Danish embassies to avoid the overhead costs of a completely separate facility. But that would be up to you.
If it were me doing it on behalf of rUK I'd also be looking at a per capita split of the UK's oil, so they'd get 8% or so of that.
Ha Ha , so you going to change International law then
The SNP are trying to with their "share of UK's embassies" nonsense........
So you think UK keeps all the debt then as it is UK debt.
No. You haven't been paying attention.....
1. The UK’s fixed property in Scotland (e.g. Government buildings) would become the property of the new Scottish State; conversely Scotland would have no claim on the UK’s fixed property in the rest of the UK or overseas.
2. The UK’s movable property in Scotland would become the property of the new Scottish State where it is specifically for local use.
3. Other assets and liabilities would fall to be apportioned equitably. This may be calculated by such means as share of population or, possibly with regard to the national debt, for example, by share of GDP. Historical contribution appears to be of no relevance: thus UK fixed property in Scotland would become the property of the new Scottish State even if its construction had been paid for UK taxpayers as a whole, and no compensation would be due to the rUK
2 to 2.5% swing to the Tories in a week. Extrapolated out to GE 2015 = Tories GAIN Glasgow Look at the trend! Look at the trend!
P.s. Obviously I am joking. Tories GAIN only some of Glasgow Tommy Sheridan Gains the rest x
Sadly, I am old enough to remember tory seats in Glasgow. I think Teddy Taylor had the last one.
We were a much more united country when the tories had seats like that and Labour had more than a couple south of London.
No David your memory is failing you! Teddy Taylor was the only seat we lost in Scotland in 1979 because his seat had been cut apart by the boundaries to add chunks of Castlemilk (presumably from Rutherglen). Lord Strathclyde's father Sir Tam Galbraith was the last man standing at Glasgow Hillhead with a 2000+ majority. Ironically the 4 District council seats which made up the parliamentary one were all Tory held and had a combined majority of 6500. Sir Tam died a couple of years later which triggered the Hillhead by-election and Roy Jenkins return to Westminster as SDP MP. The boundaries were changed again before the 1987 election and Roy lost to George Galloway who had benefited from Labour held Kelvingrove being carved up and 2 strong Labour wards being added to Hillhead which by then had almost none of Hillhead in it!
I certainly remember Hillhead because I was canvassing there for Woy. We used to ask for a glass of claret in the pub when we had finished which, as I recall, we found a lot funnier than the locals.
2 to 2.5% swing to the Tories in a week. Extrapolated out to GE 2015 = Tories GAIN Glasgow Look at the trend! Look at the trend!
P.s. Obviously I am joking. Tories GAIN only some of Glasgow Tommy Sheridan Gains the rest x
Sadly, I am old enough to remember tory seats in Glasgow. I think Teddy Taylor had the last one.
We were a much more united country when the tories had seats like that and Labour had more than a couple south of London.
I can remember Edinburgh seats, most of the youth think the Tories only exist in parts of Dumfriesshire. Oh for the glorious renaissance
Malcolm Rifkind in Edinburgh Pentland.
My guess is that there will be tory gains in Scotland next time out but they will be at the periphery, in the boarders (maybe 2 more) and possibly Kincardine.
I've got them taking Berwickshire etc, possibly Dumfries and Galloway and in a fight with the SNP for Kincardine. Outside bet on Banff and Buchan if No wins in Sept. Pentlands (SW) probably heading SNP post-Darling, might have a strong Tory second as potential future challenger. That's about your lot though
2 to 2.5% swing to the Tories in a week. Extrapolated out to GE 2015 = Tories GAIN Glasgow Look at the trend! Look at the trend!
P.s. Obviously I am joking. Tories GAIN only some of Glasgow Tommy Sheridan Gains the rest x
Sadly, I am old enough to remember tory seats in Glasgow. I think Teddy Taylor had the last one.
We were a much more united country when the tories had seats like that and Labour had more than a couple south of London.
I can remember Edinburgh seats, most of the youth think the Tories only exist in parts of Dumfriesshire. Oh for the glorious renaissance
Malcolm Rifkind in Edinburgh Pentland.
My guess is that there will be tory gains in Scotland next time out but they will be at the periphery, in the boarders (maybe 2 more) and possibly Kincardine.
I've got them taking Berwickshire etc, possibly Dumfries and Galloway and in a fight with the SNP for Kincardine. Outside bet on Banff and Buchan if No wins in Sept. Pentlands (SW) probably heading SNP post-Darling, might have a strong Tory second as potential future challenger. That's about your lot though
We are in complete agreement although I think Banff and Buchan is a bit of an ask.
2 to 2.5% swing to the Tories in a week. Extrapolated out to GE 2015 = Tories GAIN Glasgow Look at the trend! Look at the trend!
P.s. Obviously I am joking. Tories GAIN only some of Glasgow Tommy Sheridan Gains the rest x
In 2010, FPTP delivered all seven Glasgow seats to Labour with a narrowest majority of 3,898, on a vote share of 56.2% across the city.
D'Hondt PR would have given the SNP and the Lib Dems one seat each, reducing Labour to five, and all four of the main parties in Glasgow - Labour, SNP, Lib Dems and Conservatives - would have had an incentive to actively campaign for votes in Glasgow, either in an attempt to win an extra seat (Labour, SNP and Conservatives) or to defend a seat that they already hold (Labour and Lib Dems).
As it is, the most marginal seat in Glasgow (Glasgow North) is number 103 on Labour's defence list, and not in serious contention at the next election - unless there is a political earthquake.
It would be healthy for British democracy to give the Conservatives a better chance of winning seats in the big northern cities, and similarly for Labour in the southern English shires.
2 to 2.5% swing to the Tories in a week. Extrapolated out to GE 2015 = Tories GAIN Glasgow Look at the trend! Look at the trend!
P.s. Obviously I am joking. Tories GAIN only some of Glasgow Tommy Sheridan Gains the rest x
Sadly, I am old enough to remember tory seats in Glasgow. I think Teddy Taylor had the last one.
We were a much more united country when the tories had seats like that and Labour had more than a couple south of London.
I can remember Edinburgh seats, most of the youth think the Tories only exist in parts of Dumfriesshire. Oh for the glorious renaissance
Malcolm Rifkind in Edinburgh Pentland.
My guess is that there will be tory gains in Scotland next time out but they will be at the periphery, in the boarders (maybe 2 more) and possibly Kincardine.
I've got them taking Berwickshire etc, possibly Dumfries and Galloway and in a fight with the SNP for Kincardine. Outside bet on Banff and Buchan if No wins in Sept. Pentlands (SW) probably heading SNP post-Darling, might have a strong Tory second as potential future challenger. That's about your lot though
We are in complete agreement although I think Banff and Buchan is a bit of an ask.
That's why it's an outside bet! It swung big when Salmond left, it's a big heave, but if they can get traction from Kincardine next door and surge on a No vote......
OT Dangerous Logs Act: The UK now seems to be trying to give themselves the rights to demand data to be retained by anyone in the world, anywhere in the world, regardless whether it's connected to the UK, if the Home Secretary thinks it might be useful to the economic interests of the UK.
It's bad enough the US trying to make its laws apply to the rest of the world, are all the other countries going to get on the bandwagon as well? Between all governments mandating what we have to store and all the governments mandating for what we're not allowed to store, I don't see how anybody who holds personal data is ever going to get any work done.
The way to deal with this stuff is for everyone to build all their services so that everything is either completely anonymous or radically transparent, then you can write a privacy policy like mine: https://www.realitykeys.com/privacy
2 to 2.5% swing to the Tories in a week. Extrapolated out to GE 2015 = Tories GAIN Glasgow Look at the trend! Look at the trend!
P.s. Obviously I am joking. Tories GAIN only some of Glasgow Tommy Sheridan Gains the rest x
In 2010, FPTP delivered all seven Glasgow seats to Labour with a narrowest majority of 3,898, on a vote share of 56.2% across the city.
D'Hondt PR would have given the SNP and the Lib Dems one seat each, reducing Labour to five, and all four of the main parties in Glasgow - Labour, SNP, Lib Dems and Conservatives - would have had an incentive to actively campaign for votes in Glasgow, either in an attempt to win an extra seat (Labour, SNP and Conservatives) or to defend a seat that they already hold (Labour and Lib Dems).
As it is, the most marginal seat in Glasgow (Glasgow North) is number 103 on Labour's defence list, and not in serious contention at the next election - unless there is a political earthquake.
It would be healthy for British democracy to give the Conservatives a better chance of winning seats in the big northern cities, and similarly for Labour in the southern English shires.
You're not going to get a share of each individual asset.
What will happen is that there will be a totting up of the value of the assets owned by UK and that total value will be split between iScot and rUK. You would also take on a share of the UK's debt.
In practice, I'd imagine you will get 100% ownership of virtually all UK government assets in Scotland (I'm sure there will some exceptions, but who knows) and a proportionately lower share of assets outside the UK.
If I were iScot, I'd also look seriously at what Iceland does, which is to have a small annex/section of many Danish embassies to avoid the overhead costs of a completely separate facility. But that would be up to you.
If it were me doing it on behalf of rUK I'd also be looking at a per capita split of the UK's oil, so they'd get 8% or so of that.
Ha Ha , so you going to change International law then
The SNP are trying to with their "share of UK's embassies" nonsense........
So you think UK keeps all the debt then as it is UK debt.
No. You haven't been paying attention.....
1. The UK’s fixed property in Scotland (e.g. Government buildings) would become the property of the new Scottish State; conversely Scotland would have no claim on the UK’s fixed property in the rest of the UK or overseas.
2. The UK’s movable property in Scotland would become the property of the new Scottish State where it is specifically for local use.
3. Other assets and liabilities would fall to be apportioned equitably. This may be calculated by such means as share of population or, possibly with regard to the national debt, for example, by share of GDP. Historical contribution appears to be of no relevance: thus UK fixed property in Scotland would become the property of the new Scottish State even if its construction had been paid for UK taxpayers as a whole, and no compensation would be due to the rUK
Things look desperate when it's posted down thread that big, brave Scotland will muddle through by borrowing a desk in the Danish embassy - backs up the reality that Salmond's vision of endless riches is all a big lie, and cash will be in short supply. Like most of what he's saying.
I'm engaged in a twitter debate with Dan Hodges, saying why I think Ed will be PM next year.
Ed and his red liberal crutch, hobbling along into second world obscurity and outright poverty for the nation. Something for us all to look forward to.
You're not going to get a share of each individual asset.
What will happen is that there will be a totting up of the value of the assets owned by UK and that total value will be split between iScot and rUK. You would also take on a share of the UK's debt.
In practice, I'd imagine you will get 100% ownership of virtually all UK government assets in Scotland (I'm sure there will some exceptions, but who knows) and a proportionately lower share of assets outside the UK.
If I were iScot, I'd also look seriously at what Iceland does, which is to have a small annex/section of many Danish embassies to avoid the overhead costs of a completely separate facility. But that would be up to you.
If it were me doing it on behalf of rUK I'd also be looking at a per capita split of the UK's oil, so they'd get 8% or so of that.
Ha Ha , so you going to change International law then
The SNP are trying to with their "share of UK's embassies" nonsense........
So you think UK keeps all the debt then as it is UK debt.
No. You haven't been paying attention.....
1. The UK’s fixed property in Scotland (e.g. Government buildings) would become the property of the new Scottish State; conversely Scotland would have no claim on the UK’s fixed property in the rest of the UK or overseas.
2. The UK’s movable property in Scotland would become the property of the new Scottish State where it is specifically for local use.
3. Other assets and liabilities would fall to be apportioned equitably. This may be calculated by such means as share of population or, possibly with regard to the national debt, for example, by share of GDP. Historical contribution appears to be of no relevance: thus UK fixed property in Scotland would become the property of the new Scottish State even if its construction had been paid for UK taxpayers as a whole, and no compensation would be due to the rUK
Things look desperate when it's posted down thread that big, brave Scotland will muddle through by borrowing a desk in the Danish embassy - backs up the reality that Salmond's vision of endless riches is all a big lie, and cash will be in short supply. Like most of what he's saying.
If they do a big old Estonian-style digital identity scheme, and some proper efficient online consular services, it's not obvious that they'd even need the desk.
Have to say that the fact he relies so heavily on the Westminster consensus for his views makes me confident he is wrong.
Do you have a forecast for the next GE ?
What are your (main) bets/positions at this point out of interest.
Couple of hundred on ukip over 10% at 6/4 Same on ukip to bt LD same price £125@16 Thurrock £100@20 South Bas and e Thurrock Also backed Telford Dudley a few others I can't remember
Lab 772 31.5% plus 2.6% Con 719 29.3% plus 1.6% UKIP 622 25.4% plus 0.1% Ind 338 13.8% minus 4.3%
Changes are from May 2014
Torridge DC Kenwith Con hold
Con 136 UKIP 99 Ind 98 Ind 69 Green 28 Lab 26
That was a fast election, did a counsellor die ?
Yes the Labour councillor elected in 2012 died , Penistone West had been a safe Conservative ward and still managed to win it in 2011 by over 500 votes
Sugar just worked out if Labour dont get most seats I lose over £1100 if they do get most seats win about £1060. No more betting allowed. Really need to learn to lay but my heart rules. 9 months 27 days to lay!!!
Our own King of swingback was projecting fairly consistent tory leads by May. That has not happened. I miss Rod's contributions and would be interested to see what his current thinking was. He did well at the last election.
I said I expected "crossover" by May, meaning, as I soon clarified, at least some Tory polling leads. TICK
I also said it would be "nip and tuck" thereafter until January 2015, when the Tories would start to draw clearly ahead. Let's wait and see how accurate that is...
I certainly remember Hillhead because I was canvassing there for Woy. We used to ask for a glass of claret in the pub when we had finished which, as I recall, we found a lot funnier than the locals.
Plenty of claret available in Hillhead, even in '82. Whether it was Woy quality is another matter.
"But he claimed his boss told him that the money was going to a "legitimate" organisation and that the funding was "at the request of Special Branch". "
This whole thing is going to stoke up the 'they're everywhere!' Brigade Paedogeddon is upon us
Maybe. I think it'll look more like there is one law for the political class and another one for everyone else.
edit: like for every one child-molesting MP or VIP there's 100 people covering up for them.
Labourites should enjoy whilst they may Stephen Fisher's latest projection of a 1 seat Labour lead over the Tories at the next GE (296 vs 295), calculated by reference to UKPR's latest average polling results which shows Labour as having a 5% lead (36% vs 31%). These figures already look out of date with YouGov and Populus showing Labour leads of 3% and 2% respectively this morning, compared with a 7% Labour lead shown by both these pollsters earlier in the week.
Based on his updated projection, Prof. Fisher estimates that even with Labour's improved showing, there is a 52% probability of a hung parliament after the next General Election, equivalent to decimal odds of 1.92. This compares with odds of 5/4 or 2.25 decimal available from those nice people at SkyBet and BETFRED. That's a 35% better ROI than is currently indicated by Prof. Fisher's numbers ..... this looks like value to me but DYOR.
Sugar just worked out if Labour dont get most seats I lose over £1100 if they do get most seats win about £1060. No more betting allowed. Really need to learn to lay but my heart rules. 9 months 27 days to lay!!!
Good job Mrs BJO thinks I have about £50 on the election
BJO Reporting live from Cineworld film about to start
2 to 2.5% swing to the Tories in a week. Extrapolated out to GE 2015 = Tories GAIN Glasgow Look at the trend! Look at the trend!
P.s. Obviously I am joking. Tories GAIN only some of Glasgow Tommy Sheridan Gains the rest x
Sadly, I am old enough to remember tory seats in Glasgow. I think Teddy Taylor had the last one.
We were a much more united country when the tories had seats like that and Labour had more than a couple south of London.
No David your memory is failing you! Teddy Taylor was the only seat we lost in Scotland in 1979 because his seat had been cut apart by the boundaries to add chunks of Castlemilk (presumably from Rutherglen). Lord Strathclyde's father Sir Tam Galbraith was the last man standing at Glasgow Hillhead with a 2000+ majority. Ironically the 4 District council seats which made up the parliamentary one were all Tory held and had a combined majority of 6500. Sir Tam died a couple of years later which triggered the Hillhead by-election and Roy Jenkins return to Westminster as SDP MP. The boundaries were changed again before the 1987 election and Roy lost to George Galloway who had benefited from Labour held Kelvingrove being carved up and 2 strong Labour wards being added to Hillhead which by then had almost none of Hillhead in it!
I certainly remember Hillhead because I was canvassing there for Woy. We used to ask for a glass of claret in the pub when we had finished which, as I recall, we found a lot funnier than the locals.
So you were responsible for keeping Gerry Malone out of parliament?
"The way to deal with this stuff is for everyone to build all their services so that everything is either completely anonymous or radically transparent, then you can write a privacy policy like mine:"
Isn't it a bit difficult for an ISP not to hold data about its customers? After all they need to know who they have to take the money from each month.
The last line of your privacy policy doesn't seem very strong to me. You may give such data as you hold to law enforcement agencies if they request it? Just request? They can simply ask and you might or might not hand over the data. Doesn't seem too robust to me. That you hold only the IP address would be sufficient for tracking purposes, the rest will come from other sources. However, all that said the chances of a law enforcement agency caring about someone visiting your site or using your services must be as close to zero as it it possible to get (cue argument about infinitesimals from the PB pendant tendency).
Labourites should enjoy whilst they may Stephen Fisher's latest projection of a 1 seat Labour lead over the Tories at the next GE (296 vs 295), calculated by reference to UKPR's latest average polling results which shows Labour as having a 5% lead (36% vs 31%). These figures already look out of date with YouGov and Populus showing Labour leads of 3% and 2% respectively this morning, compared with a 7% Labour lead shown by both these pollsters earlier in the week.
Based on his updated projection, Prof. Fisher estimates that even with Labour's improved showing, there is a 52% probability of a hung parliament after the next General Election, equivalent to decimal odds of 1.92. This compares with odds of 5/4 or 2.25 decimal available from those nice people at SkyBet and BETFRED. That's a 35% better ROI than is currently indicated by Prof. Fisher's numbers ..... this looks like value to me but DYOR.
FPT - Peter, it was I who tipped Lord Howard at 25/1
Have to say that the fact he relies so heavily on the Westminster consensus for his views makes me confident he is wrong.
I think he is probably right. My only quibble with his analysis is that he doesn't allow enough uncertainty. It's not as sure as he says, but, as a central forecast, his points are very well made.
Put it this way: I would be really quite surprised (though not gobsmacked) if the final result shows a Labour lead of 3% or more, as recent UKPR averages indicate.
Our own King of swingback was projecting fairly consistent tory leads by May. That has not happened. I miss Rod's contributions and would be interested to see what his current thinking was. He did well at the last election.
I said I expected "crossover" by May, meaning, as I soon clarified, at least some Tory polling leads. TICK
I also said it would be "nip and tuck" thereafter until January 2015, when the Tories would start to draw clearly ahead. Let's wait and see how accurate that is...
Our own King of swingback was projecting fairly consistent tory leads by May. That has not happened. I miss Rod's contributions and would be interested to see what his current thinking was. He did well at the last election.
Yes, that's correct.
So long as Labour are on average, about 3% or so ahead of the Conservatives, we can expect to see an occasional poll putting the Conservatives ahead.
"The way to deal with this stuff is for everyone to build all their services so that everything is either completely anonymous or radically transparent, then you can write a privacy policy like mine:"
Isn't it a bit difficult for an ISP not to hold data about its customers? After all they need to know who they have to take the money from each month.
This is why we need better payment systems. Fortunately, however, there's some progress in this area...
The last line of your privacy policy doesn't seem very strong to me. You may give such data as you hold to law enforcement agencies if they request it? Just request? They can simply ask and you might or might not hand over the data. Doesn't seem too robust to me. That you hold only the IP address would be sufficient for tracking purposes, the rest will come from other sources. However, all that said the chances of a law enforcement agency caring about someone visiting your site or using your services must be as close to zero as it it possible to get (cue argument about infinitesimals from the PB pendant tendency).
In theory you could use this thing to help fund a crowd-sourced assassination that law enforcement would legitimately want to get to the bottom of in a hurry, so yeah, potentially just request it. But the logic of what I'm saying is that maybe we'd all be better off if everybody just published the sodding IP addresses of people who visited our sites, instead giving the illusion of privacy by restricting them to an ever-increasing group of insiders and their friends and family.
Why is anyone taking seriously the forecasts of Prof Fisher ?
Because (although they are NOT forecasts), they are extremely useful in assessing the degree to which opinion polling this far out from the election should be relied upon as predicting the final result, and (although this is less important) the direction in which the polls are likely to shift.
The crucial point is this: current polls shouldn't be relied upon too much, which is why his error bars on the Con vote share are plus or minus 7.7%.
By way of comparison, ICM's poll of July 2009 had Con 41%, Lab 27%, LD 20%; YouGov were reporting 40/24/17 around this time. Those 14-point or 16-point leads turned into a 7-point lead in the actual result. We should not be surprised to see that kind of shift this time around; such variability is normal.
I also came across this PoliticsHome prediction based on a detailed poll of marginals, sample size 35,000, released in October 2009:
Still attempting to explain the concept of time, it's amazing so many people have trouble with it. Swing back is happening in the sense Labour is dropping, it is just its UKIP are the beneficiaries. Fascinating to see what happens in the next few months.
A lot of the long term indicators, excepting Great Britain, are weakening, blip or a new trend, perhaps the recent decline in commodities will help it to be just a blip. Of course even better would be for the Europeans to finally do something about their holed below the water banking system, the sovereign debt burden also needs remedying seeing as its unsustainable.
Labourites should enjoy whilst they may Stephen Fisher's latest projection of a 1 seat Labour lead over the Tories at the next GE (296 vs 295), calculated by reference to UKPR's latest average polling results which shows Labour as having a 5% lead (36% vs 31%). These figures already look out of date with YouGov and Populus showing Labour leads of 3% and 2% respectively this morning, compared with a 7% Labour lead shown by both these pollsters earlier in the week.
Based on his updated projection, Prof. Fisher estimates that even with Labour's improved showing, there is a 52% probability of a hung parliament after the next General Election, equivalent to decimal odds of 1.92. This compares with odds of 5/4 or 2.25 decimal available from those nice people at SkyBet and BETFRED. That's a 35% better ROI than is currently indicated by Prof. Fisher's numbers ..... this looks like value to me but DYOR.
FPT - Peter, it was I who tipped Lord Howard at 25/1
Labourites should enjoy whilst they may Stephen Fisher's latest projection of a 1 seat Labour lead over the Tories at the next GE (296 vs 295), calculated by reference to UKPR's latest average polling results which shows Labour as having a 5% lead (36% vs 31%). These figures already look out of date with YouGov and Populus showing Labour leads of 3% and 2% respectively this morning, compared with a 7% Labour lead shown by both these pollsters earlier in the week.
Based on his updated projection, Prof. Fisher estimates that even with Labour's improved showing, there is a 52% probability of a hung parliament after the next General Election, equivalent to decimal odds of 1.92. This compares with odds of 5/4 or 2.25 decimal available from those nice people at SkyBet and BETFRED. That's a 35% better ROI than is currently indicated by Prof. Fisher's numbers ..... this looks like value to me but DYOR.
FPT - Peter, it was I who tipped Lord Howard at 25/1
Many congratulations TSE, I bow before you. I actually had a couple of quid on myself, so fingers crossed!
Put it this way: I would be really quite surprised (though not gobsmacked) if the final result shows a Labour lead of 3% or more, as recent UKPR averages indicate.
Quite. Pulpstar may be busy laying Tory majority but it looks more likely than a Labour one from here. I'm +++green NOM and ---red Lab Maj, with Tory maj flattish.
Our own King of swingback was projecting fairly consistent tory leads by May. That has not happened. I miss Rod's contributions and would be interested to see what his current thinking was. He did well at the last election.
I said I expected "crossover" by May, meaning, as I soon clarified, at least some Tory polling leads. TICK
I also said it would be "nip and tuck" thereafter until January 2015, when the Tories would start to draw clearly ahead. Let's wait and see how accurate that is...
Thanks Rod. I have missed your posts recently. I hope you are right.
I certainly remember Hillhead because I was canvassing there for Woy. We used to ask for a glass of claret in the pub when we had finished which, as I recall, we found a lot funnier than the locals.
Plenty of claret available in Hillhead, even in '82. Whether it was Woy quality is another matter.
No it really wasn't (although as a trainee solicitor at the time I really didn't know any better).
Put it this way: I would be really quite surprised (though not gobsmacked) if the final result shows a Labour lead of 3% or more, as recent UKPR averages indicate.
Quite. Pulpstar may be busy laying Tory majority but it looks more likely than a Labour one from here. I'm +++green NOM and ---red Lab Maj, with Tory maj flattish.
I've also been laying a Tory Majority, because of this
Other interesting thing about the emergency law: It seems to make Mike into a telecommunications service. Hopefully parliament will fully consider the implications of this in its extensive three-day-long scrutiny process.
Comments
So pleased to see you. I was getting worried.
Did you see my post on banking licences?
It contained a personal dedication.
You don't see nearly as large a difference in the Lord Ashcroft Polls.
That's a curious difference between the online and phone polls.
He has a good track record at developing electoral forecasting models.
The crucial point is this: current polls shouldn't be relied upon too much, which is why his error bars on the Con vote share are plus or minus 7.7%.
By way of comparison, ICM's poll of July 2009 had Con 41%, Lab 27%, LD 20%; YouGov were reporting 40/24/17 around this time. Those 14-point or 16-point leads turned into a 7-point lead in the actual result. We should not be surprised to see that kind of shift this time around; such variability is normal.
I also came across this PoliticsHome prediction based on a detailed poll of marginals, sample size 35,000, released in October 2009:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2295
Con Maj 70.
Caveat punters.
Sorry Mr P, I missed it as I've been fairly busy on work stuff. I'm moving a factory in the next couple of months and my bank thinks it would be a good idea to stop me having access to my own cash when doing so.
Last price matched for "Any other majority" (Basically UKIP is 64-1 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Bonkers.
And therefore the existing treaties, dating back 50 years or so, that divide the waters of the North Sea between the UK, Norway, Denmark, etc, would remain in force.
None of those accords mention Scotland. None of the oil is Scotland's. It's the UK's, and the UK will still exist, minus the trivial percentage that Scotland represents.
You may have noticed that nobody in the No camp has actually conceded this ludicrous claim that it's Scotland's oil. Why would that be, do you think?
It is probable not to say certain that the "median line" method of allocation would be used meaning Scotland would receive approx 84% of tax revenues of NSO (or rather, of UK hydrocarbon reserves).
We have now reached the point where the model is indicating Labour as the largest party. Even if the polls remain broadly static that probability will increase with each week that passes. If we are still here in September my guess (I have not done the calculations) is that the model will be indicating a Labour majority.
I suspect there is a lot of spurious accuracy in all of this but the trends he is identifying are undeniable.
Riiiight. I'm glad we cleared that up.
YouGov
ICM
Populus
Clearly the all polls chart mirrors the YouGov one very closely.
Excepting for a slight difference* in the Lib Dem vote I can't see anything obviously different in the pattern** of the ICM results since 2010 than the YouGov polls.
* In ICM the Lib Dems decline to ~15% at the beginning of 2011 and then decline gradually over the following years towards ~10%. With YouGov the Lib Dems went straight to 10% at the beginning of 2011 and stayed there.
** The absolute shares are different, but this systematic (methodological) bias appears to be constant in time - with the minor Lib Dem exception.
Using the numbers given by Populus to go beyond the rounding:
Cons: 33.88
LAB: 35.62
LDems: 8.4
UKIP: 12.39
Green: 4.5
The average swing back is going to appear to be a lot smoother over time than any of the individual swingbacks would do. So what the model is showing is that the Conservatives have not yet achieved a typical swingback and that the time remaining for them to do so is declining, and thus the probability of a typical swingback occurring is reducing - the assumption in the model being that there is a likelihood that any swingback that will occur has already occurred (say between 2012 and now).
So I agree with Richard that the central projection is a distraction in the Fisher Model, and one is best off looking at the range. The range indicates that the election is still wide open for either side to win.
I would treat any Scottish IndyRef polls with a pinch of salt until mid August. Scotland is now at the end of 2nd week full scale summer holiday mode.
Extrapolated out to GE 2015 = Tories GAIN Glasgow
Look at the trend! Look at the trend!
P.s. Obviously I am joking. Tories GAIN only some of Glasgow
Tommy Sheridan Gains the rest x
Sorry Mr P, I missed it as I've been fairly busy on work stuff. I'm moving a factory in the next couple of months and my bank thinks it would be a good idea to stop me having access to my own cash when doing so.
Good luck with the move.
With regards to your bank, have you tried wearing a balaclava? I am told it can be very persuasive.
The good news was that the Bank of England had received 25 applications for retail banking licences this year compared with only 5 last year.
So, thanks to George and Mark, you may even be able to throw away the balaclava soon.
Anyway, main point for me is that I think the overall average line on the wiki page is a reasonably good indication of the general trend in the opinion polls on a broad timescale.
Capt Picard, are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Labour Party?
Baldrick, is it not the case that you were, are, and intend to remain central to the organisation of the outlawed Labour Party?
On topic
Yes closer than some polling suggests, a tight race beckons. No is just ahead but events dear boy, events?
Electoral Calculus' all polls graph may be preferable to Wikipedia's. They seem to be using a different method.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/polls_full.html
2 months 17 days
You are articulating the view of the markets and analysts, which I agree is probably correct.
The PMIs tend to overstate trends in national statistics, so more upbeat in times of growth and more downbeat when economies are slowing. This is probably because their surveys are driven by a larger proportion of soft data, e.g. confidence, which can be herdlike rather than data driven.
Still, no cause for panic yet. Just a word of caution.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28261524
However, there might be some as-yet unroosted chickens in the way:
But American sources have told me that Mr Miliband's foreign policy stance has not endeared him to the White House - he opposed their position on Palestine at the United Nations and first backed military action in Syria then opposed it.
PJ Crowley, who worked in the Obama administration as Assistant Secretary of State at the US State Department, says there are "some bruises" from how the Syrian crisis played out.
England to avoid the follow on, surpass Indias total and having seen Jimmy rip out the top order, fall short of bowling them out in time.
Match drawn
I also agree with Richard that this is by no means all over. All that is happening at the moment is that the playing field is slowly tilting Labour's way and the model is one of the better examples I have seen of measuring the extent of the slope. From a betting point of view that is worth noting and those who are disregarding it are, in my view, making a mistake.
Our own King of swingback was projecting fairly consistent tory leads by May. That has not happened. I miss Rod's contributions and would be interested to see what his current thinking was. He did well at the last election.
I'm a rebel I am...
We were a much more united country when the tories had seats like that and Labour had more than a couple south of London.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/l3qd0bpifyuz6i7/10_Poll-100714.jpg
Oh for the glorious renaissance
"But he claimed his boss told him that the money was going to a "legitimate" organisation and that the funding was "at the request of Special Branch". "
Sad old cloth cat.
I am glad that Scotland will remain in the union and coming round to the idea of PM Miliband. The electotate usually get it right!
Paedogeddon is upon us
My guess is that there will be tory gains in Scotland next time out but they will be at the periphery, in the boarders (maybe 2 more) and possibly Kincardine.
1. The UK’s fixed property in Scotland (e.g. Government buildings) would become the property of the new Scottish State; conversely Scotland would have no claim on the UK’s fixed property in the rest of the UK or overseas.
2. The UK’s movable property in Scotland would become the property of the new Scottish State where it is specifically for local use.
3. Other assets and liabilities would fall to be apportioned equitably. This may be calculated by such means as share of population or, possibly with regard to the national debt, for example, by share of GDP. Historical contribution appears to be of no relevance: thus UK fixed property in Scotland would become the property of the new Scottish State even if its construction had been paid for UK taxpayers as a whole, and no compensation would be due to the rUK
But what does a Scottish Law Professor know?
http://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/the-hidden-costs-of-independence/
I certainly remember Hillhead because I was canvassing there for Woy. We used to ask for a glass of claret in the pub when we had finished which, as I recall, we found a lot funnier than the locals.
Pentlands (SW) probably heading SNP post-Darling, might have a strong Tory second as potential future challenger.
That's about your lot though
You can't ignore the evidence: Labour are still going to lose the next election
http://tinyurl.com/lt3g823
D'Hondt PR would have given the SNP and the Lib Dems one seat each, reducing Labour to five, and all four of the main parties in Glasgow - Labour, SNP, Lib Dems and Conservatives - would have had an incentive to actively campaign for votes in Glasgow, either in an attempt to win an extra seat (Labour, SNP and Conservatives) or to defend a seat that they already hold (Labour and Lib Dems).
As it is, the most marginal seat in Glasgow (Glasgow North) is number 103 on Labour's defence list, and not in serious contention at the next election - unless there is a political earthquake.
It would be healthy for British democracy to give the Conservatives a better chance of winning seats in the big northern cities, and similarly for Labour in the southern English shires.
It swung big when Salmond left, it's a big heave, but if they can get traction from Kincardine next door and surge on a No vote......
http://tinyurl.com/lt3g823
It's bad enough the US trying to make its laws apply to the rest of the world, are all the other countries going to get on the bandwagon as well? Between all governments mandating what we have to store and all the governments mandating for what we're not allowed to store, I don't see how anybody who holds personal data is ever going to get any work done.
The way to deal with this stuff is for everyone to build all their services so that everything is either completely anonymous or radically transparent, then you can write a privacy policy like mine:
https://www.realitykeys.com/privacy
I'm engaged in a twitter debate with Dan Hodges, saying why I think Ed will be PM next year.
Have to say that the fact he relies so heavily on the Westminster consensus for his views makes me confident he is wrong.
What are your (main) bets/positions at this point out of interest.
Lab 772 31.5% plus 2.6%
Con 719 29.3% plus 1.6%
UKIP 622 25.4% plus 0.1%
Ind 338 13.8% minus 4.3%
Changes are from May 2014
Torridge DC Kenwith Con hold
Con 136 UKIP 99 Ind 98 Ind 69 Green 28 Lab 26
Same on ukip to bt LD same price
£125@16 Thurrock
£100@20 South Bas and e Thurrock
Also backed Telford Dudley a few others I can't remember
I also said it would be "nip and tuck" thereafter until January 2015, when the Tories would start to draw clearly ahead. Let's wait and see how accurate that is...
edit: like for every one child-molesting MP or VIP there's 100 people covering up for them.
Based on his updated projection, Prof. Fisher estimates that even with Labour's improved showing, there is a 52% probability of a hung parliament after the next General Election, equivalent to decimal odds of 1.92. This compares with odds of 5/4 or 2.25 decimal available from those nice people at SkyBet and BETFRED. That's a 35% better ROI than is currently indicated by Prof. Fisher's numbers ..... this looks like value to me but DYOR.
BJO Reporting live from Cineworld film about to start
Well done you, many Tories thank you for that.
Isn't it a bit difficult for an ISP not to hold data about its customers? After all they need to know who they have to take the money from each month.
The last line of your privacy policy doesn't seem very strong to me. You may give such data as you hold to law enforcement agencies if they request it? Just request? They can simply ask and you might or might not hand over the data. Doesn't seem too robust to me. That you hold only the IP address would be sufficient for tracking purposes, the rest will come from other sources. However, all that said the chances of a law enforcement agency caring about someone visiting your site or using your services must be as close to zero as it it possible to get (cue argument about infinitesimals from the PB pendant tendency).
Who wants to drink claret when most scottish pubs have an impressive array of malts in quarter gill sizes at v. reasonable prices...
Bit like going to Gauchos and ordering the fish
Put it this way: I would be really quite surprised (though not gobsmacked) if the final result shows a Labour lead of 3% or more, as recent UKPR averages indicate.
Ukip I reckon will get 2 or 3 and about 13%
A lot of the long term indicators, excepting Great Britain, are weakening, blip or a new trend, perhaps the recent decline in commodities will help it to be just a blip. Of course even better would be for the Europeans to finally do something about their holed below the water banking system, the sovereign debt burden also needs remedying seeing as its unsustainable.
Why David Cameron should send Theresa May to Brussels
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100279597/why-david-cameron-should-send-theresa-may-to-brussels/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/08/22/history-suggests-the-tories-will-see-their-share-of-the-vote-decline-in-2015-2/
http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2014/07/11/drip-drip-drip-the-emergency-surveillance-law-erodes-our-civil-liberties/