Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » NO moves up 4 to take a 14% lead in latest ICM Scottish Ind
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » NO moves up 4 to take a 14% lead in latest ICM Scottish IndyRef YES poll
There’s further polling confirmation this morning that support for a YES vote in the Scottish Independence referendum on September 18th is stalling with the July survey of voters north of the border by ICM for Scotland on Sunday.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
At the moment, the gap between the second party and the third is still sufficiently large for the two-party game to remain in place as far as Westminster is concerned but if Labour does win and starts upsetting its 2015 voters? We've seen from the Lib Dems how voters can react if they feel betrayed by the party they voted for. 6-8% of Labour's *current* support is from exactly that source: take them away and you're down to the mid-twenties before you even get to more natural Labour support. Add in deficit reduction, cuts and the other challenges of office and you can comfortably knock off the same again for a mid-term score. That simply won't be enough to keep them in the first division.
40% - 45% Yes Vote ....... Stake 58% at 9/4 (3.25 decimal)
35% - 40% Tes Vote ....... Stake 42% at 7/2 (4.50 decimal)
To me, at least, this appears a safer proposition than betting above or below the Yes Vote line, pitched by the bookies at between 42.5% - 43.5% which provides winning odds similar to those above, but as ever DYOR.
2 days 1 hour 30 minutes
TheSunday Times :
"Police probe Fifa over $100m scam"
Are the top Honchos within that organisation simply untouchable?
Talk about Teflon, ducks' backs, etc., these guys are simply in a different league.
The (until recent) decline in Labour support does not mirror, but seems compatible with UKIP's ascent, whereas their recent uptick seems to mirror a decline in LibDem support.
Conservative support has waxed and waned over 12 months, but has otherwise had a consistency. Much of the waxing and waning seems to mirror the UKIP equivalent.
I am guessing that the recent fall off in UKIP support reflects the party being out of the limelight of late.
5-poll chart...
http://www.mediafire.com/view/j1hjxih417zpyu8/5-Poll_130714.jpg
10-poll chart...
http://www.mediafire.com/view/kr2bx5anbqshkn3/10-Poll_130714.jpg
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/margaret-thatcher-personally-covered-up-3848836
"The Tory Prime Minister is said to have held a meeting with a rising star, who was tipped for promotion, and told him: “You have to clean up your sexual act”"
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/victims-alleged-child-abuse-raped-3848589
"Victims of alleged child abuse 'raped by MPs in exclusive flats near House of Commons'"
Ed is crap is PM. Every poll in June and July has EICIPM 9.75 months to go.
Betfair Lab most seats shortening from 1.95 to 1.88. Price on Ed is crap is next PM is evs. on Betfair
The titular head at least should be one of the people who've been pushing for this like Stuart Syvret from Jersey or the ex-plod who did the investigating for the Saville documentaries.
What we don't yet know is if ICM have changed their methodology to introduce a "Shy No" upweighting of the No figure.
Hard to see Yes winning. But, other polls (well, one at least) has No with a much smaller lead. It's not a done deal.
FPT: Mr. Toms, sounds like an interesting book.
Mr. Freggles, cheers for that answer.
IMHO for NO - because voting to leave is a positive affirmative act. 'Don't know' is a passive indecisive nothingness.
Betting PostBacked Karlovic to beat Hewitt 2-0 in the Hall of Fame Tennis Championships at 3.5 (Betfair).
Had initially planned to back him for the win at evens, but upon checking saw that every time he's beaten Hewitt (against whom he has a 4:1 record) in a best of three match he's done so without dropping a seat. His recent history shows very few instances of winning whilst dropping sets as well.
It will be interesting to see if the figure shrinks, closer to the actual vote. Perhaps PfP is correct in that quite a few don't care, rather than don't know.
It looks like large wads of notes have recently been slapped down.
That's really what "Don't Know" is this case: sympathetic to the concept, but the SNP really haven't managed to make a convincing case.
Not unlike betting, a nice aspect of politics is that there's (usually) a clear result, one way or the other.
It's just people unwilling to face the truth; the polling is legion and the results failry static, "no" retains a solid lead.
The polls are the polls.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/13/labour-peer-letters-boy-questions
A "witch hunt"........
In the context of cover up allegations.......
Yes backer can have 7/1 on 50-55% which seems better value than 9/2 on Yes. In the unlikely event of a yes win it would surely fall into this band.
I am already deep in the Lab most seats all at 1.91 to 1.95 so not tempted by the £11
She was not amused, but even though I've stopped drinking in the meantime (and long before pb.com was thought of) I would say the same thing to-day.
Polling only looks easy.
No wonder she wasn't pleased.
Is this how you conduct life generally, telling other people that either they are wrong and/or how to do it right?
If it is, i'll bet you are popular.
Better would be "who will be PM on 1st June 2015."
To win "most seats" therefore requires a tally of approx 293 seats, which is therefore 33 seats short of winning an overall majority of at least 326 seats.
With the odds on Labour winning "most seats", best-priced at 0.836/1 net with Betfair's exchange platform, my attention has turned instead to the overall majority market, where the same firm's odds are a best-priced 2.23/1 net, therefore offering a 167% better Return on Investment if successful. DYOR.
If not there would be a very high risk of a miscarriage of justice, especially in such a high profile and emotive case such as this.
But 5 years out that is as silly as 'if there was an election tomorrow'.
Given that the question is trying to gauge current opinion then it should be framed to reflect that.
However this issue does seem to put into question the ability of polls to reflect an election result several months and years out.
What this Government is chasing is not public security, it is protection from blame if anything goes wrong. Those are not the same thing.
One person’s loss of freedom is everybody’s loss of freedom, one person’s loss of privacy is everybody’s loss of privacy. We must stand up for our rights and not succumb to the politics of fear. Otherwise we give those who hate our civilisation an easy victory, without a shot being fired.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2690181/David-Davis-devastating-attack-loss-privacy-This-data-law-catching-terrorists-lust-power.html#ixzz37Kkv5zSu
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-15557742
That said, some of that fickleness seems to disappear when things get serious, such as the economy going west, or the prospect of separation.
However some doubt is cast by today’s poll on the degree to which the undecideds are inclining towards a Yes vote. The Yes side’s claims about how voters are gradually moving in their direction have been based in part at least on what they say is the pattern of responses they have obtained when voters have been asked to indicate their attitude towards independence on a scale from 1 to 10 – with 1 meaning they are completely against independence and 10 that they are completely for it. The detailed evidence upon which this claim is based has never been published by Yes Scotland, but the question has now been replicated in today’s poll.
Two points stand out. First, not that many voters are apparently on the cusp of becoming potential Yes supporters. Just 7% place themselves at point 5 on the scale. Even if every single one of them were to be won over (a demanding proposition), the Yes side would still be a point away from victory.
Second, not only are as many as three-quarters of undecided voters willing and able to put themselves on this scale, but, as one might anticipate, nearly two-thirds of those that do put themselves somewhere towards the middle of the scale, that is somewhere between 4 and 7. However, the balance of inclination amongst the undecideds is clearly tilted towards opposition to rather than support for independence. Twice as many put themselves at between 1 and 5 on the scale as position themselves at between 6 and 10. It seems that even on the evidence of its own measure, the Yes side still have a lot of persuading left to do.
http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/07/icm-views-on-the-issues-are-proving-difficult-to-shift/
Devo-Max: Should Scotland become a Dominion of the English Crown as opposed to a faux Kingdom? Dominionism [sic] worked well for Oz, Canuckland and Kiwiland (though less well for India and the Saffers)....
What he is saying there is people who are still DK's, doh.
Are they, or could Labour and the media use the Cleveland conclusions to attack her suitability for this inquiry? Are there any current political figures who might be embarrassed by reminders of Cleveland, ones who were working in the relevant departments at the time?
Not sure of the time. I'd guess the early hours tomorrow morning.
They're excellent for giving a far better picture (compared to TV) of track undulation and width. That, in turn, helps to convey how easy/hard overtaking is and where accidents are more likely to happen.
There have been multiple attempts to set up a right wing challenger to the Conservatives. Not one of them has survived.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Conservative-Party-Peel-Thatcher/dp/0006860036'
Thanks for the recommendation; I'll check it out. I studied 19th century political history at A level -so I'm not starting from ground zero on this, though I'll admit there are gaps in my knowledge.
UKIP has already gone past the survival stage. It will never be assimilated back into the Conservative party; which has been the party's key strength. It will be like the DUP and UUP. No point in having the diet version when you can have the real thing.
24/01 - No 44 - Yes 37 - DK 19
21/02 - No 49 - Yes 37 - DK 14
21/03 - No 46 - Yes 39 - DK 15
16/04 - No 42 - Yes 39 - DK 19
15/05 - No 46 - Yes 34 - DK 20
12/06 - No 43 - Yes 36 - DK 21
11/07 - No 45 - Yes 34 - DK 21
I don't see any evidence of Don't Knows switching to anybody. Their numbers only declined between January and February, and the No share increased by the same amount.
I personally think it's very serious and needs to be completely cleared up if at all possible. But the public don't seem quite as engaged.
On the subject of UKIP surviving - you seem to miss the point that it exists as a single issue protest party and has no coherence beyond that. It has yet to be proved it can win parliamentary seats where its individual candidates rather than its loud mouthed and swaggering leader are put under the spotlight. You say you studied 19thC politics. You might be better advised to look into the history of the Labour Party. The Labour Representation Committee was formed in 1900, later that year it had 2 MPs; by 1906 it had 29. It had ministers in govt by 1915.
UKIP only exist on the back of a single millionaires funding who is himself obsessed with the EU.
Isn't is nice that a Coalition government is bring the paedophile-scandal out into the open? What is your take on the last mob's (assisted by the Cur of the Met) cover-up (c.f. Operation Ore)...?
edit: not as important as immunity from the official secrets act for evidence solely related to the inquiry though.
The party may not, but its members and supporters will
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nkTLEvL8IRQ/UZNIT-qF2JI/AAAAAAAAADA/UCkjxcuCXyc/s1600/InfiniteStairs0260.jpg
Looking back the YES score (excluding don’t knows) in ICM’s monthly Scottish polls this year have been 46%, 43%, 46%, 48%, 43%, 46% and now 43%. That looks to me like just random variation.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8895
As it turned out, giving Labour so much breathing space turned out to be a gross strategic error for the Liberals - but only because they themselves split, firstly between Asquithites and LG supporters and then on the formation of the National Government, so giving Labour the main chance to become the main opposition. The Liberals' strategy had been to seek to amalgamate them within their coalition, rather at the Conservatives did with first the Liberal Unionists and later the National Liberals; a strategy that wasn't of itself fundamentally flawed.
Will UKIP survive beyond and above the political fringe? That depends on many things, two of which are how the UK's relationship with the EU develops over the next five or ten years, and whether UKIP can establish themselves as a meaningful party beyond their European context. It also requires other parties giving them enough space to prosper. It would be foolish to be too confident either way.
Cameron won't go for it of course. He'd far rather get hammered on his own terms.
The worst thing he could do for the Conservative Party would be to give UKIP a clear run at winning seats. If they win 1 seat it can be laughed off as a flash in the pan. If they win 5 or 10 they are here to stay.
Yes I sensed there was a note of weakness from Farage there. But the tories probably do syphon off some votes in areas like Grimsby and Rotherham, that could make a difference, I suppose.
UKIP claim they take votes from everyone.
Scotland is also understating the case for its defence costs. It has shipyards capable of building the entire RN, there is no work for them in an independent country. Who would design their ships. Where would they recruit and retain their officers and NCO's from? How would they maintain their airforce (Norway had 80+ fast jets and is proposing to buy the F35). They could but at what cost?
"Your privacy operates upon the same principal now as it has always done. Content of correspondence requires a court order"
If only that were true there wouldn't be half the fuss. Alas it is not true. Access to the content of correspondence does require a warrant, one issued by a government minister.
It is true that there is independent oversight post issue and the overseer has consistently issued reports giving the process a clean bill of health and, personally, am inclined to believe those reports. I'd still prefer to see independence in the process of issuing a warrant, and a nominated High court judge or two would be much preferable to a secretary of state.
It is the other side of the coin that seems to be completely out of control. Access to so-called metadata (who is talking to who) is open to just about any government agency, local central and quango, and requires no more authorisation than a nod from a nominated person (often quite junior) within the organisation. The new bill will we are told tighten up on this but nowhere near enough in my view.
That said, I should say that the Overseer in his last report seems to be satisfied that this element is also working well. I don't doubt his word but I do question whether he has done enough research to come to a properly justified conclusion (there are hundreds of thousands of these cases each year and some abuse will be going on). As a fine point of interest many "investigative" agencies do seem to use analysis of call data as a routine rather than a targeted tool in fact it sometimes it seems almost a displacement activity.
short sighted in the long run -it allows UKIP space to thrive and grow. The Whigs/Liberals had a similar proud story of hundreds of years of survival -it didn't stop them being outflanked and ignominiously destroyed by Labour in the 20th century. You will notice it's always on the outside -you can't 'in-flank' something. The SDP will tell you that.