If we are using euro poll accuracy as a guide to GE 2015, the worried party should be Labour. All pollsters massively overstated them until very close to election day
So macisback and me have differing views on Luffy.
I suppose I am projecting what I want to happen - Nicky Morgan to give us the 'Portillo moment' of GE2015! However, now that she is in cabinet, Labour are likely to throw more effort into taking a high profile scalp and I anticipate an above-average swing.
I think there is too much for Labour to do to take Luffy as it stands. My feeling is Edwards appeal is not deep enough in the East Midlands to take seats other than those where Labour should win most of the time, given the overall demographic. That may be different further North.
Unless the economic news turns again of course. If that happens Labour will take seats like Luffy
"Alex Salmond's government pressurised the country's independent public spending watchdog into watering down a report showing Scotland sliding down education league tables.
The Telegraph can disclose that some of the most critical lines about the Scottish education system's international standing from a draft Audit Scotland report were deleted after requests from the SNP administration.
References to how Scottish children's academic performance was "static at best, and in relative decline ... at worst" when compared worldwide disappeared after the SNP Government proposed rewriting the lines."
If we are using euro poll accuracy as a guide to GE 2015, the worried party should be Labour. All pollsters massively overstated them until very close to election day
Labour has big GOTV problems in anything other than marginals on General election day I reckon.
German team dominating the season, German driver reigning world champion, another German leading the title race... it's a bit odd that Hockenheim seems to have had far fewer attendees than the A1 Ring in Austria, which F1 hadn't been for about a decade.
I wonder whether the problem is that Rosberg isn't really seen as authentic German?
If we are using euro poll accuracy as a guide to GE 2015, the worried party should be Labour. All pollsters massively overstated them until very close to election day
This site is getting overly chartist about polls and losing sight of what they actually are. Pollsters didn't "massively overstate" Labour, reality got in the way and the public changed its mind. Which is why comparing polls 6-9 months out makes little sense because stuff happens in real life in 6-9 months, and it's different stuff in different 6-9 month periods.
But your overall conclusion is spot-on. Labour should be worried.
I heard a factoid on a radio station that encapsulates why the tories aren't doing better. 3% of people under 30 have purchased their own home. 3%. The lowest on record.
Mrs T would have been horrified by that stat. Absolutely horrified. And if it doesn't change the tories will not win, and they will not deserve to.
Nobody in Britain sees the future for their children as rent slaves to wealthy foreigners or hedge fund managers.
Is the thread subtitled the "wind up @isam thread"?
Obviously the whole premise of the thread is undermined by Mikes assertion that AIFE cost UKIP significant number of votes, which would make ICM no more accurate in the euros than TNS, who have UKIP VI on 22%
Good point on AIFE impact.
No, Ok-ish point on AIFE impact.
The AIFE total is 1.43% of the national vote, and approx 2% of seats they actually stood in. Mike says they did "significant" damage to UKIP but doesn't say how much. Isam was claiming Mike said 1.5% but I think has now withdrawn that.
The AIFE vote breaks down into intentional bona fide votes for AIFE, genuine errors for UKIP and I hate Farage so much I will vote AIFE to spite him votes. I can't see that there is any strong case for allocating more than one third of the votes to the second category. My default assumption is that people are not as stupid as the argument assumes them to be and that a significant majority of votes cast for AIFE were intended to be for AIFE whether as category 1 or category 3.
Methodology ought to be relevant. Anyone with the power of concentration to get through Yougov's online polls is unlikely to be fooled by AIFE on the ballot paper so the Yougov result should have tacitly filtered out the category 2 voters. Conversely telephone polls would presumably catch a representative number of cat 2 thickos.
People who normally vote Con or Lab that voted AIFE to spite ukip were actually spiting their own parties... They lost 1vote, which ukip wouldn't have got anyway... Only a thicko would do that?! Surely very few did so
I haven't withdrawn anything, I don't know how much if the 2% that AIFE got where they stood that Mike claims cost ukip but forgets about when he praises ICM
Nice forecast by the Item Club. If only forecasts were reality?
How is the student loan book coming along these days?
It just goes to show that no good deed goes unpunished.
Amidst howls of rage from the left (perhaps including pragmatic communists?), the government instituted a student loan system which ensured that a minimum salary level had to be achieved before repayment was due and that (it seems) a fairly light-touch collection mechanism was put in place.
And lo! The govt is losing money as that salary level is quite high and the collection system sub-standard.
So you can't have it both ways. The bottom line is students are studying for nothing with the government picking up the bill. Or did you want more rigorous terms of for the loans and collection? Or do you want general taxation to be increased to fund students? Or....?
So the next time Mike or I write a Dave is crap thread.....
The current British definition of terrorism is so broadly drawn that it could even catch political journalists and bloggers who publish material that the authorities consider dangerous to public safety, said the official counter-terrorism watchdog.
David Anderson QC, the official reviewer of counter-terrorism laws, said Britain had some of the most extensive anti-terrorism laws in the western world, which gave police and prosecutors the powers they needed to tackle al-Qaida-inspired terrorists, rightwing extremists and dissident Northern Irish groups.
You may be right. I hope not - but a YES would certainly be a watershed moment in the polling industry!
If it's a YES, how long would you estimate it would take from the YES to achieving agreed terms and something that could be presented to Parliament? (I'm thinking this could be alot harder than many anticipate as serious disagreements about currency, debt, inherited spending commitments, EU membership, defense, banking, blah blah cause problems).
Patrick, I think that as well , but if it happens both sides will need to be very sensible and get a decent agreement signed up. Will be in both sides interests to get an amicable deal done. Markets will be spooked enough without any aggro.
Is the thread subtitled the "wind up @isam thread"?
Obviously the whole premise of the thread is undermined by Mikes assertion that AIFE cost UKIP significant number of votes, which would make ICM no more accurate in the euros than TNS, who have UKIP VI on 22%
Good point on AIFE impact.
No, Ok-ish point on AIFE impact.
The AIFE total is 1.43% of the national vote, and approx 2% of seats they actually stood in. Mike says they did "significant" damage to UKIP but doesn't say how much. Isam was claiming Mike said 1.5% but I think has now withdrawn that.
The AIFE vote breaks down into intentional bona fide votes for AIFE, genuine errors for UKIP and I hate Farage so much I will vote AIFE to spite him votes. I can't see that there is any strong case for allocating more than one third of the votes to the second category. My default assumption is that people are not as stupid as the argument assumes them to be and that a significant majority of votes cast for AIFE were intended to be for AIFE whether as category 1 or category 3.
Methodology ought to be relevant. Anyone with the power of concentration to get through Yougov's online polls is unlikely to be fooled by AIFE on the ballot paper so the Yougov result should have tacitly filtered out the category 2 voters. Conversely telephone polls would presumably catch a representative number of cat 2 thickos.
People who normally vote Con or Lab that voted AIFE to spite ukip were actually spiting their own parties... They lost 1vote, which ukip wouldn't have got anyway... Only a thicko would do that?! Surely very few did so
I haven't withdrawn anything, I don't know how much if the 2% that AIFE got where they stood that Mike claims cost ukip but forgets about when he praises ICM
In January ICM had labour on 35 and ukip on 20
But equally, only a thicko would mistake AIFE for UKIP. You can't have it both ways.
Mr. Gin, I believe you're correct. Rosberg has a German mother, Finnish father and grew up in Monaco. Lots of drivers have mixed nationalities these days (apparently Sutil's half-Uruguayan).
@Richard_Nabavi We can't find out about the present governments possible fiascoes yet, as despite Cameron's pledge to "transparency", some departments have developed almost terminal shyness. Still, we both can make educated guesses as to where the problems lie.
"The Centre for Economics and Business Research reckons whoever wins the next UK general election will have to make "sharp public spending cuts". (Guardian live blog)
Where are those cuts going to fall is the question both parties will have to answer before the election.
Is the thread subtitled the "wind up @isam thread"?
Obviously the whole premise of the thread is undermined by Mikes assertion that AIFE cost UKIP significant number of votes, which would make ICM no more accurate in the euros than TNS, who have UKIP VI on 22%
Good point on AIFE impact.
No, Ok-ish point on AIFE impact.
The AIFE total is 1.43% of the national vote, and approx 2% of seats they actually stood in. Mike says they did "significant" damage to UKIP but doesn't say how much. Isam was claiming Mike said 1.5% but I think has now withdrawn that.
The AIFE vote breaks down into intentional bona fide votes for AIFE, genuine errors for UKIP and I hate Farage so much I will vote AIFE to spite him votes. I can't see that there is any strong case for allocating more than one third of the votes to the second category. My default assumption is that people are not as stupid as the argument assumes them to be and that a significant majority of votes cast for AIFE were intended to be for AIFE whether as category 1 or category 3.
Methodology ought to be relevant. Anyone with the power of concentration to get through Yougov's online polls is unlikely to be fooled by AIFE on the ballot paper so the Yougov result should have tacitly filtered out the category 2 voters. Conversely telephone polls would presumably catch a representative number of cat 2 thickos.
People who normally vote Con or Lab that voted AIFE to spite ukip were actually spiting their own parties... They lost 1vote, which ukip wouldn't have got anyway... Only a thicko would do that?! Surely very few did so
I haven't withdrawn anything, I don't know how much if the 2% that AIFE got where they stood that Mike claims cost ukip but forgets about when he praises ICM
In January ICM had labour on 35 and ukip on 20
But equally, only a thicko would mistake AIFE for UKIP. You can't have it both ways.
I think people who aren't into politics could have made a simple mistake, I would nt call them a thicko. But to vote for a party deliberately thinking you were hurting a party you disliked, when in fact you were aiding them is a bit thick
BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS **** Con 309 (+2) .. Lab 278 (-4) .. LibDem 32 (+2) .. SNP 8 .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 1 .. Respect 0 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1
Jack W I do think your ARSE is underestimating the SNP. Their renewed ground force allied to their current poll ratings that have been consistently up on GE2010 and the decline in the SLDs and SLAB, should bring the SNP into double figures.
Earlier projections had the SNP edging into double figures before more recently dropping back slightly. A figure of eight for Westminster would be a very good return for the SNP who do tend to lose out somewhat to split-ticketing at wider UK elections. The number would have them close to their heydays of 1974.
But their two biggest rivals are running at lower polling than the GE2010 results. The SNP could be at tipping points in a lot of constituencies. If the voters reject (as expected) independence, they may go with the SNP at Westminster at the GE. The SNP may also campaign harder at the GE, recognising that they have to reduce SLAB MPs and take the opportunity to remove a lot of SLD MPs.
Only people in the south of England with no clue to reality expect it to be no.
Unfortunately the polling of those in northern Britain give lots of indications to a NO vote. But do you think that the SNP will (after a No vote) have the energy to campaign hard at GE2015?
I believe the polls are wrong , this is not a GE and polling weighted to GE and parties is not going to cut it. regardless of September the SNP will go from strength to strength. If they do manage to frighten enough people to get a no vote it will be very close and soon turn ugly when they start to slash and burn and renage on all the jam being promised by the union. Even the gullible will finally get it. It may be delayed , I personally doubt it , but it will happen. The union is finished.
Interesting new tack, Malcolm; it's essentially the Kipper argument.
Cam says he will do something, but we don't believe him. And we want your vote on the premise that he won't do it. But of course as we can't prove a negative today then you will just have to trust us on this one.
Topping , we have past proof that they are lying cheating toads though. They will act to form, their only weapon is fear. Regardless of that the whole crux is that we will be better making our own decisions, even if not better off financially.
BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS **** Con 309 (+2) .. Lab 278 (-4) .. LibDem 32 (+2) .. SNP 8 .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 1 .. Respect 0 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1
Jack W I do think your ARSE is underestimating the SNP. Their renewed ground force allied to their current poll ratings that have been consistently up on GE2010 and the decline in the SLDs and SLAB, should bring the SNP into double figures.
Earlier projections had the SNP edging into double figures before more recently dropping back slightly. A figure of eight for Westminster would be a very good return for the SNP who do tend to lose out somewhat to split-ticketing at wider UK elections. The number would have them close to their heydays of 1974.
But their two biggest rivals are running at lower polling than the GE2010 results. The SNP could be at tipping points in a lot of constituencies. If the voters reject (as expected) independence, they may go with the SNP at Westminster at the GE. The SNP may also campaign harder at the GE, recognising that they have to reduce SLAB MPs and take the opportunity to remove a lot of SLD MPs.
Only people in the south of England with no clue to reality expect it to be no.
Unfortunately the polling of those in northern Britain give lots of indications to a NO vote. But do you think that the SNP will (after a No vote) have the energy to campaign hard at GE2015?
I believe the polls are wrong , this is not a GE and polling weighted to GE and parties is not going to cut it. regardless of September the SNP will go from strength to strength. If they do manage to frighten enough people to get a no vote it will be very close and soon turn ugly when they start to slash and burn and renage on all the jam being promised by the union. Even the gullible will finally get it. It may be delayed , I personally doubt it , but it will happen. The union is finished.
Has "Yes" been ahead in any raw sample from any pollster yet ?
We do not know the results of the polls that Tories used £300K of taxpayers money for, they were obviously not good for NO or they would have been published though.
@TOPPING Problem with it is, Osbourne wanted to flog the book off for 12 billion, it would appear that it might raise about 2 billion, but with heavy public liabilities built into it even at that price
I'd agree with his assessment, I think SNP gain Danny's seat or at least I bloody hope they do over Labour...
I'm balls deep on Labour in East Dunbartonshire, think SNP have an outside sniff there so covered on that one.
Interestingly he has now pushed Conservative to 3-1.
That is a perfect 100% book with Betfair's 3.85 once commission is factored in. It is not an arb, but basically you can lay precisely the same odds as Shadsy is on Con Majority right now - which doesn't often happen.
@TOPPING Problem with it is, Osbourne wanted to flog the book off for 12 billion, it would appear that it might raise about 2 billion, but with heavy public liabilities built into it even at that price
Don't disagree but you are only going to sell a loan book at such a discount if your default or non-payment rate is high.
Which refers back to the point that this govt is funding students from general taxation. Which is presumably what the "left" wanted the whole time?
Where are those cuts going to fall is the question both parties will have to answer before the election.
Well, the Conservatives will lay out at least the overall plans. Labour will try desperately not even to do that, and the Tories will attack them on that basis.
The politics of this are entirely in the Tories' favour. Whether voters like them or not, at least everyone agrees that they do what it says on the tin. Under a Tory government, spending will be cut. We know that, we can believe it, and, what's more, the experience of this parliament shows it can be done without damaging public services.
As for Labour - who knows? They keep making vague noises to the effect that they too would cut spending. Fine, but if you want that, why not vote for the real thing, and why would leftish voters want that in the first place? And then in the next breath they commit to a whole load of spending increases, and they deny they plan to increase taxes, thus contradicting what they've said on fiscal probity. It's a complete mess, which satisfies no-one, and which is a strategic dead-end.
As a result, Labour's vote share will fray as the election approaches. I don't know by how much, but I'm very sure it will drop back.
Ashcroft marginals polling points to Labour overall majority:
"A nine-point fall in the Tory vote share in these seats since 2010 (from 40% to 31%) points to a 4.5% swing to Labour, whose score is unchanged at 38%. This would be enough for Labour to win 53 Conservative seats if repeated across the board at the general election – which, combined with the 17 seats my recent polling suggested they could gain from the Lib Dems, would be enough for a small overall majority."
Is the thread subtitled the "wind up @isam thread"?
Obviously the whole premise of the thread is undermined by Mikes assertion that AIFE cost UKIP significant number of votes, which would make ICM no more accurate in the euros than TNS, who have UKIP VI on 22%
Good point on AIFE impact.
No, Ok-ish point on AIFE impact.
The AIFE total is 1.43% of the national vote, and approx 2% of seats they actually stood in. Mike says they did "significant" damage to UKIP but doesn't say how much. Isam was claiming Mike said 1.5% but I think has now withdrawn that.
The AIFE vote breaks down into intentional bona fide votes for AIFE, genuine errors for UKIP and I hate Farage so much I will vote AIFE to spite him votes. I can't see that there is any strong case for allocating more than one third of the votes to the second category. My default assumption is that people are not as stupid as the argument assumes them to be and that a significant majority of votes cast for AIFE were intended to be for AIFE whether as category 1 or category 3.
Methodology ought to be relevant. Anyone with the power of concentration to get through Yougov's online polls is unlikely to be fooled by AIFE on the ballot paper so the Yougov result should have tacitly filtered out the category 2 voters. Conversely telephone polls would presumably catch a representative number of cat 2 thickos.
People who normally vote Con or Lab that voted AIFE to spite ukip were actually spiting their own parties... They lost 1vote, which ukip wouldn't have got anyway... Only a thicko would do that?! Surely very few did so
I haven't withdrawn anything, I don't know how much if the 2% that AIFE got where they stood that Mike claims cost ukip but forgets about when he praises ICM
In January ICM had labour on 35 and ukip on 20
But equally, only a thicko would mistake AIFE for UKIP. You can't have it both ways.
I think people who aren't into politics could have made a simple mistake, I would nt call them a thicko. But to vote for a party deliberately thinking you were hurting a party you disliked, when in fact you were aiding them is a bit thick
No, the "spite Farage" vote could be rational on a cost-benefit analysis if you think an AIFE vote hurts Farage ten times more than the loss of your vote damages your party.
@Richard_Nabavi You don't use public services much do you? In fact, as long as your portfolio grows you don't even give a flying frogs fornication about what happens to anyone else. This is why capitalism is eating itself.
Ashcroft marginals polling points to Labour overall majority:
"A nine-point fall in the Tory vote share in these seats since 2010 (from 40% to 31%) points to a 4.5% swing to Labour, whose score is unchanged at 38%. This would be enough for Labour to win 53 Conservative seats if repeated across the board at the general election – which, combined with the 17 seats my recent polling suggested they could gain from the Lib Dems, would be enough for a small overall majority."
Oh dear "a small overall majority" for Labour with the clock ticking to May 2015.
Where are those cuts going to fall is the question both parties will have to answer before the election.
Well, the Conservatives will lay out at least the overall plans. Labour will try desperately not even to do that, and the Tories will attack them on that basis.
The politics of this are entirely in the Tories' favour. Whether voters like them or not, at least everyone agrees that they do what it says on the tin. Under a Tory government, spending will be cut. We know that, we can believe it, and, what's more, the experience of this parliament shows it can be done without damaging public services.
As for Labour - who knows? They keep making vague noises to the effect that they too would cut spending. Fine, but if you want that, why not vote for the real thing, and why would leftish voters want that in the first place? And then in the next breath they commit to a whole load of spending increases, and they deny they plan to increase taxes, thus contradicting what they've said on fiscal probity. It's a complete mess, which satisfies no-one, and which is a strategic dead-end.
As a result, Labour's vote share will fray as the election approaches. I don't know by how much, but I'm very sure it will drop back.
Polly has summed it up in a not dreadful article, leaving aside the usual Pollyisms:
" So why vote Labour if all parties are equally ironclad? Because Labour will cut more fairly."
And it's a powerful slogan. We shall see how many people feel that they're on the outside of the recovery over the next few months (and of course explicitly in May 2015).
Ashcroft marginals polling points to Labour overall majority:
"A nine-point fall in the Tory vote share in these seats since 2010 (from 40% to 31%) points to a 4.5% swing to Labour, whose score is unchanged at 38%. This would be enough for Labour to win 53 Conservative seats if repeated across the board at the general election – which, combined with the 17 seats my recent polling suggested they could gain from the Lib Dems, would be enough for a small overall majority."
Didn't you read the next bit?
"But as we have seen throughout my series of battleground polls, swings are looking anything but uniform. In this survey the swing from the Tories to Labour ranges from 2% in Stockton South to 9% in Wolverhampton South West. And as we see in this survey, localised UKIP performance could scupper Labour’s chances in seats that Ed Miliband might otherwise hope to take.
Despite Labour’s overall lead in voting intention, fewer than three in ten voters in these seats said they would rather see Ed Miliband in Number Ten than David Cameron, including only 64% of Labour voters. Indeed only just over half (53%) of those switching to Labour from another party said they would prefer to see Miliband as Prime Minister. This could mean that they intend to vote Labour despite its leader. Alternatively, it might suggest that these new Labour voters are “soft” and could be persuaded back to their previous parties when it comes to the crunch. Future rounds of this tracking study will help to establish which is true."
@Richard_Nabavi You don't use public services much do you? In fact, as long as your portfolio grows you don't even give a flying frogs fornication about what happens to anyone else. This is why capitalism is eating itself.
And making ridiculous assumptions about people you have never met on the basis of their political affiliation is why the internet is eating itself?
Is the thread subtitled the "wind up @isam thread"?
Obviously the whole premise of the thread is undermined by Mikes assertion that AIFE cost UKIP significant number of votes, which would make ICM no more accurate in the euros than TNS, who have UKIP VI on 22%
Good point on AIFE impact.
No, Ok-ish point on AIFE impact.
The AIFE total is 1.43% of the national vote, and approx 2% of seats they actually stood in. Mike says they did "significant" damage to UKIP but doesn't say how much. Isam was claiming Mike said 1.5% but I think has now withdrawn that.
The AIFE vote breaks down into intentional bona fide votes for AIFE, genuine errors for UKIP and I hate Farage so much I will vote AIFE to spite him votes. I can't see that there is any strong case for allocating more than one third of the votes to the second category. My default assumption is that people are not as stupid as the argument assumes them to be and that a significant majority of votes cast for AIFE were intended to be for AIFE whether as category 1 or category 3.
Methodology ought to be relevant. Anyone with the power of concentration to get through Yougov's online polls is unlikely to be fooled by AIFE on the ballot paper so the Yougov result should have tacitly filtered out the category 2 voters. Conversely telephone polls would presumably catch a representative number of cat 2 thickos.
People who normally vote Con or Lab that voted AIFE to spite ukip were actually spiting their own parties... They lost 1vote, which ukip wouldn't have got anyway... Only a thicko would do that?! Surely very few did so
I haven't withdrawn anything, I don't know how much if the 2% that AIFE got where they stood that Mike claims cost ukip but forgets about when he praises ICM
In January ICM had labour on 35 and ukip on 20
But equally, only a thicko would mistake AIFE for UKIP. You can't have it both ways.
I think people who aren't into politics could have made a simple mistake, I would nt call them a thicko. But to vote for a party deliberately thinking you were hurting a party you disliked, when in fact you were aiding them is a bit thick
No, the "spite Farage" vote could be rational on a cost-benefit analysis if you think an AIFE vote hurts Farage ten times more than the loss of your vote damages your party.
Why would you think that? What if ten conservatives voted AIFE in the SE to spite ukip, and Ukip beat the conservatives by 9 votes, to gain a seat, with AIFE getting 2%
@Richard_Nabavi You don't use public services much do you? In fact, as long as your portfolio grows you don't even give a flying frogs fornication about what happens to anyone else. This is why capitalism is eating itself.
Thank you for personalising the issue. Further evidence of the nastiness and intellectual vacuity of the left, which is always nice to see.
I appreciate that you find it hard to understand that reality and your world-view don't match. If you want to find out more, those who do use public services a lot were surveyed in detail here:
If Thanet South goes, Thurrock goes, but if Thurrock goes, Thanet South may not neccesarily.
In Thurrock the "correct" anti-UKIP tactical vote is extremely difficult for anyone to work out. Hence the man on the street simply won't.
In Thanet South Conservatives may well be able to get a few Labour voters to "lend support" for GE2015 (On the face of it looking at GE2010 results the COnservatives are along way ahead... - that is useful for a "Newark squeeze" tactic)
Thurrock I think is UKIP's best chance for a seat in GE2015 now.
Polly has summed it up in a not dreadful article, leaving aside the usual Pollyisms:
" So why vote Labour if all parties are equally ironclad? Because Labour will cut more fairly."
And it's a powerful slogan. We shall see how many people feel that they're on the outside of the recovery over the next few months (and of course explicitly in May 2015).
I think it's quite a tricky slogan to use, because it invites the response: OK, so what would you do differently? And being specific is exactly what Ed is trying to avoid, in order not to put off his precious 35%.
"Why would you think that? What if ten conservatives voted AIFE in the SE to spite ukip, and Ukip beat the conservatives by 9 votes, to gain a seat, with AIFE getting 2%
All you are doing is splitting the anti ukip vote "
@Richard_Nabavi Linking to that survey proves my point. The people who rely heavily on public services are a minority of the population, the rest only notice when things go wrong in their personal lives . Other than that, it is "perception" rather than "reality" the survey is measuring.
''Further evidence of the nastiness and intellectual vacuity of the left, which is always nice to see.''
I condemn Smarmeron;s personlisation of the issue, but behind his bile there is a very important point. The conservatives have to offer young people (ie those under 40) a route via hard work to prosperity and independence, or they will consider Ed's alternative offer.
@Richard_Nabavi Linking to that survey proves my point. The people who rely heavily on public services are a minority of the population, the rest only notice when thing go wrong in their personal lives . Other than that, it is "perception" rather than "reality" the survey is measuring.
LOL! Wrong kind of voters, wrong kind of poll respondents, wrong kind of growth, wrong kind of jobs, wrong kind of NHS patients, wrong kind of fall in crime.
It is so transparent: you are convinced it's some kind of trick, it simply DOES NOT COMPUTE that the Tories could be right.
I simply do not believe Labour are capable of cutting. They may flatline for a bit in a growing economy. But they are incapable of making actual cuts. Especially to headcounts.
What would happen is the usual. They'd borrow. Recklessly and at ever increasing interest rates. Right up until the bubble pops. And then they'd accuse the incoming Tory adminstration in 2020 of being 'nasty' for making actual cuts. T'was ever thus.
Polly has summed it up in a not dreadful article, leaving aside the usual Pollyisms:
" So why vote Labour if all parties are equally ironclad? Because Labour will cut more fairly."
And it's a powerful slogan. We shall see how many people feel that they're on the outside of the recovery over the next few months (and of course explicitly in May 2015).
I think it's quite a tricky slogan to use, because it invites the response: OK, so what would you do differently? And being specific is exactly what Ed is trying to avoid, in order not to put off his precious 35%.
Just what I was thinking - it would be a "shoulda, coulda, woulda" counter-factual fest.
But.
If people feel they are being left out of the recovery then it will resonate strongly.
If the recovery is seen as being so successful (as actually Polly also points out) then the danger to the Cons is that people might feel confident that it (the recovery) wouldn't be jeopardised by Labour, and so feel happier to vote Lab to improve their own lot.
The overall pattern of absence of incumbency bonus is similar - in the poll as a whole, a Lab lead of 37-30 becomes 38-30 after prompting for local candidates.
A Broxtowe quirk which reappears from last time is that Labour is much further ahead with ABC1 voters (14-15 points, allowing for candidates) than C2DE voters (3-5), which is very different to most other seats. This may reflect candidate styles, I think, as well as the nature of the ABC1 vote (lots of lecturers, doctors, etc.).
Broxtowe Ashcroft poll: General preference Lab 39 Con 31 UKIP 20 LD 4 Green 5
Prompted to think specifically about local candidates and constitutency: Lab 40 Con 29 UKIP 18 LD 7 Green 4.
Incumbency bonus...er...
Haven't checked the other seats yet to see if the pattern varies greatly.
Do you really think though UKIP will hold 18 to 20% of the vote in Broxtowe on polling day. You know the seat more than anyone but I don't see it, all to play for I reckon.
This seat in my opinion is very hard to call, probably more than any of the others in the East Midlands.
Is the thread subtitled the "wind up @isam thread"?
Obviously the whole premise of the thread is undermined by Mikes assertion that AIFE cost UKIP significant number of votes, which would make ICM no more accurate in the euros than TNS, who have UKIP VI on 22%
Good point on AIFE impact.
No, Ok-ish point on AIFE impact.
People who normally vote Con or Lab that voted AIFE to spite ukip were actually spiting their own parties... They lost 1vote, which ukip wouldn't have got anyway... Only a thicko would do that?! Surely very few did so
I haven't withdrawn anything, I don't know how much if the 2% that AIFE got where they stood that Mike claims cost ukip but forgets about when he praises ICM
In January ICM had labour on 35 and ukip on 20
But equally, only a thicko would mistake AIFE for UKIP. You can't have it both ways.
I think people who aren't into politics could have made a simple mistake, I would nt call them a thicko. But to vote for a party deliberately thinking you were hurting a party you disliked, when in fact you were aiding them is a bit thick
No, the "spite Farage" vote could be rational on a cost-benefit analysis if you think an AIFE vote hurts Farage ten times more than the loss of your vote damages your party.
Why would you think that? What if ten conservatives voted AIFE in the SE to spite ukip, and Ukip beat the conservatives by 9 votes, to gain a seat, with AIFE getting 2%
All you are doing is splitting the anti ukip vote
But if the tories beat Ukip by nine votes then you have the delicious result of Farage tearing his hair thinking he has been cheated of victory by AIFE (when actually he hasn't because none of those votes would have gone to Ukip in any circs). I am not saying that is rational, I am saying it may in fact have happened because in real life people do indeed cut off their nose to spite their face, and if it happened for any reason at all it dilutes your argument.
Alternatively a rational tory might think that Cameron will win if he moves right; a defeat by Ukip in the Euros will move him right, therefore letting Ukip in by mistake would not be the end of the world, therefore the risk in voting AIFE is illusory.
I do not say this argument is correct or sensible, just that it may have influenced votes.
@Richard_Nabavi If you don't use a public library, it's closure does not effect you in the slightest. Same goes for other services, so it becomes obvious that the majority of the people are replying not through experience, but by what they get told. "Every unemployed person has a 42" TV, and cosmetic surgery on demand" It's not just the Russian media who post propaganda in favour of their governments.
Polly has summed it up in a not dreadful article, leaving aside the usual Pollyisms:
" So why vote Labour if all parties are equally ironclad? Because Labour will cut more fairly."
And it's a powerful slogan. We shall see how many people feel that they're on the outside of the recovery over the next few months (and of course explicitly in May 2015).
I think it's quite a tricky slogan to use, because it invites the response: OK, so what would you do differently? And being specific is exactly what Ed is trying to avoid, in order not to put off his precious 35%.
Just what I was thinking - it would be a "shoulda, coulda, woulda" counter-factual fest.
But.
If people feel they are being left out of the recovery then it will resonate strongly.
If the recovery is seen as being so successful (as actually Polly also points out) then the danger to the Cons is that people might feel confident that it (the recovery) wouldn't be jeopardised by Labour, and so feel happier to vote Lab to improve their own lot.
History points to the fallacy of that argument. It seems not unnatural for voters to punish a party for failure, but strange that it should punish it for success and vote for the party that is responsible for the economic hangover in the first place. Who opened our borders in 2004? Who ruined the economy in 2008? Who is trying and mostly succeeding in correcting these mistakes?
I simply do not believe Labour are capable of cutting. They may flatline for a bit in a growing economy. But they are incapable of making actual cuts. Especially to headcounts.
What would happen is the usual. They'd borrow. Recklessly and at ever increasing interest rates. Right up until the bubble pops. And then they'd accuse the incoming Tory adminstration in 2020 of being 'nasty' for making actual cuts. T'was ever thus.
Broxtowe Ashcroft poll: General preference Lab 39 Con 31 UKIP 20 LD 4 Green 5
Prompted to think specifically about local candidates and constitutency: Lab 40 Con 29 UKIP 18 LD 7 Green 4.
Incumbency bonus...er...
Haven't checked the other seats yet to see if the pattern varies greatly.
Do you really think though UKIP will hold 18 to 20% of the vote in Broxtowe on polling day. You know the seat more than anyone but I don't see it, all to play for I reckon.
This seat in my opinion is very hard to call, probably more than any of the others in the East Midlands.
Both Anna and Nick are quite pro-European though, if you were intending to vote UKIP in the seat why would you switch to either ?
@Richard_Nabavi We can't find out about the present governments possible fiascoes yet, as despite Cameron's pledge to "transparency", some departments have developed almost terminal shyness. Still, we both can make educated guesses as to where the problems lie.
"The Centre for Economics and Business Research reckons whoever wins the next UK general election will have to make "sharp public spending cuts". (Guardian live blog)
Where are those cuts going to fall is the question both parties will have to answer before the election.
There is no secret about the continuing need for cuts. Osborne has given figures in various speeches. The place where these cuts can fall are pretty limited if you exclude welfare. Labours notion that they can produce nice cuddly cuts is just a load of lying propaganda. Likewise the fact that it can produce some brilliant and joyous spending plans. All labour can do is unbalance the economy again.
Polly has summed it up in a not dreadful article, leaving aside the usual Pollyisms:
" So why vote Labour if all parties are equally ironclad? Because Labour will cut more fairly."
And it's a powerful slogan. We shall see how many people feel that they're on the outside of the recovery over the next few months (and of course explicitly in May 2015).
I think it's quite a tricky slogan to use, because it invites the response: OK, so what would you do differently? And being specific is exactly what Ed is trying to avoid, in order not to put off his precious 35%.
Just what I was thinking - it would be a "shoulda, coulda, woulda" counter-factual fest.
But.
If people feel they are being left out of the recovery then it will resonate strongly.
If the recovery is seen as being so successful (as actually Polly also points out) then the danger to the Cons is that people might feel confident that it (the recovery) wouldn't be jeopardised by Labour, and so feel happier to vote Lab to improve their own lot.
History points to the fallacy of that argument. It seems not unnatural for voters to punish a party for failure, but strange that it should punish it for success and vote for the party that is responsible for the economic hangover in the first place. Who opened our borders in 2004? Who ruined the economy in 2008? Who is trying and mostly succeeding in correcting these mistakes?
If the perception solidifies that "they are all the same" and that, as you say, further cuts are required, which no one is denying not even Lab, then all that is left is the personality of those cuts and on niceness Lab undoubtedly wins.
Don't get me wrong - I agree with all you say and logic dictates that it should be the case but, as various family members have said to me down the ages: now is not the time for logic....
Comments
As I say it is not that meaningful to compare the final polls with current GE polls. It should be th pols 6-9 months out
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014_(United_Kingdom)
If we are using euro poll accuracy as a guide to GE 2015, the worried party should be Labour. All pollsters massively overstated them until very close to election day
Nice forecast by the Item Club.
If only forecasts were reality?
How is the student loan book coming along these days?
Unless the economic news turns again of course. If that happens Labour will take seats like Luffy
Raw numbers:
Yes (389)
No (446)
Undecided: 106
Lets just assume undecided won't vote...
Gives an 89% turnout - quite optimistic
Yes 46.5%
It's OK but still not over 50.
They weight the numbers to 397/425 but I'm not sure its THAT close.
"No" wins, it'll be narrower than some expect but can't see it for "Yes"
Fraser has photographic evidence of the day two amazing intellectual minds came together;
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/07/caption-competition-ed-miliband-in-the-white-house/
"Alex Salmond's government pressurised the country's independent public spending watchdog into watering down a report showing Scotland sliding down education league tables.
The Telegraph can disclose that some of the most critical lines about the Scottish education system's international standing from a draft Audit Scotland report were deleted after requests from the SNP administration.
References to how Scottish children's academic performance was "static at best, and in relative decline ... at worst" when compared worldwide disappeared after the SNP Government proposed rewriting the lines."
The five Scottish seats set to change hands in 2015
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/07/22/the-five-scottish-seats-set-to-change-hands-in-2015/
Keke drove for Finland I think?
But your overall conclusion is spot-on. Labour should be worried.
Mrs T would have been horrified by that stat. Absolutely horrified. And if it doesn't change the tories will not win, and they will not deserve to.
Nobody in Britain sees the future for their children as rent slaves to wealthy foreigners or hedge fund managers.
I haven't withdrawn anything, I don't know how much if the 2% that AIFE got where they stood that Mike claims cost ukip but forgets about when he praises ICM
In January ICM had labour on 35 and ukip on 20
Amidst howls of rage from the left (perhaps including pragmatic communists?), the government instituted a student loan system which ensured that a minimum salary level had to be achieved before repayment was due and that (it seems) a fairly light-touch collection mechanism was put in place.
And lo! The govt is losing money as that salary level is quite high and the collection system sub-standard.
So you can't have it both ways. The bottom line is students are studying for nothing with the government picking up the bill. Or did you want more rigorous terms of for the loans and collection? Or do you want general taxation to be increased to fund students? Or....?
The current British definition of terrorism is so broadly drawn that it could even catch political journalists and bloggers who publish material that the authorities consider dangerous to public safety, said the official counter-terrorism watchdog.
David Anderson QC, the official reviewer of counter-terrorism laws, said Britain had some of the most extensive anti-terrorism laws in the western world, which gave police and prosecutors the powers they needed to tackle al-Qaida-inspired terrorists, rightwing extremists and dissident Northern Irish groups.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/22/uk-definition-terrorism-political-journalists-bloggers-watchdog
We can't find out about the present governments possible fiascoes yet, as despite Cameron's pledge to "transparency", some departments have developed almost terminal shyness.
Still, we both can make educated guesses as to where the problems lie.
"The Centre for Economics and Business Research reckons whoever wins the next UK general election will have to make "sharp public spending cuts". (Guardian live blog)
Where are those cuts going to fall is the question both parties will have to answer before the election.
Wherever Labour says the cuts will fall, nobody will believe them.
Labour might just as well promise to stop breathing.
16/1 Thurrock anyone?
Problem with it is, Osbourne wanted to flog the book off for 12 billion, it would appear that it might raise about 2 billion, but with heavy public liabilities built into it even at that price
On the plus side, property speculators are raking it in?
I'm balls deep on Labour in East Dunbartonshire, think SNP have an outside sniff there so covered on that one.
Interestingly he has now pushed Conservative to 3-1.
That is a perfect 100% book with Betfair's 3.85 once commission is factored in. It is not an arb, but basically you can lay precisely the same odds as Shadsy is on Con Majority right now - which doesn't often happen.
Which refers back to the point that this govt is funding students from general taxation. Which is presumably what the "left" wanted the whole time?
The politics of this are entirely in the Tories' favour. Whether voters like them or not, at least everyone agrees that they do what it says on the tin. Under a Tory government, spending will be cut. We know that, we can believe it, and, what's more, the experience of this parliament shows it can be done without damaging public services.
As for Labour - who knows? They keep making vague noises to the effect that they too would cut spending. Fine, but if you want that, why not vote for the real thing, and why would leftish voters want that in the first place? And then in the next breath they commit to a whole load of spending increases, and they deny they plan to increase taxes, thus contradicting what they've said on fiscal probity. It's a complete mess, which satisfies no-one, and which is a strategic dead-end.
As a result, Labour's vote share will fray as the election approaches. I don't know by how much, but I'm very sure it will drop back.
"A nine-point fall in the Tory vote share in these seats since 2010 (from 40% to 31%) points to a 4.5% swing to Labour, whose score is unchanged at 38%. This would be enough for Labour to win 53 Conservative seats if repeated across the board at the general election – which, combined with the 17 seats my recent polling suggested they could gain from the Lib Dems, would be enough for a small overall majority."
Thurrock looking good for UKIP methinks - which is good as I'm on for a fiver (Was max allowed !) at 16-1 with Paddy.
You don't use public services much do you?
In fact, as long as your portfolio grows you don't even give a flying frogs fornication about what happens to anyone else.
This is why capitalism is eating itself.
" So why vote Labour if all parties are equally ironclad? Because Labour will cut more fairly."
And it's a powerful slogan. We shall see how many people feel that they're on the outside of the recovery over the next few months (and of course explicitly in May 2015).
General preference Lab 39 Con 31 UKIP 20 LD 4 Green 5
Prompted to think specifically about local candidates and constitutency:
Lab 40 Con 29 UKIP 18 LD 7 Green 4.
Incumbency bonus...er...
Haven't checked the other seats yet to see if the pattern varies greatly.
"But as we have seen throughout my series of battleground polls, swings are looking anything but uniform. In this survey the swing from the Tories to Labour ranges from 2% in Stockton South to 9% in Wolverhampton South West. And as we see in this survey, localised UKIP performance could scupper Labour’s chances in seats that Ed Miliband might otherwise hope to take.
Despite Labour’s overall lead in voting intention, fewer than three in ten voters in these seats said they would rather see Ed Miliband in Number Ten than David Cameron, including only 64% of Labour voters. Indeed only just over half (53%) of those switching to Labour from another party said they would prefer to see Miliband as Prime Minister. This could mean that they intend to vote Labour despite its leader. Alternatively, it might suggest that these new Labour voters are “soft” and could be persuaded back to their previous parties when it comes to the crunch. Future rounds of this tracking study will help to establish which is true."
All you are doing is splitting the anti ukip vote
I appreciate that you find it hard to understand that reality and your world-view don't match. If you want to find out more, those who do use public services a lot were surveyed in detail here:
http://www.icmresearch.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2013/10/BBC-Public-Services-Poll-Sept-2013_LONG.pdf
In Thurrock the "correct" anti-UKIP tactical vote is extremely difficult for anyone to work out. Hence the man on the street simply won't.
In Thanet South Conservatives may well be able to get a few Labour voters to "lend support" for GE2015 (On the face of it looking at GE2010 results the COnservatives are along way ahead... - that is useful for a "Newark squeeze" tactic)
Thurrock I think is UKIP's best chance for a seat in GE2015 now.
Titter ....
"Why would you think that? What if ten conservatives voted AIFE in the SE to spite ukip, and Ukip beat the conservatives by 9 votes, to gain a seat, with AIFE getting 2%
All you are doing is splitting the anti ukip vote "
People simply don't think that rationally.
Linking to that survey proves my point. The people who rely heavily on public services are a minority of the population, the rest only notice when things go wrong in their personal lives .
Other than that, it is "perception" rather than "reality" the survey is measuring.
I condemn Smarmeron;s personlisation of the issue, but behind his bile there is a very important point. The conservatives have to offer young people (ie those under 40) a route via hard work to prosperity and independence, or they will consider Ed's alternative offer.
And they will be correct to do so.
It is so transparent: you are convinced it's some kind of trick, it simply DOES NOT COMPUTE that the Tories could be right.
What would happen is the usual. They'd borrow. Recklessly and at ever increasing interest rates. Right up until the bubble pops. And then they'd accuse the incoming Tory adminstration in 2020 of being 'nasty' for making actual cuts. T'was ever thus.
But.
If people feel they are being left out of the recovery then it will resonate strongly.
If the recovery is seen as being so successful (as actually Polly also points out) then the danger to the Cons is that people might feel confident that it (the recovery) wouldn't be jeopardised by Labour, and so feel happier to vote Lab to improve their own lot.
The overall pattern of absence of incumbency bonus is similar - in the poll as a whole, a Lab lead of 37-30 becomes 38-30 after prompting for local candidates.
A Broxtowe quirk which reappears from last time is that Labour is much further ahead with ABC1 voters (14-15 points, allowing for candidates) than C2DE voters (3-5), which is very different to most other seats. This may reflect candidate styles, I think, as well as the nature of the ABC1 vote (lots of lecturers, doctors, etc.).
This seat in my opinion is very hard to call, probably more than any of the others in the East Midlands.
Alternatively a rational tory might think that Cameron will win if he moves right; a defeat by Ukip in the Euros will move him right, therefore letting Ukip in by mistake would not be the end of the world, therefore the risk in voting AIFE is illusory.
I do not say this argument is correct or sensible, just that it may have influenced votes.
If you don't use a public library, it's closure does not effect you in the slightest.
Same goes for other services, so it becomes obvious that the majority of the people are replying not through experience, but by what they get told.
"Every unemployed person has a 42" TV, and cosmetic surgery on demand"
It's not just the Russian media who post propaganda in favour of their governments.
It seems not unnatural for voters to punish a party for failure, but strange that it should punish it for success and vote for the party that is responsible for the economic hangover in the first place.
Who opened our borders in 2004? Who ruined the economy in 2008? Who is trying and mostly succeeding in correcting these mistakes?
By the way? that LOL? Was it "lots of love"? ( I doubt I can borrow a police horse to go riding with you unfortunately)
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/22/parents-allow-female-genital-mutilation-prosecuted-cameron-law
'Didn't you read the next bit? (re Ashcrofts poll)
This is why I really don't regard these polls as being especially useful.
All labour can do is unbalance the economy again.
Don't get me wrong - I agree with all you say and logic dictates that it should be the case but, as various family members have said to me down the ages: now is not the time for logic....