Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For YouGov trend spotting these are the best figures to wat
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For YouGov trend spotting these are the best figures to watch not the daily polls
After the LAB lead dropped from 6% on Monday night to 1% last night there’s been a lot of discussion about the volatility of the firm’s out. In reality, of course, both of this week’s polls have been within the margin of error.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Con: -
Lab: -5
LibD: -3
UKIP: +5
But "UKIP only hurts the Tories" (yes, I know it's more complicated than that......)
Cons: we were in a hole, Cons got us out of it and we are growing. Lab will c*ck it up again
touch and go, I agree.
‘te’ - Is this some odd phraseology picked up in your short trip to Ilkley?
European Space Agency launches to take supplies to ISS.
When I read it my subconscious added another "I" which made it a bizarre thing for the ESA to have done.
LAB 37
LIB DEM 8
Will be the figures for July
Lead will be 3.5
ISIS Equity Partners
http://www.isisep.com/
33 38 8 -5
35 36 8 -1
35 39 8 -4
34 35 8 -1
YouGov/Sun 23/07/2014 34 38 8 -4
YouGov/Sun 22/07/2014 34 37 7 -3
YouGov/Sun 21/07/2014 34 38 9 -4
YouGov/Sunday Times 18/07/2014 32 37 9 -5
YouGov/Sun 17/07/2014 32 39 8 -7
YouGov/Sun 16/07/2014 33 36 9 -3
YouGov/Sun 15/07/2014 34 38 6 -4
YouGov/Sun 14/07/2014 35 38 8 -3
YouGov/Sunday Times 11/07/2014 33 38 9 -5
YouGov/Sun 10/07/2014 34 37 8 -3
YouGov/Sun 09/07/2014 32 36 10 -4
YouGov/Sun 08/07/2014 31 38 8 -7
YouGov/Sun 07/07/2014 34 37 9 -3
YouGov/Sun on Sunday 04/07/2014 35 37 8 -2
YouGov/Sunday Times 04/07/2014 34 36 8 -2
YouGov/Sun 03/07/2014 35 36 8 -1
YouGov/Sun 02/07/2014 35 37 8 -2
YouGov/Sun 01/07/2014 33 38 8 -5
33.69565217 37.26086957 8.173913043 -3.565217391
33.5 37.26086957 8.173913043 -3.5
34 37 8
Isis oh Isis you are a terrible child,
What's driving me to you is driving me insane.
Still do really.
It's mystical child not terrible child.
Con +1
Lab =
Kipper -2
LD =
The Lab 39, Con 33 poll had more Conservative respondents than Labour.
TSE : "When a hard working and diligent candidate like Marcus Wood can't win Torbay you know Sanders and the Lib Dems are strong in that part of the world. "
Ah, but the LibDems' share of the vote nationally has fallen by more than half since the last GE.
If the Tories can't capture Torbay then the LibDems should be backed to win >40 seats.
Personally I don't see it.
Paddy is 8-5 on him if you want it !
He already got endorsements from Tessa Jowell, Helena Kennedy, Trevor Phillips, Mary Honeyball MEP, Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead & Kilburn PPC, defeated by 2 votes in 2012 Camden leadership election by Sarah Hayward who will probably be Starmer's main opponent in the selection), the Chair of Kings Cross Mosque, Fiona Millar and a couple of Cllrs.
ASLEF also declared their backing for him.
Here are the seats I reckon they can lose whilst still holding on in the bay:
1. Solihull Majority 175 (0.3%)
2. Mid Dorset and North Poole Majority 269 (0.6%)
3. Norwich South Majority 310 (0.7%)
4. Bradford East Majority 365 (0.9%)
5. Wells Majority 800 (1.4%)
6. St Austell & Newquay Majority 1312 (2.8%)
7. Brent Central Majority 1345 (3%)
10. St Ives Majority 1719 (3.7%)
11. Manchester, Withington Majority 1894 (4.2%)
12. Burnley Majority 1818 (4.3%)
13. East Dunbartonshire Majority 2184 (4.6%)
14. Chippenham Majority 2470 (4.7%)
15. Cheadle Majority 3272 (6.2%)
16. North Cornwall Majority 2981 (6.4%)
17. Eastbourne Majority 3435 (6.6%)
18. Taunton Deane Majority 3993 (6.9%)
19. Berwick-upon-Tweed Majority 2690 (7%)
21. Birmingham, Yardley Majority 3002 (7.3%)
22. Argyll & Bute Majority 3431 (7.6%)
23. Aberdeenshire West & Kincardine Majority 3684 (8.2%)
24. Edinburgh West Majority 3803 (8.2%)
31. Redcar Majority 5214 (12.4%)
38. Gordon Majority 6748 (13.8%)
44. Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey Majority 8765 (18.6%)
POSSIBLY:
36. Cambridge Majority 6792 (13.5%)
43. Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross Majority 4826 (16.8%)
Bermondsey
45. Bermondsey & Old Southwark Majority 8530 (19.1%)
"It would be an honour for anyone to succeed Frank Dobson. It will now be for the party to agree the process and timetable but if it is an open shortlist I intend to seek selection from members of Holborn and St Pancras, my home for over 15 years."
"Our constituency needs an MP who will continue Frank’s principled campaigning, fight to get the Tories out of power and be able to influence a future Labour government. I believe I can bring my experience as a human rights lawyer, DPP and campaigner to do that. I am only too aware of the impact that politics has on the daily lives of all of us."
Silly tories, playing with fire....
The media seem to have gone very quiet on the topic of Iraq.
I think it inappropriate to post a direct link to that video.
OGH has asked us to exercise discretion on these matters and PB also gets a fair amount of traffic from younger folk.
Perhaps on reflection you might ask to have the post deleted.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/3599423.stm
800,000 people slaughtered and I barely remember a peep in the UK media.
Hopefully some good TV coverage to catch up on this evening.
Edited extra bit: India's got more people than England and Australia combined, and had home advantage. It should be dominating the Commonwealth in sporting terms.
Average lead 3.5%
If we're discussing the Commonwealth Games Medal Table, how about a kind word for New Zealand (Mrs Stodge would approve) sitting in fifth place. Population the size of Wales but not far behind Canada and Scotland in terms of medals.
This is the key point. Any civil servant who would have even dared propose this to Mrs T. would have been seen swinging by a rope from Westminster Lamp post that night.
The very fact that Osborne and Cameron allowed this to even be mooted shows they cannot be conservatives. They are just big government corporatists with better PR than labour.
Is this an unacceptable extension of such powers? Maybe it is, but I do object to idiotic comments like Janet Daley saying "a basic premise of democratic government cannot be overturned". It has never been a basic premise of democratic government that customs officers and tax inspectors need a court order to seize assets. Maybe it should be, but it never has been in the past - so let's be accurate, shall we? Taxmen can already seize your assets without a court order:
http://www.harringtonbrooks.co.uk/advice-centre/legal-action/distraint
On the particular point, it doesn't seem as draconian as many of the existing powers. At least you get some warning and a chance to make representations.
@PickardJE: Labour's annual surplus: £5.5m. Labour's annual (opposition party) state subsidy: £7m @GreenJimll @toryradio
If that's true then why don;t they use the powers they already have? why do they need more powers?
That link you post refers to GOODS. it does not refer to bank accounts, as I suspect you well know.
Maybe, but it also contradicts your assertion that taxmen have draconian powers. They clearly don't.
Dave to core tory vote: Get stuffed
If she had written 'HMRC already have powers to seize assets without a court order, why do they need any more powers?', that would have been a fair point, which one could assess on its merits.
It really does not take much effort to go to court to say this person owes this much money - and this is how it has been worked out - and has been asked to pay on these number of occasions and here is the proof and here is an affidavit to say that no reply has been received and here is this person's account and we are only taking what we are legally due and if we get it wrong you the court can reverse this and order us to pay penalties. Any competent legal department can sort this out pdq and it provides some check and balance as does the court scrutiny.
And, yet, HMRC want to avoid all that, for no good reason that they have articulated and every responsible organisation which has commented has said what a terrible idea it is but it's all right, you say, because some other part of the agency can also exercise powers and do terrible things to you so why not this as well.
Jesus wept!
Can anyone explain to me how our politicians are prepared to sacrifice the all too fragile recovery of our own economy on the basis of zero evidence, before the reporting of any enquiry into MH-17? Who are prepared to take us to the brink of conflict with the world's 2nd biggest nuclear power? It's like some insane parallel universe. And it's these same student politician amateur adventurers having their infantile 'COBRA' meetings who warn of the 'dangers' of a party like UKIP coming to power.
Everybody gets a chance to strike a manly jaw jutting pose for the cameras, the risk of nuclear annihilation is a mere afterthought to a good media opportunity. ;-)
If you don't like it then pay your bloody taxes.
Screeching Tea Party extremist lunatics like Daley can take a short walk off a long pier.
I do pay my taxes. I have been overtaxed and HMRC have owed me money. I can't dip into their account to get MY money back. I have to wait months and months and I don't get any interest even though it was never the state's money in the first place.
HMRC's record is lamentable. But even if they were perfect, they shouldn't have such a power without some form of court scrutiny. The balance of power between the individual and the state should be in favour of the individual. The state exists to serve us and not the other way around.
In any case, everyone seems to be missing the point I've been making, which is that this is hardly some major new principle, some line which has never been crossed before. It may or may not be a good measure, but the argument that it is in principle some breach of Magna Carta, never before inflicted on free-born Englishmen, is just utter garbage.
As for Richard T's argument that government should serve the people, I rather think the people are fed up with tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.
Nor is it correct that there are 4 warnings: there have to be 4 letters saying that the money is due and must be paid. Who checks? What if the letters are addressed to the wrong address or not sent or there is no evidence of them having been received? What if the person was away or ill? Someone can say that 4 letters were sent and just do it. And the taxpayer must then prove a negative: I did not receive the letters. A logical impossibility.
I'm puzzled as to why you are so resistant to the idea that the taxman should have to be subject to some checks and balances before seizing money.
If you don't like it, then just pay your tax.
"The Taxman" takes money directly from me every week before it even has a chance to reach my bank account, I don't shriek like a Tea Party fruitcake about it.
What people are really fed up with is the hypocrisy of it all. Something you are exhibiting in spades.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-28571431
Go Coalition!
You're naive if you think this will only be used against some wicked tax evader only.
Gonna look into this a bit more actually...