So Labour largely doing the same in the marginals as they are nationally.
Yes, I'm not sure this is going to tell us very much. I suspect the differences in swings across constituencies (and particularly the changes in swing in the four Labour-held seats since Lord A last polled them) are as much random noise as anything else.
Still, the poll does tell us one thing - Nick P was wrong to think the Conservatives have not been trying very hard in Labour-held seats.
Mr. G, won't do much for Salmond's claim (of a few months back) that, post-Yes, England and Scotland would be best pals.
It's certainly not top of the agenda, but does feed the idea that some of those who want independence are against the English.
MD , only in the minds of the English , in Scotland we are all perfectly clear that we do not harbour any ill feelings and that the referendum is about us , not the English. The London rags would love it to be otherwise but tough luck. Just surprising that so many down south are happy being treated like mushrooms and do not seek the truth.
So a bunch of 1.5% majorities would fall to Labour on current polling? Colour me stunned.
The polling is very interesting but for the most part not that revealing. At a push, you could argue that you're not seeing much incumbency effect in this polling. But do we know when constituency incumbency should be expected to assert itself in polling?
Good morning. Never mind about Salmond, it's the L/Dems I'm interested in this morning.
The story is that the Fox had the keys to the chicken coop, sampled a few chickens - enough to ruffle their feathers - then was driven from the coop by a bevy of hens. The cocks staying aloof.
The cocks then held a conclave admonishing the fox but eventually, because the Fox was a powerful leader, sighed and let him off.
Let's see what the hens decide to do. Mind you, there are not many left.
Our morning message from the party that says women who don't clean behind the fridge are sluts.
Seeing as I have an American style fridge/freezer I'm very glad my missus must be a slut then.
Earlier this year, I had to move the fridge, only to discover a dried out corpse of a rat. How long it had lain there I do not know.
Given my cats tendency to bring mice in and then let them go still alive theirs a good chance I have a few around as well.
There's one particular little bugger living behind my TV unit which I am in a battle of wits in to catch at the moment.
So a bunch of 1.5% majorities would fall to Labour on current polling? Colour me stunned.
The polling is very interesting but for the most part not that revealing. At a push, you could argue that you're not seeing much incumbency effect in this polling. But do we know when constituency incumbency should be expected to assert itself in polling?
Lord Ashcroft doesn't name the incumbents in his polls, so it is unlikely we will see it in his polls.
So Labour largely doing the same in the marginals as they are nationally.
Am I missing something here? The swing in the Labour held marginals is 5.5% - equivalent to a national lead of 4%. The swing in the Conservative held marginals is 6.5% - equivalent to a national lead of 6%.
The actual national Labour lead appears to be c. 3% so there is slight overperformance in these marginal seats although nothing significant.
It is also higher than the average Labour leads in the ANP which IIRC have been about 4%.
The most interesting results for me are in Stroud where a 1 point Labour lead on the standard VI poll goes to an 11 point one on the local VI one. This shows the value of standing popular former MPs.
The other noteworthy element is the lack of any signs of any systemic Conservative 1st time incumbency bonus. This could be crucial if there is a close election and makes the Labour most seats / Conservative most votes scenario more likely.
Mike pointing out the weighting down of ukip and weighting up of the Lib Dems on twitter. Well played Mike x
Mike Smithson (@MSmithsonPB) 20/08/2014 08:55 LAB lead was down to just 1% in latest YouGov - but look at the huge gap in the unweighted numbers. pic.twitter.com/8Qrg674wXR
Comedy weighting hahaha - anyone thinking the Conservatives are 1% behind Labour off that poll is an idiot.
That's the whole point of weighting.
Unweighted numbers are never right, it wasn't so long, that one YouGov poll unweighted numbers had the Tories ahead.
That is a rare occurence, an outlier in the truest sense of the word if you like.
So a bunch of 1.5% majorities would fall to Labour on current polling? Colour me stunned.
The polling is very interesting but for the most part not that revealing. At a push, you could argue that you're not seeing much incumbency effect in this polling. But do we know when constituency incumbency should be expected to assert itself in polling?
Lord Ashcroft doesn't name the incumbents in his polls, so it is unlikely we will see it in his polls.
Why do his polls pick up the incumbency effect for LDs MPs using the non-naming methodology and even some Labour candidates (see Stroud in this poll) but not for Conservative MPs?
Not much sign of Labour to UKIP switchers in the new Ashcroft poll. Plenty of Red Liberals though. The key to next year seems to be whether the Tories can get a UKIP swingback without alienating existing supporters or driving more LDs to Labour.
Mr. G, won't do much for Salmond's claim (of a few months back) that, post-Yes, England and Scotland would be best pals.
It's certainly not top of the agenda, but does feed the idea that some of those who want independence are against the English.
only in the minds of the English
Isn't that where it matters when it comes to negotiations?
Three years of going on and on and on about the iniquities of Westminster rule and the Butcher's Apron and you don't think people have heard 'English'?
Is it only in the mind of our black friends when they take offence at the 'N' word?
So Labour largely doing the same in the marginals as they are nationally.
Am I missing something here? The swing in the Labour held marginals is 5.5% - equivalent to a national lead of 4%. The swing in the Conservative held marginals is 6.5% - equivalent to a national lead of 6%.
The actual national Labour lead appears to be c. 3% so there is slight overperformance in these marginal seats although nothing significant.
It is also higher than the average Labour leads in the ANP which IIRC have been about 4%.
The most interesting results for me are in Stroud where a 1 point Labour lead on the standard VI poll goes to an 11 point one on the local VI one. This shows the value of standing popular former MPs.
The other noteworthy element is the lack of any signs of any systemic Conservative 1st time incumbency bonus. This could be crucial if there is a close election and makes the Labour most seats / Conservative most votes scenario more likely.
It is within the margin of error, that's why I said, "largely"
"Two-fifths (41 per cent) of Conservative defectors to UKIP ruled out going back to the Tories, and 59 per cent of Lib Dem switchers to Labour said they would not go back to their previous party"
Not much sign of Labour to UKIP switchers in the new Ashcroft poll. Plenty of Red Liberals though. The key to next year seems to be whether the Tories can get a UKIP swingback without alienating existing supporters or driving more LDs to Labour.
Expect a grab-a-granny vote budget for Osborne next year...
Good morning. Never mind about Salmond, it's the L/Dems I'm interested in this morning.
The story is that the Fox had the keys to the chicken coop, sampled a few chickens - enough to ruffle their feathers - then was driven from the coop by a bevy of hens. The cocks staying aloof.
The cocks then held a conclave admonishing the fox but eventually, because the Fox was a powerful leader, sighed and let him off.
Let's see what the hens decide to do. Mind you, there are not many left.
Our morning message from the party that says women who don't clean behind the fridge are sluts.
Seeing as I have an American style fridge/freezer I'm very glad my missus must be a slut then.
Earlier this year, I had to move the fridge, only to discover a dried out corpse of a rat. How long it had lain there I do not know.
Last time I moved the fridge I found the corpse of my son's pet snake, which had escaped several months beforehand. .
So a bunch of 1.5% majorities would fall to Labour on current polling? Colour me stunned.
The polling is very interesting but for the most part not that revealing. At a push, you could argue that you're not seeing much incumbency effect in this polling. But do we know when constituency incumbency should be expected to assert itself in polling?
Only relevant in that these are the seats that decide the election.
So a bunch of 1.5% majorities would fall to Labour on current polling? Colour me stunned.
The polling is very interesting but for the most part not that revealing. At a push, you could argue that you're not seeing much incumbency effect in this polling. But do we know when constituency incumbency should be expected to assert itself in polling?
Lord Ashcroft doesn't name the incumbents in his polls, so it is unlikely we will see it in his polls.
First time incumbency was a very clearly apparent in 2001, 2005, and 2010, so I would see no reason why it should not be apparent in 2015.
So a bunch of 1.5% majorities would fall to Labour on current polling? Colour me stunned.
The polling is very interesting but for the most part not that revealing. At a push, you could argue that you're not seeing much incumbency effect in this polling. But do we know when constituency incumbency should be expected to assert itself in polling?
Lord Ashcroft doesn't name the incumbents in his polls, so it is unlikely we will see it in his polls.
Why do his polls pick up the incumbency effect for LDs MPs using the non-naming methodology and even some Labour candidates (see Stroud in this poll) but not for Conservative MPs?
Because in those Lib Dems are usually not first time incumbents, which helps them, most of the Tories are first time incumbents, and the Lord A question helps the long term incumbents.
Good morning. Never mind about Salmond, it's the L/Dems I'm interested in this morning.
The story is that the Fox had the keys to the chicken coop, sampled a few chickens - enough to ruffle their feathers - then was driven from the coop by a bevy of hens. The cocks staying aloof.
The cocks then held a conclave admonishing the fox but eventually, because the Fox was a powerful leader, sighed and let him off.
Let's see what the hens decide to do. Mind you, there are not many left.
Our morning message from the party that says women who don't clean behind the fridge are sluts.
Seeing as I have an American style fridge/freezer I'm very glad my missus must be a slut then.
Earlier this year, I had to move the fridge, only to discover a dried out corpse of a rat. How long it had lain there I do not know.
Last time I moved the fridge I found the corpse of my son's pet snake, which had escaped several months beforehand. .
So Labour largely doing the same in the marginals as they are nationally.
Am I missing something here? The swing in the Labour held marginals is 5.5% - equivalent to a national lead of 4%. The swing in the Conservative held marginals is 6.5% - equivalent to a national lead of 6%.
The actual national Labour lead appears to be c. 3% so there is slight overperformance in these marginal seats although nothing significant.
It is also higher than the average Labour leads in the ANP which IIRC have been about 4%.
The most interesting results for me are in Stroud where a 1 point Labour lead on the standard VI poll goes to an 11 point one on the local VI one. This shows the value of standing popular former MPs.
The other noteworthy element is the lack of any signs of any systemic Conservative 1st time incumbency bonus. This could be crucial if there is a close election and makes the Labour most seats / Conservative most votes scenario more likely.
Well I'd ignore the difference between the Lab & Con held seats as that's entirely explainable [and then some] by Itchen, which seems to be sui generis. And over the period polled the Lab lead was probably closer to 4% than 3%. But that still leaves a bit of Lab overperformance to explain (or attribute to sampling / weighting error).
Perhaps the more interesting question is whether Con MPs get less incumbency than Lab ones (I think it's fairly well accepted that LD MPs have the strongest incumbency). Playing purely on stereotypes, it's certainly possible that Con MPs don't work the constituency as hard, preferring of course to devote themselves to the affairs of state for which they were elected.
First time incumbency was a very clearly apparent in 2001, 2005, and 2010, so I would see no reason why it should not be apparent in 2015.
Quite so. What I don't know is whether constituency-level opinion polls would have picked up the effect in previous electoral cycles. My hunch is not, but has anyone actually looked at this?
So a bunch of 1.5% majorities would fall to Labour on current polling? Colour me stunned.
The polling is very interesting but for the most part not that revealing. At a push, you could argue that you're not seeing much incumbency effect in this polling. But do we know when constituency incumbency should be expected to assert itself in polling?
Only relevant in that these are the seats that decide the election.
Well of course, but anyone thinking the Tories will win is obviously anticipating swingback.
That's poor wording! Makes it sound like David Cameron was a principal in the events!
You're right it does!
What a horrific incident.. I don't know how anyone can bring themselves to watch it
(The beheading., not Cameron returning to Downing St)
LOL! I'm glad you clarified the point in brackets... otherwise I might have misunderstood...
There was a very good article (forget who) the other day asking why people are so keen to watch/share this kind of video. I have no desire to see it, or any of the other barbarities ISIS are inflicting on people.
What I do find extraordinary is why people who grew up in Britain are willing to do this sort of thing. I can just about rationalise why someone might fall prey to a twisted ideology and decide to head off to the Middle East to fight for the caliphate. But to turn around and start beheading and crucifying people? Extraordinary. I think we should consider, very seriously, cancelling their passports - they have decided that their first loyalty is not to the UK. Fine. Let them live with that decision.
First time incumbency was a very clearly apparent in 2001, 2005, and 2010, so I would see no reason why it should not be apparent in 2015.
Quite so. What I don't know is whether constituency-level opinion polls would have picked up the effect in previous electoral cycles. My hunch is not, but has anyone actually looked at this?
Well the Tories are getting a reverse-incumbency effect here - in the 8 Tory held seats the standard voting intention gives Lab a 8.1% lead, which increases to 9.5% when you "think specifically about your own constituency and the candidates who are likely to stand there".
maybe, but England could have zero uni fees if stopped pissing money up the wall on overseas aid and educated our own kids first.
I do wish those who rail against the foreign aid budget would take the time to investigate how it is actually spent.
It is typically paid against specific projects, with the proviso that the work must be sourced substantially from the UK.
So besides the hundreds of millions spent of "foreign" aid directly in the UK, much of the rest is transferred to bodies like the World Bank and the UN who stipulate how and where it is spent. Money contributed towards building a dam, a power station or a bridge will only be so contributed if the recipient engages firms from the donor's country to carry the work out.
Pension payments to former colonial staff also count as foreign aid. The cost of handling asylum seekers counts as foreign aid. And so on.
It is not, as the typically lazy UKIPper seems to think, disbursed as cash gifts to African kleptocrats.
It's hard to see how the LibDems could have made a bigger mess of the Lord Rennard matter. The Kafkaesque accusation that he had 'brought the party into disrepute', for having the temerity to be cleared of the initial allegations under the party's own internal procedures, was a masterpiece of an own-goal. All it did was keep the issue going for longer.
They just kept digging. Having "brought the party into disrepute" was just an attempt to do with with a spade what should have happened with a hammer, vis, an internal disciplinary procedure that had enough integrity to withstand scrutiny.
I cannot believe, however, that Rennard would have been better off as a Tory. The language of justice would not have into the equation.
Here's one for politicians north and south of the border: I have two daughters. University in England costs 9,000 a year. So that's 54 grand just for tuition (assuming a 3 year course - pro-rate upwards accordingly for longer courses). Probably 70 grand with accommodation, food, etc. Pre-tax earnings of well over 100k (by me or by themselves) will be needed to pay for this. Ouch!
Meanwhile in Scotland university is free to students and paid for by........me. Other EU citizens can benefit too. But not my English daughters. WTF?
If Scotland goes independent and is allowed to join EU, does that mean that English students will be able to go to Scottish Universities for free as we will not be the same member state any more?
looks like the telegraph has answered the question already
Mr. G, won't do much for Salmond's claim (of a few months back) that, post-Yes, England and Scotland would be best pals.
It's certainly not top of the agenda, but does feed the idea that some of those who want independence are against the English.
only in the minds of the English
Isn't that where it matters when it comes to negotiations?
Three years of going on and on and on about the iniquities of Westminster rule and the Butcher's Apron and you don't think people have heard 'English'?
Is it only in the mind of our black friends when they take offence at the 'N' word?
If only they'd 'grow up' eh?
We didn't mean any offence......
It doesn't matter what you mean
It matters what they hear
LOL, you grovelling again in your new country. Cringe cringe grovel , bet you have modified your accent as well.
Mr. Observer, I must disagree. If Yes wins and then the UK parties suddenly decide a currency union would be super I cannot see anything but a very combative and angry situation with UK (ex-Scotland, of course) voters.
Edited extra bit: on tuition fees, the SNP desire to continue charging the English them (but not citizens from other EU countries) did not do much to dispel the notion that at least part of the SNP/Yes campaign is not only pro-independence but actively anti-English.
Nothing will suddenly be decided. It's all going to take time. And the rUK negotiators will do what is best for the rUK. A watertight currency union with Scotland that contains full safeguards is better than having a fiscally unstable, vulnerable northern neighbour. That's a win for the rUK.
I can't see how there will be a water tight CU.
- Salmond has already said it's a stop gap nmaking his currency fudge even worse - the EU perspective is a barrier as IScots should be heading to CU with the Euro not the £
those two problems alone mean the £ is ripe for currency speculators who want to test how strong the link is. And if the £Scot gets attacked so does £Sterling. The whole edifice will crack because at its centre there's no political union.
And since most of the people testing the limits will be sitting in London how does that help cross-border relations ?
The currency floats so all that would happen is the pound would find a level appropriate for the cockanamy situation it found itself in. I am not sure how speculators could speculate. A CU is a daft idea from all perspectives. If the prospect ever came about I hope it would be put to a referendum and I would certainly vote against it. An economic iScotland may be to our interest but its not our responsibility, an economically sound England would come first.
What's baffling, but par for the course for the Nat loonies, is the denial.
The UK had a disastrous experience with currency union between 1990 and 1992, prospered outside one thereafter, set 5 deliberately unachievable "tests" ahead of any Euro membership to make sure we didn't join, and observing the eurozone now concludes that we would now be utterly screwed had we joined. Within the Eurozone only Germany is not screwed by it - but even then, others are so screwed that whatever advantage Germany gained has been significantly eroded by constant bailouts.
In short, every single experience of currency unions that the UK has had or observed for decades has pointed so unerringly to its being a bad idea that even Labour gets it, and is opposed.
Why, then, does Salmond imagine that we'll change our minds just to accommodate him?
That's poor wording! Makes it sound like David Cameron was a principal in the events!
You're right it does!
What a horrific incident.. I don't know how anyone can bring themselves to watch it
(The beheading., not Cameron returning to Downing St)
LOL! I'm glad you clarified the point in brackets... otherwise I might have misunderstood...
There was a very good article (forget who) the other day asking why people are so keen to watch/share this kind of video. I have no desire to see it, or any of the other barbarities ISIS are inflicting on people.
What I do find extraordinary is why people who grew up in Britain are willing to do this sort of thing. I can just about rationalise why someone might fall prey to a twisted ideology and decide to head off to the Middle East to fight for the caliphate. But to turn around and start beheading and crucifying people? Extraordinary. I think we should consider, very seriously, cancelling their passports - they have decided that their first loyalty is not to the UK. Fine. Let them live with that decision.
Real punishment that right enough , I hardly think coming back to live in some ghetto in the UK is foremost in their minds. They would not be coming back to multiple mansions and servants Charles , not all people live like you.
Here's one for politicians north and south of the border: I have two daughters. University in England costs 9,000 a year. So that's 54 grand just for tuition (assuming a 3 year course - pro-rate upwards accordingly for longer courses). Probably 70 grand with accommodation, food, etc. Pre-tax earnings of well over 100k (by me or by themselves) will be needed to pay for this. Ouch!
Meanwhile in Scotland university is free to students and paid for by........me. Other EU citizens can benefit too. But not my English daughters. WTF?
After a Yes vote they will be free, like any other EU citizen, paid for by the Scottish taxpayer.
No, only after the actual date of indepenance - and only if you are conceding that Scotland will have continuing seamless membership of the EU.
Be careful - opinions like that will get you ridiculed on PB!
Here's one for politicians north and south of the border: I have two daughters. University in England costs 9,000 a year. So that's 54 grand just for tuition (assuming a 3 year course - pro-rate upwards accordingly for longer courses). Probably 70 grand with accommodation, food, etc. Pre-tax earnings of well over 100k (by me or by themselves) will be needed to pay for this. Ouch!
Meanwhile in Scotland university is free to students and paid for by........me. Other EU citizens can benefit too. But not my English daughters. WTF?
If Scotland goes independent and is allowed to join EU, does that mean that English students will be able to go to Scottish Universities for free as we will not be the same member state any more?
Apparently The EU allows a system whereby students can be charged fees but these are offset by an equivalent maintenance grant - awarded solely on residence in the country concerned for several years prior to period of study.
Comments
Still, the poll does tell us one thing - Nick P was wrong to think the Conservatives have not been trying very hard in Labour-held seats.
I think that the last Ashcroft poll of marginal had a 4.5% swing.
The polling is very interesting but for the most part not that revealing. At a push, you could argue that you're not seeing much incumbency effect in this polling. But do we know when constituency incumbency should be expected to assert itself in polling?
There's one particular little bugger living behind my TV unit which I am in a battle of wits in to catch at the moment.
The actual national Labour lead appears to be c. 3% so there is slight overperformance in these marginal seats although nothing significant.
It is also higher than the average Labour leads in the ANP which IIRC have been about 4%.
The most interesting results for me are in Stroud where a 1 point Labour lead on the standard VI poll goes to an 11 point one on the local VI one. This shows the value of standing popular former MPs.
The other noteworthy element is the lack of any signs of any systemic Conservative 1st time incumbency bonus. This could be crucial if there is a close election and makes the Labour most seats / Conservative most votes scenario more likely.
What a horrific incident.. I don't know how anyone can bring themselves to watch it
(The beheading., not Cameron returning to Downing St)
I am sure IshmaelX, Dan Hodges and ARSE will not agree
Three years of going on and on and on about the iniquities of Westminster rule and the Butcher's Apron and you don't think people have heard 'English'?
Is it only in the mind of our black friends when they take offence at the 'N' word?
If only they'd 'grow up' eh?
We didn't mean any offence......
It doesn't matter what you mean
It matters what they hear
"Two-fifths (41 per cent) of Conservative defectors to UKIP ruled out going back to the Tories, and 59 per cent of Lib Dem switchers to Labour said they would not go back to their previous party"
.
Good news for Ed.
Perhaps the more interesting question is whether Con MPs get less incumbency than Lab ones (I think it's fairly well accepted that LD MPs have the strongest incumbency). Playing purely on stereotypes, it's certainly possible that Con MPs don't work the constituency as hard, preferring of course to devote themselves to the affairs of state for which they were elected.
There was a very good article (forget who) the other day asking why people are so keen to watch/share this kind of video. I have no desire to see it, or any of the other barbarities ISIS are inflicting on people.
What I do find extraordinary is why people who grew up in Britain are willing to do this sort of thing. I can just about rationalise why someone might fall prey to a twisted ideology and decide to head off to the Middle East to fight for the caliphate. But to turn around and start beheading and crucifying people? Extraordinary. I think we should consider, very seriously, cancelling their passports - they have decided that their first loyalty is not to the UK. Fine. Let them live with that decision.
This seems odd.
It is typically paid against specific projects, with the proviso that the work must be sourced substantially from the UK.
So besides the hundreds of millions spent of "foreign" aid directly in the UK, much of the rest is transferred to bodies like the World Bank and the UN who stipulate how and where it is spent. Money contributed towards building a dam, a power station or a bridge will only be so contributed if the recipient engages firms from the donor's country to carry the work out.
Pension payments to former colonial staff also count as foreign aid. The cost of handling asylum seekers counts as foreign aid. And so on.
It is not, as the typically lazy UKIPper seems to think, disbursed as cash gifts to African kleptocrats.
I cannot believe, however, that Rennard would have been better off as a Tory. The language of justice would not have into the equation.
Money on Lab most seats is of Mrs BJ demands a divorce proportions if it loses or will pay for a nice holiday if it wins.
The UK had a disastrous experience with currency union between 1990 and 1992, prospered outside one thereafter, set 5 deliberately unachievable "tests" ahead of any Euro membership to make sure we didn't join, and observing the eurozone now concludes that we would now be utterly screwed had we joined. Within the Eurozone only Germany is not screwed by it - but even then, others are so screwed that whatever advantage Germany gained has been significantly eroded by constant bailouts.
In short, every single experience of currency unions that the UK has had or observed for decades has pointed so unerringly to its being a bad idea that even Labour gets it, and is opposed.
Why, then, does Salmond imagine that we'll change our minds just to accommodate him?
Be careful - opinions like that will get you ridiculed on PB!