Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the swing-back theorists are right the proportion of 201
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the swing-back theorists are right the proportion of 2010 LD who’ve switched to LAB will decline
So far, as the chart shows, this group of switchers (“Labour’s electoral clutch” as they’ve been described) are remaining solid and are propping up the red team’s poll ratings.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I use this one
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Vax-C89P7NT-2400W-Power-Total/dp/B006T3I0PY
Seriously considering buying another before these bonkers rules come into effect.
That's also why the "Conservatives returning home" argument isn't a very good one, if UKIP voters do "return home" there will be a net +ve effect for the Conservatives but it is going to be damn slight.
See the preferred Gov't for UKIP voters in Ashcroft's latest polls - bad news for Dave.
Still all to play for IMO and remember how we all had egg on our faces laughing at Rod Crosby's prediction in 2010.
In order for these criticisms to have any weight the tories have to be the party of low tax, protection of property and defence of the ordinary law abiding person against overwheening government.
They aren't any of these. Osborne has seen to that.
This has now declined to roughly no net movement between the two, with some polls showing net movement of voters to the Conservatives from Labour.
If there is a further swingback before the 2015 GE then you will see it in the net switching between Conservative and Labour more than between Lib Dems and Labour.
If you don't, fine.
Anyone else who owns their own home can consider whether they would rather pay £0 or £135k.
http://blog.policy.manchester.ac.uk/featured/2014/08/the-decline-of-racial-prejudice-in-britain/
One prominent PB Swingback Theorist with a Massive Supercomputer says there a 0% chance of a Labour majority, which is clearly wrong and makes his "theory" worthless.
It's a hope/spin line not really a theory. Put it this way, there won't be all this talk of "swingback" and "crossover" if the opposition Tories lead the Labour Government in the polls this time in 5 years.
In 2010, it's true the main opposition party lost ground in the final months, but that support went mainly to the Lib Dems; I think Labour's 2010 performance was below their average poll ratings in the whole parliament (admittedly they were a little higher than in the summer of 2009, but that was a lowpoint brought about by expenses).
There's really no evidence whatsoever of governments reliably regaining support just because an election's coming.
I suppose the bigger question is whether the election is a referendum on David Cameron or on Ed Miliband. I don't think the answer to that is clear yet.
I still think he may throw caution to the wind. he isn't really seeing much criticism for being miles out with borrowing figures so one more budget may not be an issue, then cut heavily post election. It would have to be heavily too - UK finances are a bit of a mess and growth isn't doing anything to change that.
How accurate is the label "2010 LDs"? There are known problems with the accuracy of voters recall of who they actually voted for. A significant % of voters said they were going to vote LD at GE2010 but then did not. 1/10 to 1/5th of those who said they were going to vote LD actually did not.
Could these new Lab 2015 voters be the ones who are mistaken in who they voted for or did not actually vote....
Mssrs MikeL and Pulpstar. Apposite to our tax discussion. Plus of course Farage has already rejected HMRC's mission creep out of hand.
If they could convince me they can find the savings.....I'd vote for that.
What's it called when both lose ground? Swingoff?
Before then, of course, pre-GE polls had fatal methodological flaws so should be pretty much disregarded.
Noone knows if the Lab-UKIP, Con-UKIP or w/e UKIPpers will "return home" at all, and to what degree. I've seen plenty of posts from deluded Conservatives thinking that UKIP sub 5% is a shoo in and obviously they will ALL go back to the Cons, or near enough.
The point is we simply don't know, but assuming more Con-kippers "return home" over Lab-kippers is a very dangerous assumption, and I'm certainly not going to work with that from a betting viewpoint.
Swingback suggest's that by the general election the governing party recovers from it's mid-term polling position. That is all it suggest's and there have been very few Parliaments where this hasn't happened to some degree.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28886012
That's OK then!
Brown, whose real name is Royston Vasey, was photographed by a mobile safety camera with a copy of the Sun held in front of his steering wheel.
The 69-year-old comic was fined £30 by Northallerton magistrates on Wednesday and got four points on his licence.
Brown, of East Harlsey, was also ordered to pay costs of £40 and a victim surcharge of £20.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-28880647
What is a victim surcharge?
I came on here today to post one simple thing.
Inheritance Tax today on a £300k house = nil
Inheritance Tax post June 2015 under Miliband / Balls / Cable on a £300k house = £135k (in the form of Income tax).
What other policies Osborne / Miliband / Farage / UKIP / Ant & Dec / Doctor Who / anyone else may or may not have are no interest to me - for the simple reason that none of them are going to cost me £135k. Thanks.
Chubby sounds like he got off lightly - the fine is low !
Labour were averaging c.26% in the Summer of 2009, and finished on 30%. Labour were generally polling better in 2006 and 2007, but that was pre-recession. Were it not for the recession, would no doubt have polled better than 30%.
Labour have also performed poorly in secondary elections throughout this Parliament, by the standards of previous oppositions. The Conservatives are still the largest party in local government. That doesn't mean that Labour is destined for defeat in 2015. It just means, a Labour win isn't very likely, if the past is any guide.
"Swingback" is not some strange untested theory. It simply describes the process whereby governments tend to lose support during the course of a Parliament, and then recover some or all of it, as the election approaches.
I've always thought you were a poet at heart OGH.
More good press for our tax and spend chancellor....
Or a massive Labour majority is very likely, if the past is a guide (and you look at the 2005 election where the Government lost loads of ground).
Part of the government is quite clearly flat on its back with little prospect of votes returning to it. That's the problem Tories have.
However, the plural of 'anecdote' is still not 'data'..... which tends to support Eastwinger.....
just like anthropogenic climate change....
(and on that blatant trolling, retires to bed. g'night folks)
Lab/Lib/Con supporters had better get used to it, or their disappointments at the GE2015 may prove life threatening.
Osborne has stepped off the auserity throttle since 2012-13. Which is why there is some GDP growth around.
You want him to step back on that throttle, and undermine the Tory myth that the economy is getting sorted, because that growth would quickly disappear again should Osborne listen.
Osborne is gambling on the performance of the last 4 quarters continuing up to election day. Recent data suggests he's not going to be lucky on that front, but he certainly won't risk undermining any growth there is by foolishly slashing spending now.
The Conservatives still have 40%.
It is looking vanishingly unlikely that it'll be the Lib Dems that UKIP "helps" which leaves either Lab or Con, or neither.
What is almost a certainty is that it won't be tears before bedtime for both Dave and Ed when the UKIP votes are analysed fully.
I'm cherry-picking data to "prove" that it's bollox.
Doesn't this in itself tell you something?
Pose the question another way. Why should governments have a "tendency" to recover?
What's the mechanism by which thousands or millions of voters change their political minds and become more favourable to the Government, no matter who is in power and what is happening in the country?
Cyclefree said:
Dysons are rubbish. Expensive, heavy and prone to breaking down.
Nonsense. I've still got a Dyson DC01 and it works a treat. Must be 15 years old at least, and regularly used too.
The polling high point for Labour in this Parliament was:
TNS/BRMB
2012-12-10
Con 27% Lab 42% Lib-Dem 9% UKIP 13% Lab Lead 15%
The question is how much more swingback will occur before the election? And will the Lib-Dems get anything back.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention
I do know that trying that tactic can be taken to ludicrous extremes - I recall Brown's people arguing how in a time of crisis (eg 2010) you should not go with the inexperienced, but stick with those in charge (this is not verbatim, obviously), with the unspoken point that if things are going well, then why would you want to change governments. The implication of which being that you should never change government at all apparently.
Who'd be a politician eh? No wonder that minister decided to scoot.
That's the view of most psephologists.
Another study of Hamas.
(Didn't we have the same discussion last year?).
Surely this is only true if you believe the state, and the state alone, is always the main driver of growth.
The revelation that Hamas summarily executes its own people for alleged support of Israel is shocking.
Just ISIS with fewer weapons
How Gordon Brown.
Given what the plan was in 2010 I would not describe that as "on target".
In my super marginal of Bedford where I was the LD candidate in 1992 I know a lot of people who voted for me then who are voting LAB in the general election. A proportion are LAB converts but many remain Lib Dems but just want to make their vote count against the Tories which, from their perspective, is making all the wrong noises.
The more CON tries to appeal to UKIP voters the more it makes LDs in LAB-CON marginals want to kick the blues out.
An hour or so ago I was talking with the head of one of the leading polling firms and both of us agreed that Tories lost the election when they hired Lynton Crosby.
I could never stand the man, but thought he'd be worth more than that.
Anyway they don't want it to look too good. People might think it was good enough to risk a Labour government again, as they did in 1997.
Anyways, must be off for the afternoon.
The real point about north sea resources is once again elided by the SNP. They claim various figures for the remaining North Sea such as the 24bn barrels, assess that at its market price and claim every Scot is going to be thousands of pounds better off. It is just lies.
The reality is that by the use of world first clever technology we are going to get more out of the North Sea than we once thought. That is great. It will maintain employment at a much higher level in the North East than would otherwise be the case and there are increasing opportunities to export that expertise developed in the north sea to other offshore, maturing fields.
What this does not do is produce significant sums for the Scottish Treasury. The cost of extracting the remaining oil is a much higher percentage than it was 20 years ago so it is a lot less profitable. As it is less profitable the amount of tax such as PRT that can be extracted from that profit is massively diminished. The reforms made by Osborne to encourage more investment in the north sea entitled companies to set off far more of their costs than had previously been the case, significantly reducing the tax flow. This was good business and has encouraged more investment but the quid pro quo of more production is going to be less tax.
So an independent Scotland will have an oil industry for longer than was once thought. It just won't pay the bills. And claims that every Scot will be thousands better off are just lies. Plain and simple lies.
Time to go canvassing.
13/11/2012 - Ipsos-MORI/Evening Standard - Con 32% Lab 46% LD 9% UKIP 3% Others 10%
Edit: upon further reading of the thread I see you are talking about leads.. oops!
We're a trillion quid in debt and the rest. We have the worst deficit - and one that growth seems to be moving not at all. We have an unaffordable welfare state and an electorate that seem determined to keep it that way. Yes we're very competitive on many many measures and there is hope. But hope is worth diddlysquat unless it translates into managing the deficit. I wouldn't swap Ozzy for Balls in a million years - but we have a WAY to go yet before we're even remotely out of the woods.
I won a bet on it Richard. I agree that we will meet the £95bn target. Not much of a target though is it?
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/tjcbxpedre/ES_London_Omni_Results_140813_2.pdf
Useful alternative for those who think the only polls which count are the Ashcroft marginals.
Would imply a national 2% Tory lead, at least...
(“Labour’s electoral clutch”) – Freudian slip alert..!
30/05/2012 - Angus Reid Public Opinion - Con 29% Lab 45% LD 9% UKIP 8% Other 9%
21/09/2012 - TNS BMRB - Con 28% Lab 44% LD 8% UKIP 7% Other 13%
Decent enough for the Conservatives, no qualms on that one.
The tax base of the UK is simply not big enough to support the infrastructure of our welfare state. I am not sure it will be in the foreseeable future.
UK Awakening @UK_Awakening 21m
Nigel Farage visits the Express & Star to answer readers questions #UKIP: http://youtu.be/2Qn6Z7JytXQ via @YouTube
The economy is going to look different by the election campaign. We can see the wheels starting to wobble.
And Osborne is going to miss the borrowing target by a £billion or so. Not good news, just before polling day.
I hope any other PB'ers in the same boat have received equally good news.
It may be that the electorate are still in denial, and that they will make that mistake. If so we face a decade or so of decline.