politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The big picture is that Cameron’s Conservatives continue to

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The big picture is that Cameron’s Conservatives continue to lose much more to UKIP than Miliband’s LAB

The chart above is from the latest batch of Lord Ashcroft’s CON-LAB marginals polling with an aggregate sample about three times as large as all the data that came out overnight. It highlights the big development that appears not to be going away – the rise of UKIP.

Read the full story here

JackW

Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister

Paul_Mid_Beds

Surely the most noteworthy figure there is that nearly half of them are people who did not vote last time round.

Plato

Podium finish

MikeK

New thread? You could have said!

JackW

Thanks to PBers on the previous thread.

Mrs JackW and I decided against JohnO's advice to spend 6 weeks in Bournemouth and felt that the plight of Jonny Foreigner deserved our pale flesh to be crisped up a tad than was likely to be the case in the fleshpots and beaches of the south coast of Blighty in late Autumn.

Freggles

David Cameron Will Never Win A Majority

Innocent_Abroad

Welcome back, Jack. I've missed you, even if no one else has...

Charles

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

Surely the most noteworthy figure there is that nearly half of them are people who did not vote last time round.

And that's the key uncertainty which makes this election so difficult to predict.

I think Survation (which IIRC ovestates UKIP generally) had them on 24% in the last poll.

If you apply ICM's DNV adjustment they will get 12% at the election - a huge difference. (Presumably vote shares for everyone else would be scaled by 100/88)

Personally, I think UKIP will subside somewhat and will end up with 10-12%.

Charles

JackW said:

Thanks to PBers on the previous thread.

Mrs JackW and I decided against JohnO's advice to spend 6 weeks in Bournemouth and felt that the plight of Jonny Foreigner deserved our pale flesh to be crisped up a tad than was likely to be the case in the fleshpots and beaches of the south coast of Blighty in late Autumn.

Welcome home.

(and to PB, obviously)

CarlottaVance

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

Surely the most noteworthy figure there is that nearly half of them are people who did not vote last time round.

And hence......are unlikely to vote next time either - unless, as in Scotland, there has been a hugely galvanising event.......

FPT:

THE scale of the challenge facing Scottish Labour can be revealed after it emerged the party has one-sixth of the membership of the SNP.

Informed sources said the number of members currently sits at just under 13,500, a figure boosted by nearly 1000 new referendum campaign sign-ups....

The SNP tally has shot up from 25,000 to 84,228. The Scottish Socialist Party, which has long been in the political doldrums, has increased its membership from 1500 to 3500. The Scottish Greens had fewer than 2000 members before the referendum, but now have more than 7500.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/revealed-just-how-many-members-does-labour-really-have-in-scotland.25814760

Swiss_Bob

Mr Smithson,

In all of this LAB has simply to hold its nerve which it doesn’t appear to be doing this weekend.

Yes. The Tories and Labour expect the Tories to get some swingback/credit for the economy by May.

Nothing is going to make things better for Labour, if anything Miliband can only make things worse.

MikeK

Ah, but Mike, Labour can see the cracks appearing all over their northern bastions and they are s**t scared.

JackW

Innocent_Abroad said:

Welcome back, Jack. I've missed you, even if no one else has...

Most kind and almost certainly true. Few like a sage.

Innocent_Abroad

JackW said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Welcome back, Jack. I've missed you, even if no one else has...

Most kind and almost certainly true. Few like a sage.

Onions do.

TGOHF

JackW said:

Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister

Did you mention this previously ?

JackW

Innocent_Abroad said:

JackW said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Welcome back, Jack. I've missed you, even if no one else has...

Most kind and almost certainly true. Few like a sage.

Onions do.

Tears ....

malcolmg

CarlottaVance said:

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

Surely the most noteworthy figure there is that nearly half of them are people who did not vote last time round.

And hence......are unlikely to vote next time either - unless, as in Scotland, there has been a hugely galvanising event.......

FPT:

THE scale of the challenge facing Scottish Labour can be revealed after it emerged the party has one-sixth of the membership of the SNP.

Informed sources said the number of members currently sits at just under 13,500, a figure boosted by nearly 1000 new referendum campaign sign-ups....

The SNP tally has shot up from 25,000 to 84,228. The Scottish Socialist Party, which has long been in the political doldrums, has increased its membership from 1500 to 3500. The Scottish Greens had fewer than 2000 members before the referendum, but now have more than 7500.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/revealed-just-how-many-members-does-labour-really-have-in-scotland.25814760

made up fake number there, bet they have nowhere near that, and given their is no such organisation registered anywhere it is even more doubtful. Being a regional sub office of London allows them free rein to make up fake numbers. Take the one off the front and you will be nearer the mark.

david_herdson

On topic:

The Conservatives will lose if

(They continue to lose substantially more votes to UKIP than Labour does

OR

If the 2010 LD defectors continue to prefer Labour by a substantial margin to the Tories)

AND

Labour retains at least the same share of their 2010 vote as the Tories.

At the moment, all three points are in Labour's favour. At the same time, the extent to which they are in Labour's favour is declining. It's heading for a photo-finish.

MikeK

Charles said:

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

Surely the most noteworthy figure there is that nearly half of them are people who did not vote last time round.

And that's the key uncertainty which makes this election so difficult to predict.

I think Survation (which IIRC ovestates UKIP generally) had them on 24% in the last poll.

If you apply ICM's DNV adjustment they will get 12% at the election - a huge difference. (Presumably vote shares for everyone else would be scaled by 100/88)

Personally, I think UKIP will subside somewhat and will end up with 10-12%.

Personally, I think UKIP will subside somewhat and will end up with 10-12%

My dear Charles, you've been repeating that mantra for the last two years:
2013. They are bound to fall back to 5/6%
2014 after EU elections. They are bound to fall back over the summer.
Now. They are bound to.............................

Give it up already. This time; this election, all will be different.

isam

Charles said:

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

Surely the most noteworthy figure there is that nearly half of them are people who did not vote last time round.

And that's the key uncertainty which makes this election so difficult to predict.

I think Survation (which IIRC ovestates UKIP generally) had them on 24% in the last poll.

If you apply ICM's DNV adjustment they will get 12% at the election - a huge difference. (Presumably vote shares for everyone else would be scaled by 100/88)

Personally, I think UKIP will subside somewhat and will end up with 10-12%.

"Personally, I think UKIP will subside somewhat..."

You'll fit in great on here!

JackW

TGOHF said:

JackW said:

Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister

Did you mention this previously ?

I'm not sure. It has a certain resonance but some fool mentioned that I called this the day of Ed's election as Labour leader. Highly unlikely if not downright preposterous.

CarlottaVance

#WeBackEd - quick! To Twitter!

http://labourlist.org/2014/11/webacked-a-wave-of-support-for-miliband-on-twitter/

That'll turn things around! Just wait until voters see those tweets!

That'll fix this pdq: (FPT)

CarlottaVance said:

Ed's ratings continue to slide - net (vs 1 month ago) [and Sceptical Scotland]

Clear on what he stands for: -45 (-14) [-60]
Strong leader of party: -52 (-7) [-66]
Up to job of PM: -46 (-9) [-61]

Roger

Carlotta


"THE scale of the challenge facing Scottish Labour can be revealed after it emerged the party has one-sixth of the membership of the SNP.....The SNP tally has shot up from 25,000 to 84,228."

Apparently the SNP are offering free membership.

Rather like the 'Jewish dilemma' is free bacon the Scottish one must be free membership to the SNP

isam

JackW said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Welcome back, Jack. I've missed you, even if no one else has...

Most kind and almost certainly true. Few like a sage.

Welcome back, I was genuinely concerned!

david_herdson

JackW said:

Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister

Delighted to see you back, Jack.

Ref your above prediction, what's your view on whether Ed Miliband will join IDS and Ming Campbell as leaders who were deposed before they even fought an election?

david_herdson

Roger said:

Carlotta


"THE scale of the challenge facing Scottish Labour can be revealed after it emerged the party has one-sixth of the membership of the SNP.....The SNP tally has shot up from 25,000 to 84,228."

Apparently the SNP are offering free membership.

...

I don't know if that's true but even if so, it's still a proactive decision for people to join. If the Daily Mail offered you a free copy, would you take it?

Charles

MikeK said:

Charles said:

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

Surely the most noteworthy figure there is that nearly half of them are people who did not vote last time round.

And that's the key uncertainty which makes this election so difficult to predict.

I think Survation (which IIRC ovestates UKIP generally) had them on 24% in the last poll.

If you apply ICM's DNV adjustment they will get 12% at the election - a huge difference. (Presumably vote shares for everyone else would be scaled by 100/88)

Personally, I think UKIP will subside somewhat and will end up with 10-12%.

Personally, I think UKIP will subside somewhat and will end up with 10-12%

My dear Charles, you've been repeating that mantra for the last two years:
2013. They are bound to fall back to 5/6%
2014 after EU elections. They are bound to fall back over the summer.
Now. They are bound to.............................

Give it up already. This time; this election, all will be different.

Actually, no, I haven't. My first prediction was 8-10%, which moved up earlier this year to 9-11% and is now 10-12%.

But I like your argument that "this time it's different"

Do you want to frame a bet on that: let's say a central point of 18% [mid way between Survation's 24% and the top end of my range] and any figure up to £5 per point on the UKIP vote share.

audreyanne

I think Mike your basic premise is correct.

The trouble is, it's based on the most inaccurate pollster in Britain.

MikeK

JackW said:

TGOHF said:

JackW said:

Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister

Did you mention this previously ?

I'm not sure. It has a certain resonance but some fool mentioned that I called this the day of Ed's election as Labour leader. Highly unlikely if not downright preposterous.

In welcoming you back JackW, I forgot to ask you when your birthday was. You still can't be only 101 years of age and if you have advanced to 102 or beyond, welcome to the club.

Roger

DavidH

" If the Daily Mail offered you a free copy, would you take it?"

I wouldn't need it. I don't have an incontinent dog.

CarlottaVance

Roger said:

Apparently the SNP are offering free membership.

They may have in the past - not currently - its £12 unless you are over 65 or unemployed (£5) or under 15 (£2)

https://my.snp.org/join

Meanwhile, as predicted, Nicola is going to park her tanks on Ed's lawn:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/sturgeons-vow-ill-take-on-labour-on-social-justice.25814783

And the Herald seems very much on-side with the SNP - digging up disobliging stories on Jim Murphy:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/murphys-10000-donor-also-gave-money-to-tories.25814773

(Small print: donor gave to Tories in 2001, has been Labour supporter for more than a decade)

Morris_Dancer

Curse of the new thread:
Betting Post

The pre-race piece for Brazil is up here, including a juicy tip on Massa:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/brazil-pre-race.html

Gadfly

UKIP's rise in the polls began mid 2012. During that period, the averaged party ratings in the YouGov polls have changed as follows.

The Tory share has fallen 0.3 points from 32.4 to 32.1
The LibDem share has fallen 0.9 points from 8.2 to 7.3
The Labour share has fallen 10.6 points from 43.6 to 33
The UKIP share has risen 8.7 points from 7.6 to 16.3

If the Tories are the main losers to UKIP, then they must have picked up equivalent support from elsewhere, which has compensated for the defectors. Here's the chart...

http://www.mediafire.com/view/ra9m78f8z9rpyv1/YouGov Polls since June 2012.jpg#

JackW

isam said:

JackW said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Welcome back, Jack. I've missed you, even if no one else has...

Most kind and almost certainly true. Few like a sage.

Welcome back, I was genuinely concerned!

Thank you.

Be assured the batteries are charged for a few months more and God willing will see me past the general election.

Innocent_Abroad

david_herdson said:

Roger said:

Carlotta


"THE scale of the challenge facing Scottish Labour can be revealed after it emerged the party has one-sixth of the membership of the SNP.....The SNP tally has shot up from 25,000 to 84,228."

Apparently the SNP are offering free membership.

...

I don't know if that's true but even if so, it's still a proactive decision for people to join. If the Daily Mail offered you a free copy, would you take it?

What do you reckon, David?

MikeK

Charles said:

MikeK said:

Charles said:

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

Surely the most noteworthy figure there is that nearly half of them are people who did not vote last time round.

And that's the key uncertainty which makes this election so difficult to predict.

I think Survation (which IIRC ovestates UKIP generally) had them on 24% in the last poll.

If you apply ICM's DNV adjustment they will get 12% at the election - a huge difference. (Presumably vote shares for everyone else would be scaled by 100/88)

Personally, I think UKIP will subside somewhat and will end up with 10-12%.

Personally, I think UKIP will subside somewhat and will end up with 10-12%

My dear Charles, you've been repeating that mantra for the last two years:
2013. They are bound to fall back to 5/6%
2014 after EU elections. They are bound to fall back over the summer.
Now. They are bound to.............................

Give it up already. This time; this election, all will be different.

Actually, no, I haven't. My first prediction was 8-10%, which moved up earlier this year to 9-11% and is now 10-12%.

But I like your argument that "this time it's different"

Do you want to frame a bet on that: let's say a central point of 18% [mid way between Survation's 24% and the top end of my range] and any figure up to £5 per point on the UKIP vote share.

Your on. But I can only afford a £50 maximum, otherwise all to play for.

Financier

david_herdson said:

On topic:

The Conservatives will lose if

(They continue to lose substantially more votes to UKIP than Labour does

OR

If the 2010 LD defectors continue to prefer Labour by a substantial margin to the Tories)

AND

Labour retains at least the same share of their 2010 vote as the Tories.

At the moment, all three points are in Labour's favour. At the same time, the extent to which they are in Labour's favour is declining. It's heading for a photo-finish.

One of the most unstable polls is the LD2010 VI split. For example this month YG shows LAB/LD VI at 32/24 ranging to 24/35.

Last month it ranged from 37/23 to 26/32.

impartial

I hope Ed is not putting on his anorak fot this mornings service!

isam

audreyanne said:

I think Mike your basic premise is correct.

The trouble is, it's based on the most inaccurate pollster in Britain.

"Least accurate" might be a better way of putting it

How do you know LA is the least accurate?.

audreyanne

Gadfly said:

UKIP's rise in the polls began mid 2012. During that period, the averaged party ratings in the YouGov polls have changed as follows.

The Tory share has fallen 0.3 points from 32.4 to 32.1
The LibDem share has fallen 0.9 points from 8.2 to 7.3
The Labour share has fallen 10.6 points from 43.6 to 33
The UKIP share has risen 8.7 points from 7.6 to 16.3

If the Tories are the main losers to UKIP, then they must have picked up equivalent support from elsewhere, which has compensated for the defectors. Here's the chart...

http://www.mediafire.com/view/ra9m78f8z9rpyv1/YouGov Polls since June 2012.jpg#

What a stunning riposte to this thread! Sustained data based over a long period of time, not just one dodgy poll from an equally dodgy pollster.

Mike, is the problem with your premise that it's based on false voter recall and a preponderance of 2010 non voters?

JackW

david_herdson said:

JackW said:

Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister

Delighted to see you back, Jack.

Ref your above prediction, what's your view on whether Ed Miliband will join IDS and Ming Campbell as leaders who were deposed before they even fought an election?

Thank you for your kind comment David.

Too late now for Ed to be deposed. Labour are also awful at regicide.

One only has to recall the impending disaster of Michael Foot in 1983. Virtually all of Labour knew a heavy defeat loomed large but they persisted with Foot to the bitter end. It's in their DNA to give their man his chance to be defeated badly. And so will be the case in 2015.

There's also the thorny question of the replacement - Who ?? .... none inspire confidence and the polls certainly don't indicate a challenger would invigorate Labour.

No, Labour are stuck with Ed until the weekend after the general election.

Charles

MikeK said:

Charles said:

MikeK said:

Charles said:

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

Surely the most noteworthy figure there is that nearly half of them are people who did not vote last time round.

And that's the key uncertainty which makes this election so difficult to predict.

I think Survation (which IIRC ovestates UKIP generally) had them on 24% in the last poll.

If you apply ICM's DNV adjustment they will get 12% at the election - a huge difference. (Presumably vote shares for everyone else would be scaled by 100/88)

Personally, I think UKIP will subside somewhat and will end up with 10-12%.

Personally, I think UKIP will subside somewhat and will end up with 10-12%

My dear Charles, you've been repeating that mantra for the last two years:
2013. They are bound to fall back to 5/6%
2014 after EU elections. They are bound to fall back over the summer.
Now. They are bound to.............................

Give it up already. This time; this election, all will be different.

Actually, no, I haven't. My first prediction was 8-10%, which moved up earlier this year to 9-11% and is now 10-12%.

But I like your argument that "this time it's different"

Do you want to frame a bet on that: let's say a central point of 18% [mid way between Survation's 24% and the top end of my range] and any figure up to £5 per point on the UKIP vote share.

Your on. But I can only afford a £50 maximum, otherwise all to play for.

Would you rather make it a fun bet and, say, £1 per point (maximum liability for you of £18) with proceeds to the site?

taffys

If Tristram Hunt's comments in the Mail are correctly reported, then surely ed will either have to sack him or go.

david_herdson

Financier said:

david_herdson said:

On topic:

The Conservatives will lose if

(They continue to lose substantially more votes to UKIP than Labour does

OR

If the 2010 LD defectors continue to prefer Labour by a substantial margin to the Tories)

AND

Labour retains at least the same share of their 2010 vote as the Tories.

At the moment, all three points are in Labour's favour. At the same time, the extent to which they are in Labour's favour is declining. It's heading for a photo-finish.

One of the most unstable polls is the LD2010 VI split. For example this month YG shows LAB/LD VI at 32/24 ranging to 24/35.

Last month it ranged from 37/23 to 26/32.

You would expect that sort of volatility from a subsample that should be around 200. Even if weighted, it would have a MoE of 7% (i.e. 14% if you go from the high-point of the range to the low point of it), and unweighted, it'll be even bigger.

While combining subsamples isn't ideal - they can still contain discrepancies due to being individually unweighted - over the course of a month, the sample size becomes sufficient to get a reasonable idea of the longer-term picture.

CarlottaVance

JackW said:

isam said:

JackW said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Welcome back, Jack. I've missed you, even if no one else has...

Most kind and almost certainly true. Few like a sage.

Welcome back, I was genuinely concerned!

Be assured the batteries are charged for a few months more and God willing will see me past the general election.

Excellent!

I am sure it will come as no surprise that the YESNP have reacted to the SINDYREF result with all the good grace, charming manners and considered reflection that they demonstrated so consistently throughout the campaign......

FalseFlag

Powerful and well overdue condemnation of the US by Gorbachev. Criticism echoed by the then US ambassador James Matlock and the then French foreign minister Roland Dumas.
http://rt.com/news/203475-gorbachev-speech-berlin-wall/

http://rt.com/op-edge/203611-us-demonizes-russia-hegemony/

US further interfering in European affairs and attempting to intimidate sovereign nations.
http://rt.com/business/203415-us-hungary-pressure-russia/

MikeK

Charles said:

MikeK said:

Charles said:

MikeK said:

Charles said:

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

Surely the most noteworthy figure there is that nearly half of them are people who did not vote last time round.

And that's the key uncertainty which makes this election so difficult to predict.

I think Survation (which IIRC ovestates UKIP generally) had them on 24% in the last poll.

If you apply ICM's DNV adjustment they will get 12% at the election - a huge difference. (Presumably vote shares for everyone else would be scaled by 100/88)

Personally, I think UKIP will subside somewhat and will end up with 10-12%.

Personally, I think UKIP will subside somewhat and will end up with 10-12%

My dear Charles, you've been repeating that mantra for the last two years:
2013. They are bound to fall back to 5/6%
2014 after EU elections. They are bound to fall back over the summer.
Now. They are bound to.............................

Give it up already. This time; this election, all will be different.

Actually, no, I haven't. My first prediction was 8-10%, which moved up earlier this year to 9-11% and is now 10-12%.

But I like your argument that "this time it's different"

Do you want to frame a bet on that: let's say a central point of 18% [mid way between Survation's 24% and the top end of my range] and any figure up to £5 per point on the UKIP vote share.

Your on. But I can only afford a £50 maximum, otherwise all to play for.

Would you rather make it a fun bet and, say, £1 per point (maximum liability for you of £18) with proceeds to the site?

No, keep it as first arranged, I don't expect to lose. 18% is actually the minimum that UKIP need in GE.

FalseFlag

Freggles said:

David Cameron Will Never Win A Majority

No he won't will he, David Davis would have.

david_herdson

Roger said:

DavidH

" If the Daily Mail offered you a free copy, would you take it?"

I wouldn't need it. I don't have an incontinent dog.

And that is precisely the point: even if the SNP are offering free membership - which given the comment below, they're not anyway - people would still only join if they actually want to join. Just because something is free, it doesn't make it attractive if the product itself is something they find repellent. The SNP's surge in membership (and vote share), suggests many Scots do not have a negative view of that party.

Indeed, looking at the Scottish subsamples of this weekend's polls (I know!), they're still on course for major gains next year.

anotherDave

Gadfly said:

UKIP's rise in the polls began mid 2012. During that period, the averaged party ratings in the YouGov polls have changed as follows.

The Tory share has fallen 0.3 points from 32.4 to 32.1
The LibDem share has fallen 0.9 points from 8.2 to 7.3
The Labour share has fallen 10.6 points from 43.6 to 33
The UKIP share has risen 8.7 points from 7.6 to 16.3

If the Tories are the main losers to UKIP, then they must have picked up equivalent support from elsewhere, which has compensated for the defectors. Here's the chart...

http://www.mediafire.com/view/ra9m78f8z9rpyv1/YouGov Polls since June 2012.jpg#

If you look at the info graphic of voter movement put up on UK Polling Report, you see that much of the 2010-Con > UKIP gains had first moved to 'don't know' or Labour.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9049

Swiss_Bob

JackW said:

david_herdson said:

JackW said:

Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister

Delighted to see you back, Jack.

Ref your above prediction, what's your view on whether Ed Miliband will join IDS and Ming Campbell as leaders who were deposed before they even fought an election?

Thank you for your kind comment David.

Too late now for Ed to be deposed. Labour are also awful at regicide.

One only has to recall the impending disaster of Michael Foot in 1983. Virtually all of Labour knew a heavy defeat loomed large but they persisted with Foot to the bitter end. It's in their DNA to give their man his chance to be defeated badly. And so will be the case in 2015.

There's also the thorny question of the replacement - Who ?? .... none inspire confidence and the polls certainly don't indicate a challenger would invigorate Labour.

No, Labour are stuck with Ed until the weekend after the general election.

Completely agree, the thing that clinches it for me is the polling data on the contenders in the Mail. If it showed any real differences he would be gone, it doesn't.

Chukka for PM? The guy would blow away in a breeze.

JackW

MikeK said:

JackW said:

TGOHF said:

JackW said:

Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister

Did you mention this previously ?

I'm not sure. It has a certain resonance but some fool mentioned that I called this the day of Ed's election as Labour leader. Highly unlikely if not downright preposterous.

In welcoming you back JackW, I forgot to ask you when your birthday was. You still can't be only 101 years of age and if you have advanced to 102 or beyond, welcome to the club.

I've reverted to Mrs JackW's policy of not revealing my age.

Shockingly I was subject to the most desperate ridicule and ageism on PB as some felt an upper age limit should be imposed on posting here, whilst others took the view that Jacobites of a mature disposition were to the detriment of the Whig hegemony here.

Either way I now only admit to being somewhat beyond the age of majority but enjoying a fine and mature memory.

Sean_F

If Labour are losing their nerve, it's because their lead has steadily declined over 2 years. Unless the Conservative implode after Rochester, they are highly likely to finish ahead on votes in May.

anotherDave

Delete. My mistake.

Omnium

taffys said:

If Tristram Hunt's comments in the Mail are correctly reported, then surely ed will either have to sack him or go.

He's pretty dispensable too. I don't see Ed acting though of course.

Gadfly

audreyanne said:

Gadfly said:

UKIP's rise in the polls began mid 2012. During that period, the averaged party ratings in the YouGov polls have changed as follows.

The Tory share has fallen 0.3 points from 32.4 to 32.1
The LibDem share has fallen 0.9 points from 8.2 to 7.3
The Labour share has fallen 10.6 points from 43.6 to 33
The UKIP share has risen 8.7 points from 7.6 to 16.3

If the Tories are the main losers to UKIP, then they must have picked up equivalent support from elsewhere, which has compensated for the defectors. Here's the chart...

http://www.mediafire.com/view/ra9m78f8z9rpyv1/YouGov Polls since June 2012.jpg#

What a stunning riposte to this thread! Sustained data based over a long period of time, not just one dodgy poll from an equally dodgy pollster.

Thank you!

If you look at my chart you will see that UKIP peaks are mirrored by Tory troughs, and that the converse is also true. This suggests that there are voters regularly switching preferences between the two parties, and I presume this is based upon what is making the headlines at the time.

The long-term picture is very different though.

Carnyx

david_herdson said:

Roger said:

DavidH

" If the Daily Mail offered you a free copy, would you take it?"

I wouldn't need it. I don't have an incontinent dog.

And that is precisely the point: even if the SNP are offering free membership - which given the comment below, they're not anyway - people would still only join if they actually want to join. Just because something is free, it doesn't make it attractive if the product itself is something they find repellent. The SNP's surge in membership (and vote share), suggests many Scots do not have a negative view of that party.

Indeed, looking at the Scottish subsamples of this weekend's polls (I know!), they're still on course for major gains next year.

Quite. From the article cited below, a little mental arithmetic over porridge showed that on those figures - which SLAB themselves have never released - their membership increase is about 7% over a period in which the Socialists have gone up 300-ish % and the SNP 350-ish %. ]Edit] with commensurate increases for the Scottish Greens.

About 2% of the Scottish population is now an active paying member of a pro-indy party.

volcanopete

taffys said:

If Tristram Hunt's comments in the Mail are correctly reported, then surely ed will either have to sack him or go.

Hunt will sleep with the fishes.

Innocent_Abroad

JackW said:

MikeK said:

JackW said:

TGOHF said:

JackW said:

Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister

Did you mention this previously ?

I'm not sure. It has a certain resonance but some fool mentioned that I called this the day of Ed's election as Labour leader. Highly unlikely if not downright preposterous.

In welcoming you back JackW, I forgot to ask you when your birthday was. You still can't be only 101 years of age and if you have advanced to 102 or beyond, welcome to the club.

I've reverted to Mrs JackW's policy of not revealing my age.

Shockingly I was subject to the most desperate ridicule and ageism on PB as some felt an upper age limit should be imposed on posting here, whilst others took the view that Jacobites of a mature disposition were to the detriment of the Whig hegemony here.

Either way I now only admit to being somewhat beyond the age of majority but enjoying a fine and mature memory.

I thought you only enjoyed single malts...

FalseFlag

Swiss_Bob said:

JackW said:

david_herdson said:

JackW said:

Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister

Delighted to see you back, Jack.

Ref your above prediction, what's your view on whether Ed Miliband will join IDS and Ming Campbell as leaders who were deposed before they even fought an election?

Thank you for your kind comment David.

Too late now for Ed to be deposed. Labour are also awful at regicide.

One only has to recall the impending disaster of Michael Foot in 1983. Virtually all of Labour knew a heavy defeat loomed large but they persisted with Foot to the bitter end. It's in their DNA to give their man his chance to be defeated badly. And so will be the case in 2015.

There's also the thorny question of the replacement - Who ?? .... none inspire confidence and the polls certainly don't indicate a challenger would invigorate Labour.

No, Labour are stuck with Ed until the weekend after the general election.

Completely agree, the thing that clinches it for me is the polling data on the contenders in the Mail. If it showed any real differences he would be gone, it doesn't.

Chukka for PM? The guy would blow away in a breeze.

Ed is not the problem, the track record and its policies are. Media contrived event designed to weaken Labour and bolster the Cameroons.

malcolmg

david_herdson said:

Roger said:

Carlotta


"THE scale of the challenge facing Scottish Labour can be revealed after it emerged the party has one-sixth of the membership of the SNP.....The SNP tally has shot up from 25,000 to 84,228."

Apparently the SNP are offering free membership.

...

I don't know if that's true but even if so, it's still a proactive decision for people to join. If the Daily Mail offered you a free copy, would you take it?

Its bollocks, there is a minimum amount and you can choose to pay more if you can afford it.

MikeK

Royal British Legion ‏@PoppyLegion 2m2 minutes ago
Remembering a friend or relative today during the #2MinuteSilence? Please share their photo with us.

Well it will soon be 11 o'clock and I for one will be watching the ceremony at the cenotaph and the parade:
In memory of my beloved uncle Morris, who died at Arnhem in September 1944.

taffys

No, Labour are stuck with Ed until the weekend after the general election.

There's a difference though. Labour in 1983 had a cause. They had Thatcher to fight and they had mass industrial membership to represent. That made them stick together and back Foot. And Foot had many personal qualities. I once saw a TV programme on Swift, and one of the panel of experts was Foot!

The glue that held labour in 1983 together is no longer there. They don't have a cause and they don't have a leader. Some of ed's own cabinet ministers are openly contemptuous of him. That was never true of Foot, even in his darkest days.

Innocent_Abroad

FalseFlag said:

Swiss_Bob said:

JackW said:

david_herdson said:

JackW said:

Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister

Delighted to see you back, Jack.

Ref your above prediction, what's your view on whether Ed Miliband will join IDS and Ming Campbell as leaders who were deposed before they even fought an election?

Thank you for your kind comment David.

Too late now for Ed to be deposed. Labour are also awful at regicide.

One only has to recall the impending disaster of Michael Foot in 1983. Virtually all of Labour knew a heavy defeat loomed large but they persisted with Foot to the bitter end. It's in their DNA to give their man his chance to be defeated badly. And so will be the case in 2015.

There's also the thorny question of the replacement - Who ?? .... none inspire confidence and the polls certainly don't indicate a challenger would invigorate Labour.

No, Labour are stuck with Ed until the weekend after the general election.

Completely agree, the thing that clinches it for me is the polling data on the contenders in the Mail. If it showed any real differences he would be gone, it doesn't.

Chukka for PM? The guy would blow away in a breeze.

Ed is not the problem, the track record and its policies are. Media contrived event designed to weaken Labour and bolster the Cameroons.

No. That implies that the Party could do something about its situation. It can't - because its fundamental problem is that its core vote of Trade Unionists, Guardianistas and ethnic minorities are actively repellent to almost everyone else.

JackW

Innocent_Abroad said:

JackW said:

MikeK said:

JackW said:

TGOHF said:

JackW said:

Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister

Did you mention this previously ?

I'm not sure. It has a certain resonance but some fool mentioned that I called this the day of Ed's election as Labour leader. Highly unlikely if not downright preposterous.

In welcoming you back JackW, I forgot to ask you when your birthday was. You still can't be only 101 years of age and if you have advanced to 102 or beyond, welcome to the club.

I've reverted to Mrs JackW's policy of not revealing my age.

Shockingly I was subject to the most desperate ridicule and ageism on PB as some felt an upper age limit should be imposed on posting here, whilst others took the view that Jacobites of a mature disposition were to the detriment of the Whig hegemony here.

Either way I now only admit to being somewhat beyond the age of majority but enjoying a fine and mature memory.

I thought you only enjoyed single malts...

One or two other pleasures I'll admit too ....

...................................................................

Signing off now until this afternoon for Remembrance Day.

Lest We Forget.

foxinsoxuk

Swiss_Bob said:

JackW said:

david_herdson said:

JackW said:

Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister

Delighted to see you back, Jack.

Ref your above prediction, what's your view on whether Ed Miliband will join IDS and Ming Campbell as leaders who were deposed before they even fought an election?

Thank you for your kind comment David.

Too late now for Ed to be deposed. Labour are also awful at regicide.

One only has to recall the impending disaster of Michael Foot in 1983. Virtually all of Labour knew a heavy defeat loomed large but they persisted with Foot to the bitter end. It's in their DNA to give their man his chance to be defeated badly. And so will be the case in 2015.

There's also the thorny question of the replacement - Who ?? .... none inspire confidence and the polls certainly don't indicate a challenger would invigorate Labour.

No, Labour are stuck with Ed until the weekend after the general election.

Completely agree, the thing that clinches it for me is the polling data on the contenders in the Mail. If it showed any real differences he would be gone, it doesn't.

Chukka for PM? The guy would blow away in a breeze.

Chukka would be worse than Ed at getting support outside London (increasingly that is their bastion). His slick suit and vacuity remind me of an "Apprentice" reject.

Johnson has retired (rightly) to Andrew Neill's sofa. Which leaves only Burnham or Harman as serious candidates (the latter because of her constitutional position).

FalseFlag

Innocent_Abroad said:

FalseFlag said:

Swiss_Bob said:

JackW said:

david_herdson said:

JackW said:

Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister

Delighted to see you back, Jack.

Ref your above prediction, what's your view on whether Ed Miliband will join IDS and Ming Campbell as leaders who were deposed before they even fought an election?

Thank you for your kind comment David.

Too late now for Ed to be deposed. Labour are also awful at regicide.

One only has to recall the impending disaster of Michael Foot in 1983. Virtually all of Labour knew a heavy defeat loomed large but they persisted with Foot to the bitter end. It's in their DNA to give their man his chance to be defeated badly. And so will be the case in 2015.

There's also the thorny question of the replacement - Who ?? .... none inspire confidence and the polls certainly don't indicate a challenger would invigorate Labour.

No, Labour are stuck with Ed until the weekend after the general election.

Completely agree, the thing that clinches it for me is the polling data on the contenders in the Mail. If it showed any real differences he would be gone, it doesn't.

Chukka for PM? The guy would blow away in a breeze.

Ed is not the problem, the track record and its policies are. Media contrived event designed to weaken Labour and bolster the Cameroons.

No. That implies that the Party could do something about its situation. It can't - because its fundamental problem is that its core vote of Trade Unionists, Guardianistas and ethnic minorities are actively repellent to almost everyone else.

Always thought a socially conservative anti immigration Labour party would sweep the board but I agree they can't, the wwc is gone and won't come back. The Guardianista and ethnic vote is in control now.

SouthamObserver

EdM has not only let down Labour, he has let down millions of people across the country in his failure to provide leadership, to develop coherent policies and to project a credible alternative to the Tories. It is utterly extraordinary that Labour still has a chance of winning most seats next year.

isam

Ch109 Watch HD.. "The Funny Side Of Politics" is just finishing, but repeated on CH155 at 10.10

nigel4england

foxinsoxuk said:

Swiss_Bob said:

JackW said:

david_herdson said:

JackW said:

Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister

Delighted to see you back, Jack.

Ref your above prediction, what's your view on whether Ed Miliband will join IDS and Ming Campbell as leaders who were deposed before they even fought an election?

Thank you for your kind comment David.

Too late now for Ed to be deposed. Labour are also awful at regicide.

One only has to recall the impending disaster of Michael Foot in 1983. Virtually all of Labour knew a heavy defeat loomed large but they persisted with Foot to the bitter end. It's in their DNA to give their man his chance to be defeated badly. And so will be the case in 2015.

There's also the thorny question of the replacement - Who ?? .... none inspire confidence and the polls certainly don't indicate a challenger would invigorate Labour.

No, Labour are stuck with Ed until the weekend after the general election.

Completely agree, the thing that clinches it for me is the polling data on the contenders in the Mail. If it showed any real differences he would be gone, it doesn't.

Chukka for PM? The guy would blow away in a breeze.

Chukka would be worse than Ed at getting support outside London (increasingly that is their bastion). His slick suit and vacuity remind me of an "Apprentice" reject.

Johnson has retired (rightly) to Andrew Neill's sofa. Which leaves only Burnham or Harman as serious candidates (the latter because of her constitutional position).

Harman would be hilarious, what with her links to PIE and way over the top equality views, which she would impose on everyone else except her own family.

david_herdson

JackW said:

david_herdson said:

JackW said:

Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister

Delighted to see you back, Jack.

Ref your above prediction, what's your view on whether Ed Miliband will join IDS and Ming Campbell as leaders who were deposed before they even fought an election?

Thank you for your kind comment David.

Too late now for Ed to be deposed. Labour are also awful at regicide.

One only has to recall the impending disaster of Michael Foot in 1983. Virtually all of Labour knew a heavy defeat loomed large but they persisted with Foot to the bitter end. It's in their DNA to give their man his chance to be defeated badly. And so will be the case in 2015.

There's also the thorny question of the replacement - Who ?? .... none inspire confidence and the polls certainly don't indicate a challenger would invigorate Labour.

No, Labour are stuck with Ed until the weekend after the general election.

I'd agree with all that. I know there's polling about Johnson and Umunna but I very much doubt that enough people have seen them in action to be able to make an informed choice.

I'd also add that the cost in both time and money is something that should weigh heavily with those who'd have to make the decision. The simple fact is your first one: it's too late. And that's true because of the second: Labour are rubbish at regicide.

chestnut

Ashcroft marginals - swing from Con to Lab

Autumn 2013 - 8.5%
Spring 2014 - 6.5%
Autumn 2014 - 4.5%
Spring 2015 - ????

Looks like 2.5%, doesn't it?

Roger

Gadfly

"UKIP's rise in the polls began mid 2012. During that period, the averaged party ratings in the YouGov polls have changed as follows."

Wouldn't your post make more sense if it started at the election in 2010? To pick two arbitrary dates one in 2012 and another yesterday to try to discover whether UKIP votes have come from the ex Tories or ex Labour is bizarre. Asking them how they votrd last time seems much wiser

nigel4england

MikeK said:

Royal British Legion ‏@PoppyLegion 2m2 minutes ago
Remembering a friend or relative today during the #2MinuteSilence? Please share their photo with us.

Well it will soon be 11 o'clock and I for one will be watching the ceremony at the cenotaph and the parade:
In memory of my beloved uncle Morris, who died at Arnhem in September 1944.

My Dad was at Arnhem, I shall watch it and think of my Mum and Dad, who met and married during the war.

rottenborough

volcanopete said:

taffys said:

If Tristram Hunt's comments in the Mail are correctly reported, then surely ed will either have to sack him or go.

Hunt will sleep with the fishes.

Morning all,

The question is: who leaked his comments. It seems they were made in a private conversation to other senior colleagues. Who could possibly gain by Hunt not being a leadership candidate in June 2015?

kle4

david_herdson said:

On topic:

The Conservatives will lose if

(They continue to lose substantially more votes to UKIP than Labour does

OR

If the 2010 LD defectors continue to prefer Labour by a substantial margin to the Tories)

AND

Labour retains at least the same share of their 2010 vote as the Tories.

At the moment, all three points are in Labour's favour. At the same time, the extent to which they are in Labour's favour is declining. It's heading for a photo-finish.

That seems reasonable. Were it not for the threat in Scotland, the extent of the decline would not be enough to cause a serious panic, given Labour can still win easily on the sorts of poll numbers they are getting were these normal times, but they are not. Labour should have taken more proactive measures to try to arrest the decline before now so it is good for them they are beginning to worry and will maybe do something, but as it is the UKIP to Con situation is getting worse, the 2010 LDs are not abandoning Labour in any meaningful amount, so they are still on course for a win, potentially an easy win, if they can just secure Scotland.

Charles

MikeK said:

Charles said:

MikeK said:

Charles said:

MikeK said:

Charles said:

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

Surely the most noteworthy figure there is that nearly half of them are people who did not vote last time round.

And that's the key uncertainty which makes this election so difficult to predict.

I think Survation (which IIRC ovestates UKIP generally) had them on 24% in the last poll.

If you apply ICM's DNV adjustment they will get 12% at the election - a huge difference. (Presumably vote shares for everyone else would be scaled by 100/88)

Personally, I think UKIP will subside somewhat and will end up with 10-12%.

Personally, I think UKIP will subside somewhat and will end up with 10-12%

My dear Charles, you've been repeating that mantra for the last two years:
2013. They are bound to fall back to 5/6%
2014 after EU elections. They are bound to fall back over the summer.
Now. They are bound to.............................

Give it up already. This time; this election, all will be different.

Actually, no, I haven't. My first prediction was 8-10%, which moved up earlier this year to 9-11% and is now 10-12%.

But I like your argument that "this time it's different"

Do you want to frame a bet on that: let's say a central point of 18% [mid way between Survation's 24% and the top end of my range] and any figure up to £5 per point on the UKIP vote share.

Your on. But I can only afford a £50 maximum, otherwise all to play for.

Would you rather make it a fun bet and, say, £1 per point (maximum liability for you of £18) with proceeds to the site?

No, keep it as first arranged, I don't expect to lose. 18% is actually the minimum that UKIP need in GE.

So: to confirm

Bet based on UKIP result at 2015 GE. Central case of 18% UK vote share. Charles to pay if outcome is above 18%, MikeK to pay if result is below this. Measured to the nearest full percentage point.

£5 per point, capped at £50 on either side.

Please confirm acceptance and terms

Does anyone have @Peter_the_punter's email so we can register?

foxinsoxuk

nigel4england said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Swiss_Bob said:

JackW said:

david_herdson said:

JackW said:

Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister

Delighted to see you back, Jack.

Ref your above prediction, what's your view on whether Ed Miliband will join IDS and Ming Campbell as leaders who were deposed before they even fought an election?

Thank you for your kind comment David.

Too late now for Ed to be deposed. Labour are also awful at regicide.

One only has to recall the impending disaster of Michael Foot in 1983. Virtually all of Labour knew a heavy defeat loomed large but they persisted with Foot to the bitter end. It's in their DNA to give their man his chance to be defeated badly. And so will be the case in 2015.

There's also the thorny question of the replacement - Who ?? .... none inspire confidence and the polls certainly don't indicate a challenger would invigorate Labour.

No, Labour are stuck with Ed until the weekend after the general election.

Completely agree, the thing that clinches it for me is the polling data on the contenders in the Mail. If it showed any real differences he would be gone, it doesn't.

Chukka for PM? The guy would blow away in a breeze.

Chukka would be worse than Ed at getting support outside London (increasingly that is their bastion). His slick suit and vacuity remind me of an "Apprentice" reject.

Johnson has retired (rightly) to Andrew Neill's sofa. Which leaves only Burnham or Harman as serious candidates (the latter because of her constitutional position).

Harman would be hilarious, what with her links to PIE and way over the top equality views, which she would impose on everyone else except her own family.

Harman would certainly contrast greatly in the debates with the men in suits, and could do well with the female vote who are the least susceptible to the charms of Faragism.

rottenborough

david_herdson said:

JackW said:

david_herdson said:

JackW said:

Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister

Delighted to see you back, Jack.

Ref your above prediction, what's your view on whether Ed Miliband will join IDS and Ming Campbell as leaders who were deposed before they even fought an election?

Thank you for your kind comment David.

Too late now for Ed to be deposed. Labour are also awful at regicide.

One only has to recall the impending disaster of Michael Foot in 1983. Virtually all of Labour knew a heavy defeat loomed large but they persisted with Foot to the bitter end. It's in their DNA to give their man his chance to be defeated badly. And so will be the case in 2015.

There's also the thorny question of the replacement - Who ?? .... none inspire confidence and the polls certainly don't indicate a challenger would invigorate Labour.

No, Labour are stuck with Ed until the weekend after the general election.

I'd agree with all that. I know there's polling about Johnson and Umunna but I very much doubt that enough people have seen them in action to be able to make an informed choice.

I'd also add that the cost in both time and money is something that should weigh heavily with those who'd have to make the decision. The simple fact is your first one: it's too late. And that's true because of the second: Labour are rubbish at regicide.

Almost too late IMHO, but not quite. That's why I think Alan Johnson for PM is a high-risk, but value bet at around 20-odd to one. He seems to have ruled it out, but not quite.

MonikerDiCanio

Labour shouldn't fall into fatalism. EdM has had plenty of time to prove his worth but has been found wanting. In fact he's an enormous drag on Labour and is rapidly becoming more so. Logic demands that he be removed ASAP and someone else given a chance. Six months is a very long time in politics and certainly more than enough for the replacement to turn things round.

AlastairMeeks

Gadfly touches on a question that I would like to see more discussion of: who are the voters moving towards the Conservatives? The Red Liberals and the rise of UKIP have been much debated, but this third element needs to be understood much better.

Swiss_Bob

foxinsoxuk said:

nigel4england said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Swiss_Bob said:

JackW said:

david_herdson said:

JackW said:

Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister

Delighted to see you back, Jack.

Ref your above prediction, what's your view on whether Ed Miliband will join IDS and Ming Campbell as leaders who were deposed before they even fought an election?

Thank you for your kind comment David.

Too late now for Ed to be deposed. Labour are also awful at regicide.

One only has to recall the impending disaster of Michael Foot in 1983. Virtually all of Labour knew a heavy defeat loomed large but they persisted with Foot to the bitter end. It's in their DNA to give their man his chance to be defeated badly. And so will be the case in 2015.

There's also the thorny question of the replacement - Who ?? .... none inspire confidence and the polls certainly don't indicate a challenger would invigorate Labour.

No, Labour are stuck with Ed until the weekend after the general election.

Completely agree, the thing that clinches it for me is the polling data on the contenders in the Mail. If it showed any real differences he would be gone, it doesn't.

Chukka for PM? The guy would blow away in a breeze.

Chukka would be worse than Ed at getting support outside London (increasingly that is their bastion). His slick suit and vacuity remind me of an "Apprentice" reject.

Johnson has retired (rightly) to Andrew Neill's sofa. Which leaves only Burnham or Harman as serious candidates (the latter because of her constitutional position).

Harman would be hilarious, what with her links to PIE and way over the top equality views, which she would impose on everyone else except her own family.

Harman would certainly contrast greatly in the debates with the men in suits, and could do well with the female vote who are the least susceptible to the charms of Faragism.

Harman would take Labour to 20%.

Charles

MikeK said:

Royal British Legion ‏@PoppyLegion 2m2 minutes ago
Remembering a friend or relative today during the #2MinuteSilence? Please share their photo with us.

Well it will soon be 11 o'clock and I for one will be watching the ceremony at the cenotaph and the parade:
In memory of my beloved uncle Morris, who died at Arnhem in September 1944.

Enjoy. We're not doing much today (my father has a ceremony to attend in his county role) as it's my Mum's birthday.

But on Tuesday the family is holding a sung requiem mass at 10:58 (St. Dunstan's in Fleet Street if anyone wants to come) and a small drink afterwards.

isam

antifrank said:

Gadfly touches on a question that I would like to see more discussion of: who are the voters moving towards the Conservatives? The Red Liberals and the rise of UKIP have been much debated, but this third element needs to be understood much better.

Havent they lost support?

EDIT: Have I missed that this is a joke?

AlastairMeeks

The lack of enthusiasm for Ed Miliband is palpable:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2827005/DAMIAN-McBRIDE-Fort-Miliband-resilient-Maginot-Line.html

"Against that restless backdrop, Miliband executed a mini-reshuffle, prompted by the departure of Shadow International Development Secretary Jim Murphy.

Personally, I would have appointed some hard-nosed hatchet carrier with a remit to plan the department’s abolition and channel Britain’s overseas aid through agencies such as Oxfam instead. Instead, in a move that could charitably be described as defiant, or uncharitably as daft, Miliband used the reshuffle to elevate three of his closest allies.

Most notably, the adviser who managed his leadership bid, Lucy Powell, has been put in full charge of Miliband’s operation and Labour’s campaigning, less than two years after becoming an MP.

Outside Westminster, most people knew little and cared less about these appointments, but inside the party they mattered hugely – not so much pouring oil on Labour’s troubled waters as introducing a shoal of piranhas.

What they said to Labour MPs was that Miliband is not interested in listening to any of their concerns about his leadership. Far from being willing to change, he is cocooning himself ever more tightly in a circle of like-minded acolytes."

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/labour-leadership-there-are-several-in-the-shadow-cabinet-who-would-be-better-than-ed-miliband-9849120.html

"Miliband is not paranoid. They really are out to get him. That is why he took the unusual decision to go on television to describe speculation about his leadership as "nonsense", which encouraged journalists to speculate even more about his leadership, but which forced Labour MPs to recite the catechism about divided parties losing elections and to rally round.

Until the next juddering slide in the opinion polls and the next wave of the rolling rebellion.

It is five years ago all over again, with one important difference. This time Labour is in opposition, so it ought to be easier to organise a change of leader. But I doubt that it will happen."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/09/labour-discontent-with-leader-could-lose-them-lelection

"As for Mr Miliband himself, he came up with the tortuous response: “I don’t accept that this matter arises.” He has been more vivid in conversation with friends who have heard the Labour leader describe it as “a tsunami of craperoo” got up by “a group of people who are desperate to stop me winning”."

"Where there’s a will to remove a leader, a party can find a way. Should a critical mass of Labour MPs declare they have lost confidence in their leader, he could not carry on. But then any plotters hit their second hurdle, which is the lack of an agreed candidate to take over and the absence of any sound evidence that any other member of the shadow cabinet would be doing any better."

NickPalmer

kle4 said:

david_herdson said:

On topic:

The Conservatives will lose if

(They continue to lose substantially more votes to UKIP than Labour does

OR

If the 2010 LD defectors continue to prefer Labour by a substantial margin to the Tories)

AND

Labour retains at least the same share of their 2010 vote as the Tories.

At the moment, all three points are in Labour's favour. At the same time, the extent to which they are in Labour's favour is declining. It's heading for a photo-finish.

That seems reasonable. Were it not for the threat in Scotland, the extent of the decline would not be enough to cause a serious panic, given Labour can still win easily on the sorts of poll numbers they are getting were these normal times, but they are not. Labour should have taken more proactive measures to try to arrest the decline before now so it is good for them they are beginning to worry and will maybe do something, but as it is the UKIP to Con situation is getting worse, the 2010 LDs are not abandoning Labour in any meaningful amount, so they are still on course for a win, potentially an easy win, if they can just secure Scotland.

Good summary. Not sure about David's point about the LD defectors - they still seem as solid as before, but perhaps that's a local phenomenon.

Easterross

Morning all and on thread, I recall the wise sages of PB told us Labour just had to hold on to 35% to win a comfortable majority. Labour is now testing 30% and will no doubt start polling sub 30% soon if Ed remains leader.

The same sages told us the Tories couldn't win if UKIP remains above 10%. UKIP are somewhere between 15 and 20% in the polls and we have now seen Tory leads or dead heats in 10 or more polls across the last month or so.

with numbers like 33.5 Con, 26 Lab, 20 UKIP, 12 LibDem we get a Tory majority and of course on UNS that ignores the 'Scotland effect'.

There is everything to play for and if this unpopular government holds steady with the economy, Dave will be walking back into No 10 on 8th May and not to oversee the packing cases!

AlastairMeeks

isam said:

antifrank said:

Gadfly touches on a question that I would like to see more discussion of: who are the voters moving towards the Conservatives? The Red Liberals and the rise of UKIP have been much debated, but this third element needs to be understood much better.

Havent they lost support?

EDIT: Have I missed that this is a joke?

They have lost support net. But the movement to UKIP has been far greater than the net support that they have lost. So they have gained some others. Who these people are will be highly relevant in understanding the impact in individual constituencies.

Morris_Dancer

"Chukka would be worse than Ed at getting support outside London (increasingly that is their bastion). His slick suit and vacuity remind me of an "Apprentice" reject."

Mr. Foxinsox, I think that's a good description.

Harman is hardly going to win back the WWC. She spoke against the evils of calling people 'love' in pubs as some sort of sexism.

beast_in_black

The Tories and UKIP will have a pact. I guarantee it. It wont be formal but something is going to happen after Rochester, I feel it in my bones.

chestnut

antifrank said:

Gadfly touches on a question that I would like to see more discussion of: who are the voters moving towards the Conservatives? The Red Liberals and the rise of UKIP have been much debated, but this third element needs to be understood much better.

Tory Vote Retention

04.02.13 CON 74 LAB 9 LD 2 UKIP 15
09.11.14 CON 74 LAB 3 LD 1 UKIP 20

Tory Vote Gain

04.02.13 LAB 2 LD 5
09.11.14 LAB 4 LD 13

* 04.02.13 = peak Labour lead

felix

chestnut said:

Ashcroft marginals - swing from Con to Lab

Autumn 2013 - 8.5%
Spring 2014 - 6.5%
Autumn 2014 - 4.5%
Spring 2015 - ????

Looks like 2.5%, doesn't it?

Yes - Labour's last bastion of hope appears to be the polling of our beloved Lord Ashcroft - for some on here his polls are nothing less than the Ten commandments even though many are now well over 40 days old.

In other news those who were convinced that the Osborne 'gaffes' over the EU would dominate the news this w/e and bring the government crashing down there's this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2827026/Voters-Cameron-EU-cash-half-Mail-Sunday-poll-say-PM-right-stand-Brussels-1-75bn-bill.html

nigel4england

foxinsoxuk said:

nigel4england said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Swiss_Bob said:

JackW said:

david_herdson said:

JackW said:

Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister

Delighted to see you back, Jack.

Ref your above prediction, what's your view on whether Ed Miliband will join IDS and Ming Campbell as leaders who were deposed before they even fought an election?

Thank you for your kind comment David.

Too late now for Ed to be deposed. Labour are also awful at regicide.

One only has to recall the impending disaster of Michael Foot in 1983. Virtually all of Labour knew a heavy defeat loomed large but they persisted with Foot to the bitter end. It's in their DNA to give their man his chance to be defeated badly. And so will be the case in 2015.

There's also the thorny question of the replacement - Who ?? .... none inspire confidence and the polls certainly don't indicate a challenger would invigorate Labour.

No, Labour are stuck with Ed until the weekend after the general election.

Completely agree, the thing that clinches it for me is the polling data on the contenders in the Mail. If it showed any real differences he would be gone, it doesn't.

Chukka for PM? The guy would blow away in a breeze.

Chukka would be worse than Ed at getting support outside London (increasingly that is their bastion). His slick suit and vacuity remind me of an "Apprentice" reject.

Johnson has retired (rightly) to Andrew Neill's sofa. Which leaves only Burnham or Harman as serious candidates (the latter because of her constitutional position).

Harman would be hilarious, what with her links to PIE and way over the top equality views, which she would impose on everyone else except her own family.

Harman would certainly contrast greatly in the debates with the men in suits, and could do well with the female vote who are the least susceptible to the charms of Faragism.

She would lead Labour into oblivion, you are the only person I have seen anywhere put her name forward.

felix

isam said:

antifrank said:

Gadfly touches on a question that I would like to see more discussion of: who are the voters moving towards the Conservatives? The Red Liberals and the rise of UKIP have been much debated, but this third element needs to be understood much better.

Havent they lost support?

EDIT: Have I missed that this is a joke?

Not really - if the conservatives have lost 7/8% to UKIP they should be much lower in the polls than they are now.

Millsy

A lot depends on how things go over the next six months, particularly whether the Conservatives manage to frame the election in the way they want - i.e. over the economy and as a choice between Cameron and Miliband. Which might not happen with so much focus on immigration and the likes of Farage crowding out the media time.

But add into the equation that both governing parties are likely to win back voters when the election comes around (it will become a proper choice instead of a grumble and protest); Miliband will continue to be a drag on the Labour vote; the Greens and SNP are going to continue to surge as they probably haven't peaked yet (as opposed to Ukip); and Tory loyalty will continue to return (eyes on tomorrows vote re EAW).

Alistair

CarlottaVance said:

Roger said:

Apparently the SNP are offering free membership.

They may have in the past - not currently - its £12 unless you are over 65 or unemployed (£5) or under 15 (£2)

https://my.snp.org/join

Meanwhile, as predicted, Nicola is going to park her tanks on Ed's lawn:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/sturgeons-vow-ill-take-on-labour-on-social-justice.25814783

And the Herald seems very much on-side with the SNP - digging up disobliging stories on Jim Murphy:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/murphys-10000-donor-also-gave-money-to-tories.25814773

(Small print: donor gave to Tories in 2001, has been Labour supporter for more than a decade)

Sunday Herald is Pro-Indy/SNP
The weekday Herald is anti-Indy/really-hates-SNP.

Must be a weird atmosphere in the office.

Gadfly

Roger said:

Gadfly

"UKIP's rise in the polls began mid 2012. During that period, the averaged party ratings in the YouGov polls have changed as follows."

Wouldn't your post make more sense if it started at the election in 2010? To pick two arbitrary dates one in 2012 and another yesterday to try to discover whether UKIP votes have come from the ex Tories or ex Labour is bizarre. Asking them how they votrd last time seems much wiser

I did not choose my dates upon 'arbitrary' dates, but upon the basis that the current polling trends began in the middle of 2012. The aim of my exercise wasn't to try and 'discover' anything.

Mike's point was that the Conservatives are the biggest losers to UKIP. My point was that if that was the case, then they must have picked up equivalent support from elsewhere, because their averaged YouGov poll rating has barely changed since UKIP's ascendancy began.

I regularly post charts on here of YouGov polls.

Here's how things have panned out since the 2010 election...
http://www.mediafire.com/view/5sxjrumlrg08tkx/YouGov Polls since June 2010 GE.jpg#

Here's one for the last 12 months...
http://www.mediafire.com/view/ypp53yjynmu44ub/YouGov polls 12 months to 09 November 2014.jpg#

I am not sure that they tell me very much, but I like to see the patterns unfold :-)

Morris_Dancer

The Catalan vote is today:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29974635

Scrapheap_as_was

SouthamObserver said:

EdM has not only let down Labour, he has let down millions of people across the country in his failure to provide leadership, to develop coherent policies and to project a credible alternative to the Tories. It is utterly extraordinary that Labour still has a chance of winning most seats next year.

you need to read more of NPxMPs tweets.... webacked...

foxinsoxuk

nigel4england said:

foxinsoxuk said:

nigel4england said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Swiss_Bob said:

JackW said:

david_herdson said:

JackW said:

Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister

Delighted to see you back, Jack.

Ref your above prediction, what's your view on whether Ed Miliband will join IDS and Ming Campbell as leaders who were deposed before they even fought an election?

Thank you for your kind comment David.

Too late now for Ed to be deposed. Labour are also awful at regicide.

One only has to recall the impending disaster of Michael Foot in 1983. Virtually all of Labour knew a heavy defeat loomed large but they persisted with Foot to the bitter end. It's in their DNA to give their man his chance to be defeated badly. And so will be the case in 2015.

There's also the thorny question of the replacement - Who ?? .... none inspire confidence and the polls certainly don't indicate a challenger would invigorate Labour.

No, Labour are stuck with Ed until the weekend after the general election.

Completely agree, the thing that clinches it for me is the polling data on the contenders in the Mail. If it showed any real differences he would be gone, it doesn't.

Chukka for PM? The guy would blow away in a breeze.

Chukka would be worse than Ed at getting support outside London (increasingly that is their bastion). His slick suit and vacuity remind me of an "Apprentice" reject.

Johnson has retired (rightly) to Andrew Neill's sofa. Which leaves only Burnham or Harman as serious candidates (the latter because of her constitutional position).

Harman would be hilarious, what with her links to PIE and way over the top equality views, which she would impose on everyone else except her own family.

Harman would certainly contrast greatly in the debates with the men in suits, and could do well with the female vote who are the least susceptible to the charms of Faragism.

She would lead Labour into oblivion, you are the only person I have seen anywhere put her name forward.

She may do! But she is in the constitutional position to step in, and who can deny that Labour leadership contests can produce odd results?