But Scotland is 8% of the UK populus. Given a - possible - 55% support in the County-Palatinate of Northern-Britischershire then I would expect the remainder are in Anglo-Saxonshire or the doss-hills of Wales.
You can square the circle by factoring in a much higher turnout in Scotland - particularly on the 100% certain to vote figures.
The Conservatives to turn a 1% deficit into a 7/8% lead in under six months?
That is certainly a possibility, although if I had to give a central forecast now I'd say more like a 4% to 5% Conservative lead, i.e. not enough for Con Maj.
I don't claim any particular precision with such a forecast; a range of 0% to 8% Tory lead is my expected range. There are lots of uncertainties, of course.
Mr. Watcher, all Miliband need do is turn up and not void his bowels and he's already ahead of expectations. He'll likely land a few hits, and doing so will diminish (at least somewhat) his less than stellar reputation.
The downside is that people may remember Clegg, and they'll go in with anti-Miliband views. That does mean expectations for him will be very low (so he can confound them easily), but if such views are too entrenched people may view all he says through anti-Miliband goggles, as it were.
The debates are a good opportunity for Miliband.
They're a good opportunity for him, but he would need to actually have something to SAY to take advantage of that opportunity. If he's still scared to actually have any...you know...policies...and he resorts to his usual banal platitudes and nonsense gobbledygook ("this matter does not arise"), then there'll be nothing to distract the viewer from how annoying his voice is and how awkward he seems.
Yes, we've been waiting four years for Ed to exceed the very low expectations of his performance. I can't see that suddenly changing during the campaign. It's more likely that we get night after night of cringe-worthy vacuity.
Looking at the Scottish subsamples (Hello Stuart), it is not impossible that the Tories will get more votes in Scotland than Labour. And maybe, then, more Scottish MPs.
That will be the quintessence of hilariousness.
Are you seeing evidence of a Scottish Tory Surge..?
A more careful reading of SeanT's "impossible" post is required.
Mr. 565, unless Miliband's famous blank sheet of paper is actually the manifesto, he'll have to stuff to say. It might be empty-headed nonsense like the energy price freeze, but it'll be there. Not even Miliband will enter an election without a manifesto.
TGOHF said at the end of the previous thread that he thinks selling Ukip seats at 8 could be the bet... I think you can sell at 10 now
To me this seemed a bet on gut instinct when I first saw the spreads, and so obviously even better now.... People say Ukip could breakthrough etc, but I think they already have. They could also implode
I'd say 4 seats is a lot more likely than 16 and more than 20 is not happening
I worked as a spread dealer at IG for years and the value is generally to sell an unproven horse
That's all very well argued, and I've never made a bet in my life, but from a purely mathematical point of view there are two things that make a buy on UKIP interesting, both mentioned by PeterThePunter.
One is the zero lower bound. This means that, unlike the vast majority of spread bets, your potential losses on a buy on the spread are capped at a relatively reasonable level. The other is that, while unlikely, there's the possibility of a result in the long tail of many UKIP seats, as the probability distribution for UKIP seats is probably roughly Poisson distributed.
The best value bets are the ones that make you feel uncomfortable they say!
The uncertain and potentially huge downside makes selling seem scary, but that's why spread firms encourage buyers and close the accounts of sellers
Thanks isam and antifrank for the responses. Spread betting does seem to be more interesting.
Speccie makes a good point - Dave in low 30s whilst UKIP still in the teens. Given what we saw yesreday about Rochester byelection vs GE polling that must be encouraging for Dave for next May. Should he be expecting to get high 30s? (and where does that leave Microband - low 20s?)
The Conservatives getting to the high thirties next May? What could Cameron and his clique do or say between now and then that would attract so many voters? He might pick up a few percent who are desperate to avoid another Labour government but to score more than about 35% he will need to give a positive reason to vote for his party. What such reason or reasons can he give that enough people who are not currently think of voting for him are likely to believe?
Expect Nigel to get monstered.
Expect UKIP candidates to get monstered.
We see a preview of it today.
You think it is a coincidence that a clip of Farage from two years ago on the NHS should appear a week before the Rochester by-election where the NHS is a key issue to a lot of voters.
Haven't we seen it for the whole Rochester campaign against Reckless?
Attack ads, smear campaigns, push polling... All tried and none worked
Speccie makes a good point - Dave in low 30s whilst UKIP still in the teens. Given what we saw yesreday about Rochester byelection vs GE polling that must be encouraging for Dave for next May. Should he be expecting to get high 30s? (and where does that leave Microband - low 20s?)
The Conservatives getting to the high thirties next May? What could Cameron and his clique do or say between now and then that would attract so many voters? He might pick up a few percent who are desperate to avoid another Labour government but to score more than about 35% he will need to give a positive reason to vote for his party. What such reason or reasons can he give that enough people who are not currently think of voting for him are likely to believe?
The biggest party is DNV isn't it? I'd imagine a journey from 32 to 35 involves current kippers and from 35 to 38 DNV'ers who really really don't want Microband in No.10.
Mr. Watcher, all Miliband need do is turn up and not void his bowels and he's already ahead of expectations. He'll likely land a few hits, and doing so will diminish (at least somewhat) his less than stellar reputation.
The downside is that people may remember Clegg, and they'll go in with anti-Miliband views. That does mean expectations for him will be very low (so he can confound them easily), but if such views are too entrenched people may view all he says through anti-Miliband goggles, as it were.
The debates are a good opportunity for Miliband.
That virtually all candidates will distance themselves from Ed - for example, having no reference to him in their literature - could prove very awkward for Ed. You can imagine Andrew Neil:
"Mister Miliband, our researchers have been checking your party's election literature. We have only found one candidate who is prepared to mention you in their literature. That is the candidate for Doncaster North. The candidate for Doncaster North is you, Mister Miliband.
If none of your party think you are worth promoting as Prime Minister, then why should the voters, Mister Miliband?"
Prising normal Labour voters back from the Can't Be Arsed Party will be the Devil's own job with Ed at the helm.
Plus, I still think there is about a 1 in 4 chance that the campaign will blow up disastrously badly on economic matters. Wheels falling off the bus bad. Jaw-dropping, wide-eyed, drop-everything-you've-got-to-watch-this-train-wreck tweets bad.
IF DC did go in 2015, then it is quite probable that Mrs May could succeed him. She has a stronger personality than Hammond and tries to run a very tight ship - even though much of Whitehall is rowing in the opposite direction.
Another female leader who joins up with Frau Merkel would give Juncker a bit of a shock.
Is it fair to say that when a poll comes out we can take it as a given that the betting markets will follow the poll?
Posting that Miliband has drifted in the betting after this poll is just repeating that this is a bad poll for labour isn't it? This info is only really useful before everyone knows, or if they haven't moved the prices
Given that the prices don't always move after polls, when they do it shows the poll is significant.
Also the timing of the moves can have a small significance.
eg the Lab maj went out to 100/30 straight away, Con maj has only just come back in to 4/1 from 9/2
Speccie makes a good point - Dave in low 30s whilst UKIP still in the teens. Given what we saw yesreday about Rochester byelection vs GE polling that must be encouraging for Dave for next May. Should he be expecting to get high 30s? (and where does that leave Microband - low 20s?)
The Conservatives getting to the high thirties next May? What could Cameron and his clique do or say between now and then that would attract so many voters? He might pick up a few percent who are desperate to avoid another Labour government but to score more than about 35% he will need to give a positive reason to vote for his party. What such reason or reasons can he give that enough people who are not currently think of voting for him are likely to believe?
Expect Nigel to get monstered.
Expect UKIP candidates to get monstered.
We see a preview of it today.
You think it is a coincidence that a clip of Farage from two years ago on the NHS should appear a week before the Rochester by-election where the NHS is a key issue to a lot of voters.
Haven't we seen it for the whole Rochester campaign against Reckless?
Attack ads, smear campaigns, push polling... All tried and none worked
You'd think the failure of this sort of thing during the EU Parliament campaign would have got them to think again.
PB Tories are having a whoopie day after IpsosMori poll. Well dance while you can, the big UKIP is coming to get you.
and
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft 16m16 minutes ago The electorates choice as PM betwixt Miliband and Cameron does not seem to be between best of choices but as the least worse alternative.
That virtually all candidates will distance themselves from Ed - for example, having no reference to him in their literature - could prove very awkward for Ed.
One says that they explain to voters that when you meet Ed Miliband in person he’s a ‘really nice, funny, smart guy who cares desperately about our country’. That may work if the voter likes the MP or candidate in front of them, but others disagree, worrying that it makes them sound as though they’re part of the dreaded Westminster bubble. ‘I say, well, you don’t need to worry: Ed Miliband’s name isn’t on the ballot paper and mine is,’ says another Labourite worried about the leadership. That doesn’t inspire much confidence, but at least it’s a way of moving the conversation on.
Maybe he sees the Ukrainians as cattle (just as the Soviets did with the Catalans almost eighty-years ago); herds to the slaughter whilst stealing their wealth? Global socialism must dominate: Uppity nations like Catalonia/Ukraine/England must be crushed....
Mr. Watcher, all Miliband need do is turn up and not void his bowels and he's already ahead of expectations. He'll likely land a few hits, and doing so will diminish (at least somewhat) his less than stellar reputation.
The downside is that people may remember Clegg, and they'll go in with anti-Miliband views. That does mean expectations for him will be very low (so he can confound them easily), but if such views are too entrenched people may view all he says through anti-Miliband goggles, as it were.
The debates are a good opportunity for Miliband.
That virtually all candidates will distance themselves from Ed - for example, having no reference to him in their literature - could prove very awkward for Ed. You can imagine Andrew Neil:
"Mister Miliband, our researchers have been checking your party's election literature. We have only found one candidate who is prepared to mention you in their literature. That is the candidate for Doncaster North. The candidate for Doncaster North is you, Mister Miliband.
If none of your party think you are worth promoting as Prime Minister, then why should the voters, Mister Miliband?"
Prising normal Labour voters back from the Can't Be Arsed Party will be the Devil's own job with Ed at the helm.
Plus, I still think there is about a 1 in 4 chance that the campaign will blow up disastrously badly on economic matters. Wheels falling off the bus bad. Jaw-dropping, wide-eyed, drop-everything-you've-got-to-watch-this-train-wreck tweets bad.
True, but then I don't think tory candidates will be too keen to feature pictures of a grinning Dave, and the only LD candidate likely to feature a picture of Nick Clegg is the candidate for Sheffield Hallam.
Remember that Cameron remains as PM after the election until he advises the Queen who else can obtain the support of the house of commons to a Queen's speech.
So in the event of a well hung parliament, Cameron will probably get first stab of cobbling together a government.
But Scotland is 8% of the UK populus. Given a - possible - 55% support in the County-Palatinate of Northern-Britischershire then I would expect the remainder are in Anglo-Saxonshire or the doss-hills of Wales.
I thought it was 9.x % nowadays but you are correct in that there must be a few non SNP in there. Way its going 100% SNP is not as impossible as it sounds.
Could it be their certainty to vote that exaggerates their apparent standing?
Well Labour are almost as hated as Tories now, so lot of it is down to what is seen as the treachery of labour sharing platforms and policies with the Tories. I see that Tory Murphy has disappeared now that all the unions have come out against him , his triumphal ride to being FM may not even get out the blocks.
Will Hill offer 5/2 on Dave staying in the post of PM until 2016.
Reasonable value IMO.
That doesn't make an iota of sense when every single opinion poll continues to show EdM winning a majority next year and has done since goodness knows when.
Odd that the bookies are convinced there will be a slump in UKIP support, Labour support, or both. There's no evidence to suggest that's likely.
Will Hill offer 5/2 on Dave staying in the post of PM until 2016.
Reasonable value IMO.
That doesn't make an iota of sense when every single opinion poll continues to show EdM winning a majority next year and has done since goodness knows when.
Odd that the bookies are convinced there will be a slump in UKIP support, Labour support, or both. There's no evidence to suggest that's likely.
Even if the Conservatives get most seats, it's far from certain that David Cameron could remain in office. A lot of his backbenchers would relish the opportunity to ditch him under the pretext of it being a requirement of securing the confidence of the Commons.
Conservatives can't justifiably form a government of losers if they have fewer seats and lose seats; If the have more seats but lose seats then they might get by, if mathematically possible, but a minority government would seem more likely; If they gain seats but are still short of a majority then acceptable.
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft 16m16 minutes ago The electorates choice as PM betwixt Miliband and Cameron does not seem to be between best of choices but as the least worse alternative.
Worth noting that this is effectively almost the same as YouGov, who don't adjust for certainty to vote and have Labour 1 point ahead, though on higher figures for both main parties. I doubt if the certainty to vote rating is particularly significant for marginals, and essentially the parties are tied.
" “I am not the architect of the Luxembourgish model,” he told reporters, adding that the Grand Duchy’s tax authority had acted on an “autonomous basis”, with little oversight from the finance minister – a job he also held for much of his time as prime minister. The commission president did concede he was “politically” responsible for the affair."
It sounds pretty unlikely a priori that a man who was Prime Minister for 18 years and who doubled up for much of that time as Finance Minister didn't have any involvement in the country's tax affairs.
"At Tuesday’s press conference, Mr Juncker was asked if he would have still been selected as commission president had the revelations come to light earlier. “Yes, I would,” he replied, and marched off the stage."
Speccie makes a good point - Dave in low 30s whilst UKIP still in the teens. Given what we saw yesreday about Rochester byelection vs GE polling that must be encouraging for Dave for next May. Should he be expecting to get high 30s? (and where does that leave Microband - low 20s?)
The Conservatives getting to the high thirties next May? What could Cameron and his clique do or say between now and then that would attract so many voters? He might pick up a few percent who are desperate to avoid another Labour government but to score more than about 35% he will need to give a positive reason to vote for his party. What such reason or reasons can he give that enough people who are not currently think of voting for him are likely to believe?
Expect Nigel to get monstered.
Expect UKIP candidates to get monstered.
We see a preview of it today.
You think it is a coincidence that a clip of Farage from two years ago on the NHS should appear a week before the Rochester by-election where the NHS is a key issue to a lot of voters.
Mr. Eagles, I ask what Cameron and Co can say or do to provide a positive reason for voting Conservative you tell me that they will run a dirty campaign to try and discredit their opponents. Do you want to reflect on that?
P.S. Cameron and Co have been running a slag off UKIP campaign for years, it hasn't done much good so far. What makes you think it will do any better in the next six months? Going to run a dirty tricks campaign a la McBride are they?
Speccie makes a good point - Dave in low 30s whilst UKIP still in the teens. Given what we saw yesreday about Rochester byelection vs GE polling that must be encouraging for Dave for next May. Should he be expecting to get high 30s? (and where does that leave Microband - low 20s?)
The Conservatives getting to the high thirties next May? What could Cameron and his clique do or say between now and then that would attract so many voters? He might pick up a few percent who are desperate to avoid another Labour government but to score more than about 35% he will need to give a positive reason to vote for his party. What such reason or reasons can he give that enough people who are not currently think of voting for him are likely to believe?
Expect Nigel to get monstered.
Expect UKIP candidates to get monstered.
We see a preview of it today.
You think it is a coincidence that a clip of Farage from two years ago on the NHS should appear a week before the Rochester by-election where the NHS is a key issue to a lot of voters.
Mr. Eagles, I ask what Cameron and Co can say or do to provide a positive reason for voting Conservative you tell me that they will run a dirty campaign to try and discredit their opponents. Do you want to reflect on that?
P.S. Cameron and Co have been running a slag off UKIP campaign for years, it hasn't done much good so far. What makes you think it will do any better in the next six months? Going to run a dirty tricks campaign a la McBride are they?
There'll be positives, but as I've mentioned them to you, and you've not been impressed, I thought it would be churlish to rehearse them with you.
But they may well appeal to the majority of the electorate that believes UKIP are the most extreme and least fit to govern party in Great Britain
Edit: It's not dirty tricks to reveal UKIP's darker side.
It is pretty impressive of Miliband to have taken Labour to starting to hit Gordon Brown-esque lows, and this while in opposition where you can make impossible promises and spend all day thinking up ways of ambushing the government for making unpopular choices and / or messing up.
SNP most Scottish seats now in to 11/8 with Shadsy (13/8 half an hour ago)
You'd probably be better at that price selecting individual constituencies to back the SNP in. To get most seats the SNP would probably need 25 seats (it's hard to imagine the Conservatives and Lib Dems mustering more than 9 between them). There are a slew of seats where the SNP are priced at 2/1 which would need to be taken for that tally to be reached.
Speccie makes a good point - Dave in low 30s whilst UKIP still in the teens. Given what we saw yesreday about Rochester byelection vs GE polling that must be encouraging for Dave for next May. Should he be expecting to get high 30s? (and where does that leave Microband - low 20s?)
The Conservatives getting to the high thirties next May? What could Cameron and his clique do or say between now and then that would attract so many voters? He might pick up a few percent who are desperate to avoid another Labour government but to score more than about 35% he will need to give a positive reason to vote for his party. What such reason or reasons can he give that enough people who are not currently think of voting for him are likely to believe?
Expect Nigel to get monstered.
Expect UKIP candidates to get monstered.
We see a preview of it today.
You think it is a coincidence that a clip of Farage from two years ago on the NHS should appear a week before the Rochester by-election where the NHS is a key issue to a lot of voters.
Mr. Eagles, I ask what Cameron and Co can say or do to provide a positive reason for voting Conservative you tell me that they will run a dirty campaign to try and discredit their opponents. Do you want to reflect on that?
P.S. Cameron and Co have been running a slag off UKIP campaign for years, it hasn't done much good so far. What makes you think it will do any better in the next six months? Going to run a dirty tricks campaign a la McBride are they?
There'll be positives, but as I've mentioned them to you, and you've not been impressed, I thought it would be churlish to rehearse them with you.
But they may well appeal to the majority of the electorate that believes UKIP are the most extreme and least fit to govern party in Great Britain
So going back to the question I asked, you cannot say what positive reasons Cameron and Co can give to vote for them such that their vote would rise to the upper thirties in next May's election. Fair enough, I understand, I cannot think of any either.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30019259 labours last argument about the economy has failed. Wages outstrip inflation for first time since 2009. unemployment eighteenth consecutive fall, not just burger flippers but real jobs and & full time, inflation down, house prices stable (wheres Tim?), no double dip or triple dip, economy growing
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30019259 labours last agrument the economy has failed. wages outstrip inflation for first time since 2009. unemployment eighteenth consecutive fall, not just burger flippers but real jobs and & full time, inlation down, house prices stable (wheres Tim?), no double dip or triple dip, economy growing
POEWAS
We're still in the middle of a housing supply crisis. Build levels are improving, but a long way to go to match demand yet alone fill the backlog (private houses in London and the SE; council houses in Scotland, etc.).
Will Hill offer 5/2 on Dave staying in the post of PM until 2016.
Reasonable value IMO.
That doesn't make an iota of sense when every single opinion poll continues to show EdM winning a majority next year and has done since goodness knows when.
Odd that the bookies are convinced there will be a slump in UKIP support, Labour support, or both. There's no evidence to suggest that's likely.
Clearly you missed the last 328 polls (or whatever) which have shown Labour nowhere near an overall majority.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30019259 labours last argument about the economy has failed. Wages outstrip inflation for first time since 2009. unemployment eighteenth consecutive fall, not just burger flippers but real jobs and & full time, inflation down, house prices stable (wheres Tim?), no double dip or triple dip, economy growing
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30019259 labours last agrument the economy has failed. wages outstrip inflation for first time since 2009. unemployment eighteenth consecutive fall, not just burger flippers but real jobs and & full time, inlation down, house prices stable (wheres Tim?), no double dip or triple dip, economy growing
POEWAS
We're still in the middle of a housing supply crisis. Build levels are improving, but a long way to go to match demand yet alone fill the backlog (private houses in London and the SE; council houses in Scotland, etc.).
Tim was quite clear on this.
I am yet to see anyone take up that mantle.
Mr. Grandiose, I fear that housing is, currently, like Health - demand is infinite yet supply is only finite. It is just is not possible to build sufficient houses to meet either new demand or the backlog, let alone force prices down. Action on supply without action on demand is doomed to failure and lower standards for the majority.
Speccie makes a good point - Dave in low 30s whilst UKIP still in the teens. Given what we saw yesreday about Rochester byelection vs GE polling that must be encouraging for Dave for next May. Should he be expecting to get high 30s? (and where does that leave Microband - low 20s?)
The Conservatives getting to the high thirties next May? What could Cameron and his clique do or say between now and then that would attract so many voters? He might pick up a few percent who are desperate to avoid another Labour government but to score more than about 35% he will need to give a positive reason to vote for his party. What such reason or reasons can he give that enough people who are not currently think of voting for him are likely to believe?
Expect Nigel to get monstered.
Expect UKIP candidates to get monstered.
We see a preview of it today.
You think it is a coincidence that a clip of Farage from two years ago on the NHS should appear a week before the Rochester by-election where the NHS is a key issue to a lot of voters.
Mr. Eagles, I ask what Cameron and Co can say or do to provide a positive reason for voting Conservative you tell me that they will run a dirty campaign to try and discredit their opponents. Do you want to reflect on that?
P.S. Cameron and Co have been running a slag off UKIP campaign for years, it hasn't done much good so far. What makes you think it will do any better in the next six months? Going to run a dirty tricks campaign a la McBride are they?
There'll be positives, but as I've mentioned them to you, and you've not been impressed, I thought it would be churlish to rehearse them with you.
But they may well appeal to the majority of the electorate that believes UKIP are the most extreme and least fit to govern party in Great Britain
So going back to the question I asked, you cannot say what positive reasons Cameron and Co can give to vote for them such that their vote would rise to the upper thirties in next May's election. Fair enough, I understand, I cannot think of any either.
1) The long term trajectory of the economy (I won't list all the individual policies from raising the personal allowance, and the deficit going down, I wish it was reduced faster, cutting Corp tax) 2) The rise Social Liberalism and social justice in this country 3) Record funding for the NHS when Labour would have cut it 4) The roll out of free schools/academies across the country 5) The restoration of the link between earnings and pensions
Will Hill offer 5/2 on Dave staying in the post of PM until 2016.
Reasonable value IMO.
That doesn't make an iota of sense when every single opinion poll continues to show EdM winning a majority next year and has done since goodness knows when.
Odd that the bookies are convinced there will be a slump in UKIP support, Labour support, or both. There's no evidence to suggest that's likely.
Most bookies don't employ a specialist political odds compiler and get a junior to do it, someone who specialises in another dept to keep half an eye on or don't do it at all
That's why most dont lay big bets, although LADBROKES do employ a specialist and still don't mat a bet!!
Maybe they read this site and can't tell the signal from the noise
I just don't see how Labour can win with a leader as unpopular as Miliband, and I don't see how they can change perceptions now.
Because we don't elect a PM, we elect 650 MPs.
Nobody wants Miliband as PM, but that doesn't mean we're safe. With UKIP screwing over the Tories, the accidental Labour leader will become the accidental PM.
It is pretty impressive of Miliband to have taken Labour to starting to hit Gordon Brown-esque lows, and this while in opposition where you can make impossible promises and spend all day thinking up ways of ambushing the government for making unpopular choices and / or messing up.
Incidentally, I saw David Miliband on the Colbert Show the other day. It's easy to impress as a politician on a non-political show, and Colbert is friendly to lefties - nonetheless he came across as plausible, eloquent, relaxed, impassioned, persuasive, even witty.
I suspect Labour would be 8-10 points ahead if David M had won the leadership.
Those union block votes, eh. Hah.
Why aren't Labour turning on the unions who foisted this loser on the party?
Poisonous combination of nepotism and cronyism with the anti-meritocratic principle?
The trouble, for Labour, with relying on the disappearance of the architects of the 1997-2010 disaster to make them electable again is just this combination. By 2022 or so, yes Ed Balls will have gone. The trouble is, Kinnock junior, Benn junior, Prescott junior and Straw junior will all be in the Shadow cabinet by then because of who their dads were. So it doesn't really get any better for Labour.
They really need to wait about 20 years to get back in. By that time the Tories will have repaired the economy and binned all the green crap, so by 2030 or so there will be money for Labour to piss up the wall again. Absent that there is no point their being in power anyway.
It is pretty impressive of Miliband to have taken Labour to starting to hit Gordon Brown-esque lows, and this while in opposition where you can make impossible promises and spend all day thinking up ways of ambushing the government for making unpopular choices and / or messing up.
As I have said many times, Gordon Brown at least had a line to sell in 2010 - that he had saved the world from economic Armageddon. (We'll gloss over his role in causing that self-same Armageddon...) Some people bought that line - I met them on the doorsteps. And there was great fear - spun by Labour - that a Tory Govt. would cause massive unemployment and slash the public sector to the bone, to the point it effectively ceased to function. You heard this from voters in 2010.
In comparison - what has Ed got to sell those same voters? Labour's campaign in 2010 consisted of crying "Wolf!" That Wolf turned out to be about as menacing as the Downing Street cat. Does the public sector really look that much different to 5 years ago? Four, five million unemployed has in reality turned out to be something startlingly close to full employment. Labour has contrived to get everything as wrong out of Govt. as they got it whilst in Govt.
It is pretty impressive of Miliband to have taken Labour to starting to hit Gordon Brown-esque lows, and this while in opposition where you can make impossible promises and spend all day thinking up ways of ambushing the government for making unpopular choices and / or messing up.
Incidentally, I saw David Miliband on the Colbert Show the other day. It's easy to impress as a politician on a non-political show, and Colbert is friendly to lefties - nonetheless he came across as plausible, eloquent, relaxed, impassioned, persuasive, even witty.
I suspect Labour would be 8-10 points ahead if David M had won the leadership.
Those union block votes, eh. Hah.
Why aren't Labour turning on the unions who foisted this loser on the party?
Easy to impress when you aren't a politician anymore. Plenty of former ministers / MPs speak a lot more sensible and are 10x more likable when they aren't having to either make tough decisions or toe the line for others who have made them.
I find this whole David would be way better than Ed rather odd. David Miliband in government was utter garbage e.g Mandelson had to be flown out to dig him out holes in India. There, is also there is quite a bit of dirt to be dug up from some of his decisions. And when the time came to knife Gordon, he bottled it.
I am not at all convinced that David Miliband would be spanking Cameron all over the park. Nor would Cooper, she again was the person behind the likes of HIPS and Philip Hammond, yes the man who doesn't say boo to anybody, regularly duffed her up on economic issues.
The big problem for Labour, Gordon boover boys stomped all over and smeared so many of the high profile centrist Blairite Labour politicians, and I would have thought that also dissuaded many more to not get involved.
I just don't see how Labour can win with a leader as unpopular as Miliband, and I don't see how they can change perceptions now.
Because we don't elect a PM, we elect 650 MPs.
Nobody wants Miliband as PM, but that doesn't mean we're safe. With UKIP screwing over the Tories, the accidental Labour leader will become the accidental PM.
Leading to a UKIP majority in 2020 (or so their strategy goes).
Just catching up with some of the polling news. Explosive poll today then. Labour are in the shit and now that the shadow front bench has ended the coup attempt there is no getting rid of Miliband who is a massive liability. 29% is a disaster for Labour and I still think there is more downwards pressure to come from UKIP in the north and from the SNP in Scotland. Ed could end up on 26-27% but because Labour's vote is so efficiently spread he could still end up either with a lead in terms of seats or just a few behind the Tories if they score in the low 30s.
Looking at the Aschroft by-election poll it seems as if the people of Rochester are using this to give the government a kicking, the GE VI figures are favourable to the Tories but the by-election VI is favourable to UKIP. Could be a sign of things to come, especially if the vote purple get Ed message is hammered home by the Tories. One thing was clear from the poll, UKIP voters prefer Dave to Ed, even if they don't really like Dave that much.
It is pretty impressive of Miliband to have taken Labour to starting to hit Gordon Brown-esque lows, and this while in opposition where you can make impossible promises and spend all day thinking up ways of ambushing the government for making unpopular choices and / or messing up.
It is pretty impressive of Miliband to have taken Labour to starting to hit Gordon Brown-esque lows, and this while in opposition where you can make impossible promises and spend all day thinking up ways of ambushing the government for making unpopular choices and / or messing up.
Incidentally, I saw David Miliband on the Colbert Show the other day. It's easy to impress as a politician on a non-political show, and Colbert is friendly to lefties - nonetheless he came across as plausible, eloquent, relaxed, impassioned, persuasive, even witty.
I suspect Labour would be 8-10 points ahead if David M had won the leadership.
Those union block votes, eh. Hah.
Why aren't Labour turning on the unions who foisted this loser on the party?
Easy to impress when you aren't a politician anymore. Plenty of former ministers / MPs speak a lot more sensible and are 10x more likable when they aren't having to either make tough decisions or toe the line for others who have made them.
I find this whole David would be way better than Ed rather odd. David Miliband in government was utter garbage e.g Mandelson had to be flown out to dig him out holes in India. There, is also there is quite a bit of dirt to be dug up from some of his decisions. And when the time came to knife Gordon, he bottled it.
I am not at all convinced that David Miliband would be spanking Cameron all over the park. Nor would Cooper, she again was the person behind the likes of HIPS and Philip Hammond, yes the man who doesn't say boo to anybody, regularly duffed her up on economic issues.
The big problem for Labour, Gordon boover boys stomped all over and smeared so many of the better centrist Blairite Labour politicians.
'Rendition Flights' would be hanging like a millstone around D Milibands neck.
1) The long term trajectory of the economy (I won't list all the individual policies from raising the personal allowance, and the deficit going down, I wish it was reduced faster, cutting Corp tax) 2) The rise Social Liberalism and social justice in this country 3) Record funding for the NHS when Labour would have cut it 4) The roll out of free schools/academies across the country 5) The restoration of the link between earnings and pensions
I could list more.
Feel free to list more because what you have given is a list of, arguably, what the Conservative government has done in the past four years or so. That wasn't the challenge though, was it? The question I asked was what could Cameron and Co say or do to lift their vote share to the high thirties at the GE next May.
I don't think gratitude for past performance will do it on its own and I don't think fear of Labour will be enough either. Either or a combination of both may well lift the Conservatives to maybe 34/35%, but where is that extra 3/4% suggested by Mr. Patrick going to come from?
Mr Eagles, I seek not an argument only enlightenment.
One poll and suddenly all the Tories are "chipper" and all the anti-Miliband vitriol is off and running.
The obvious conclusion is it's one poll and as Chestnut helpfully points out, a sharp decline in the Labour position in Scotland masks a much less serious decline in England and Wales. The Conservatives are still down 4% on 2010 so perhaps those English and Welsh marginals are in more trouble then might be supposed.
On these numbers, Labour seat gains in England and Wales (thanks also to UKIP) may offset losses in Scotland leaving Labour still ahead on seats (as I pointed out earlier, it's perfectly possible to lose votes and gain seats if your votes are in the right place).
The Con-Lab swing on the certain to vote is 2% but on the "All Expressing" it's 3.5% and that makes a huge difference. Once again, we're looking at a Feb 74 fragmentation election with the duopoly both losing share.
It's worth noting the LDs are near double figures which seems a step forward while UKIP have eased back to the lower teens which seems a step back.
1) The long term trajectory of the economy (I won't list all the individual policies from raising the personal allowance, and the deficit going down, I wish it was reduced faster, cutting Corp tax) 2) The rise Social Liberalism and social justice in this country 3) Record funding for the NHS when Labour would have cut it 4) The roll out of free schools/academies across the country 5) The restoration of the link between earnings and pensions
I could list more.
Feel free to list more because what you have given is a list of, arguably, what the Conservative government has done in the past four years or so. That wasn't the challenge though, was it? The question I asked was what could Cameron and Co say or do to lift their vote share to the high thirties at the GE next May.
I don't think gratitude for past performance will do it on its own and I don't think fear of Labour will be enough either. Either or a combination of both may well lift the Conservatives to maybe 34/35%, but where is that extra 3/4% suggested by Mr. Patrick going to come from?
Mr Eagles, I seek not an argument only enlightenment.
If the Tories get to 35% and Labour are on 27-29% it puts them in majority territory, or at least close enough to one for them to pass a confidence motion.
1) The long term trajectory of the economy (I won't list all the individual policies from raising the personal allowance, and the deficit going down, I wish it was reduced faster, cutting Corp tax) 2) The rise Social Liberalism and social justice in this country 3) Record funding for the NHS when Labour would have cut it 4) The roll out of free schools/academies across the country 5) The restoration of the link between earnings and pensions
I could list more.
Feel free to list more because what you have given is a list of, arguably, what the Conservative government has done in the past four years or so. That wasn't the challenge though, was it? The question I asked was what could Cameron and Co say or do to lift their vote share to the high thirties at the GE next May.
I don't think gratitude for past performance will do it on its own and I don't think fear of Labour will be enough either. Either or a combination of both may well lift the Conservatives to maybe 34/35%, but where is that extra 3/4% suggested by Mr. Patrick going to come from?
Mr Eagles, I seek not an argument only enlightenment.
It will come down what it will always come down to, the economy.
Trust the Tories to finish the job, don't let Labour ruin it again.
If the danger of defenestration has now passed for Ed, and his collegaues are giving some degree of lukewarm protection - can the real monstering of this utterly useless and dangerous gimp please now begin. He's only on -44 points. Surely the target should be -100?
And yet, and yet.....The Tories are still on track to lose Rochester and Tory Ministers and MPs were tearing themselves to pieces over Europe the other day in Parliament.
It will come down what it will always come down to, the economy.
Trust the Tories to finish the job, don't let Labour ruin it again.
The Labour Party gave you Gordon Brown, and are offering Ed "worse than Foot" Miliband. You also get Ed balls...
They have been wrong on every single economic call since their great crash, while cuddly George delivers the best recovery 'in the World' (cue Carlsberg music)
And yet, and yet.....The Tories are still on track to lose Rochester and Tory Ministers and MPs were tearing themselves to pieces over Europe the other day in Parliament.
Looking at the Aschroft by-election poll it seems as if the people of Rochester are using this to give the government a kicking, the GE VI figures are favourable to the Tories but the by-election VI is favourable to UKIP. Could be a sign of things to come, especially if the vote purple get Ed message is hammered home by the Tories. One thing was clear from the poll, UKIP voters prefer Dave to Ed, even if they don't really like Dave that much.
It has always been the case that by elections, local elections, European elections and opinion polls are used by the electorate to give the government of the day a kicking.
Don't know why anybody thought this Parliament would be different. There has been so much nonsense written by people who should know better (including myself at times) over the past few years but one thing should have been crystal clear - At no point during this electoral cycle was Ed Miliband doing well enough...
It's ironic that Allegra Stratton on Newsnight last night was saying that, after a torrid week, Ed Miliband had managed to get through the worst of the jitters.
"Don't know why anybody thought this Parliament would be different. There has been so much nonsense written by people who should know better (including myself at times) over the past few years but one thing should have been crystal clear - At no point during this electoral cycle was Ed Miliband doing well enough..."
... and ANY improvement in the Tory share is going to have a greater and greater effect.
I could do with it starting sooner rather than later though please.
Stodge wrote: 'The Con-Lab swing on the certain to vote is 2% but on the "All Expressing" it's 3.5% and that makes a huge difference.' etc....
So a reduction in Mili's lead from 10% months ago to around zero now with 6 months to go when historically, polls almost always move towards the Gov. by a few % points is not very bad news?. So much for my belief that here I could escape from the airheads on other forums. This is so scraping the barrel that it is almost admirable. The spiral does not stop here; stop thinking with your heart instead of your head.
Comments
I don't claim any particular precision with such a forecast; a range of 0% to 8% Tory lead is my expected range. There are lots of uncertainties, of course.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BlQJiRICAAAeNQ2.jpg
Call a policeman....
Reasonable value IMO.
Attack ads, smear campaigns, push polling... All tried and none worked
As for MORI - A terrrrrrrrriiiiiiibbbbbllllleeeeee poll for Labour!
"Mister Miliband, our researchers have been checking your party's election literature. We have only found one candidate who is prepared to mention you in their literature. That is the candidate for Doncaster North. The candidate for Doncaster North is you, Mister Miliband.
If none of your party think you are worth promoting as Prime Minister, then why should the voters, Mister Miliband?"
Prising normal Labour voters back from the Can't Be Arsed Party will be the Devil's own job with Ed at the helm.
Plus, I still think there is about a 1 in 4 chance that the campaign will blow up disastrously badly on economic matters. Wheels falling off the bus bad. Jaw-dropping, wide-eyed, drop-everything-you've-got-to-watch-this-train-wreck tweets bad.
Another female leader who joins up with Frau Merkel would give Juncker a bit of a shock.
Also the timing of the moves can have a small significance.
eg the Lab maj went out to 100/30 straight away, Con maj has only just come back in to 4/1 from 9/2
All with ladbrokes as usual
and
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft 16m16 minutes ago
The electorates choice as PM betwixt Miliband and Cameron does not seem to be between best of choices but as the least worse alternative.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
Maybe he sees the Ukrainians as cattle (just as the Soviets did with the Catalans almost eighty-years ago); herds to the slaughter whilst stealing their wealth? Global socialism must dominate: Uppity nations like Catalonia/Ukraine/England must be crushed....
https://twitter.com/jdpoc/status/462513309158506497
So in the event of a well hung parliament, Cameron will probably get first stab of cobbling together a government.
I see that Tory Murphy has disappeared now that all the unions have come out against him , his triumphal ride to being FM may not even get out the blocks.
Odd that the bookies are convinced there will be a slump in UKIP support, Labour support, or both. There's no evidence to suggest that's likely.
Conservatives can't justifiably form a government of losers if they have fewer seats and lose seats;
If the have more seats but lose seats then they might get by, if mathematically possible, but a minority government would seem more likely;
If they gain seats but are still short of a majority then acceptable.
Scotland.......42.0% (Yougov 27, Ipsos 23, Panelbase 28)
Wales:..........36.2% (ICM and Yougov 38, pre-conference)
England:......28.1% (Ipsos latest 31, Ashcroft 30)
Eng/Wales...28.5%
GB:..............29.7%
Is that not true in most elections?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4ffb68a4-6a66-11e4-8fca-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product&siteedition=uk#axzz3Ikovyobt
" “I am not the architect of the Luxembourgish model,” he told reporters, adding that the Grand Duchy’s tax authority had acted on an “autonomous basis”, with little oversight from the finance minister – a job he also held for much of his time as prime minister. The commission president did concede he was “politically” responsible for the affair."
It sounds pretty unlikely a priori that a man who was Prime Minister for 18 years and who doubled up for much of that time as Finance Minister didn't have any involvement in the country's tax affairs.
"At Tuesday’s press conference, Mr Juncker was asked if he would have still been selected as commission president had the revelations come to light earlier. “Yes, I would,” he replied, and marched off the stage."
Mr. Eagles, I ask what Cameron and Co can say or do to provide a positive reason for voting Conservative you tell me that they will run a dirty campaign to try and discredit their opponents. Do you want to reflect on that?
P.S. Cameron and Co have been running a slag off UKIP campaign for years, it hasn't done much good so far. What makes you think it will do any better in the next six months? Going to run a dirty tricks campaign a la McBride are they?
But they may well appeal to the majority of the electorate that believes UKIP are the most extreme and least fit to govern party in Great Britain
Edit: It's not dirty tricks to reveal UKIP's darker side.
'Tired of money-grabbing Politicians with no integrity?
That must be a typo
Try money-grabbing Politicians with no integrity?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B2PyTv8CMAArpbA.jpg
labours last argument about the economy has failed. Wages outstrip inflation for first time since 2009. unemployment eighteenth consecutive fall, not just burger flippers but real jobs and & full time, inflation down, house prices stable (wheres Tim?), no double dip or triple dip,
economy growing
POEWAS
I guess, since it's all true, you couldn't call it 'monstering' or 'dirty politics'.
Tim was quite clear on this.
I am yet to see anyone take up that mantle.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30019547
2) The rise Social Liberalism and social justice in this country
3) Record funding for the NHS when Labour would have cut it
4) The roll out of free schools/academies across the country
5) The restoration of the link between earnings and pensions
I could list more.
That's why most dont lay big bets, although LADBROKES do employ a specialist and still don't mat a bet!!
Maybe they read this site and can't tell the signal from the noise
Sorry mods, didn't realise that would embed the tweet.
Nobody wants Miliband as PM, but that doesn't mean we're safe. With UKIP screwing over the Tories, the accidental Labour leader will become the accidental PM.
My January real crossover prediction looking good.
The trouble, for Labour, with relying on the disappearance of the architects of the 1997-2010 disaster to make them electable again is just this combination. By 2022 or so, yes Ed Balls will have gone. The trouble is, Kinnock junior, Benn junior, Prescott junior and Straw junior will all be in the Shadow cabinet by then because of who their dads were. So it doesn't really get any better for Labour.
They really need to wait about 20 years to get back in. By that time the Tories will have repaired the economy and binned all the green crap, so by 2030 or so there will be money for Labour to piss up the wall again. Absent that there is no point their being in power anyway.
In comparison - what has Ed got to sell those same voters? Labour's campaign in 2010 consisted of crying "Wolf!" That Wolf turned out to be about as menacing as the Downing Street cat. Does the public sector really look that much different to 5 years ago? Four, five million unemployed has in reality turned out to be something startlingly close to full employment. Labour has contrived to get everything as wrong out of Govt. as they got it whilst in Govt.
I find this whole David would be way better than Ed rather odd. David Miliband in government was utter garbage e.g Mandelson had to be flown out to dig him out holes in India. There, is also there is quite a bit of dirt to be dug up from some of his decisions. And when the time came to knife Gordon, he bottled it.
I am not at all convinced that David Miliband would be spanking Cameron all over the park. Nor would Cooper, she again was the person behind the likes of HIPS and Philip Hammond, yes the man who doesn't say boo to anybody, regularly duffed her up on economic issues.
The big problem for Labour, Gordon boover boys stomped all over and smeared so many of the high profile centrist Blairite Labour politicians, and I would have thought that also dissuaded many more to not get involved.
Looking at the Aschroft by-election poll it seems as if the people of Rochester are using this to give the government a kicking, the GE VI figures are favourable to the Tories but the by-election VI is favourable to UKIP. Could be a sign of things to come, especially if the vote purple get Ed message is hammered home by the Tories. One thing was clear from the poll, UKIP voters prefer Dave to Ed, even if they don't really like Dave that much.
@DPJHodges: @hopisen Don't be daft. It's people who have spent 3 years saying "Ed's great, he's one of us" suddenly realising he's going to lose.
@DPJHodges: @hopisen It's nothing to do with lack of radical follow through. It's to do with the fact he's polling 29% on their agenda.
I don't think gratitude for past performance will do it on its own and I don't think fear of Labour will be enough either. Either or a combination of both may well lift the Conservatives to maybe 34/35%, but where is that extra 3/4% suggested by Mr. Patrick going to come from?
Mr Eagles, I seek not an argument only enlightenment.
One poll and suddenly all the Tories are "chipper" and all the anti-Miliband vitriol is off and running.
The obvious conclusion is it's one poll and as Chestnut helpfully points out, a sharp decline in the Labour position in Scotland masks a much less serious decline in England and Wales. The Conservatives are still down 4% on 2010 so perhaps those English and Welsh marginals are in more trouble then might be supposed.
On these numbers, Labour seat gains in England and Wales (thanks also to UKIP) may offset losses in Scotland leaving Labour still ahead on seats (as I pointed out earlier, it's perfectly possible to lose votes and gain seats if your votes are in the right place).
The Con-Lab swing on the certain to vote is 2% but on the "All Expressing" it's 3.5% and that makes a huge difference. Once again, we're looking at a Feb 74 fragmentation election with the duopoly both losing share.
It's worth noting the LDs are near double figures which seems a step forward while UKIP have eased back to the lower teens which seems a step back.
@bernerlap: .@MarcherLord1 @JohnRentoul @ToryTreasury @MattChorley stop gloating. Ed's slumped too early #webacked remember Foinavon
#TheTrendIsYourFriend
Trust the Tories to finish the job, don't let Labour ruin it again.
They have been wrong on every single economic call since their great crash, while cuddly George delivers the best recovery 'in the World' (cue Carlsberg music)
Do you really want those guys back in charge?
Tories in the thirties
Labour in the twenties.
Hur hur hur. If only tim were still here.
Although I suspect he was shrewd enough to see something like this coming, with Ed at the helm, made his excuses and left.
Theresa May took one for the team.
Don't know why anybody thought this Parliament would be different. There has been so much nonsense written by people who should know better (including myself at times) over the past few years but one thing should have been crystal clear - At no point during this electoral cycle was Ed Miliband doing well enough...
EDIT: Or a much higher voting intention than south of the border?
... and ANY improvement in the Tory share is going to have a greater and greater effect.
I could do with it starting sooner rather than later though please.
What is wrong with that bet precisely ?
So a reduction in Mili's lead from 10% months ago to around zero now with 6 months to go when historically, polls almost always move towards the Gov. by a few % points is not very bad news?. So much for my belief that here I could escape from the airheads on other forums. This is so scraping the barrel that it is almost admirable. The spiral does not stop here; stop thinking with your heart instead of your head.
@DPJHodges: @hopisen ..."Ed's setting the agenda", "Ed's re-writing the political rules", "Ed's asking the big questions", etc...