I don't think it's 99%. I think there were plenty of people who thought Yes might or would win the IndyRef who didn't want it to happen to take just one example, and people who want a Labour majority but think they could fall short for another. I'd say it was about 75-25 maybe
Quite a large number of casual politics followers I talk to all have the same view as many on here: Ed Miliband is rubbish therefore Labour won't win.
My general response is that his perceived rubbishness must surely be largely built into the current poll numbers and, in fact, isn't it more likely that his personal ratings will get better, not worse - just because there's not much room for them to fall any further.
Yes, fair point re their party falling short.
But, re this thread, how many Con supporters will be buying Lab seats and how many Lab supporters will be buying Con seats? Very, very few going by the posts we generally get on here.
Indeed. But remember that it is us geeks and the journos who have seen the light and trash Ed. His polling is admittedly dire but not yet as dire as the man himself. The man in the street is yet to enjoy a full blown Ed epiphany.
He might recover but he might get a whole lot worse. I suspect explaining not having an economic plan or explaining one he does come up with foon the telly r 6 weeks and endlessly being asked "you can't be be serious can you' and then crying / gurning / floundering / melting / farting / grinning / eating a nice bit of Wensleydale is going to be a joy to behold.
Mr. Smithson, doesn't that assume the old model still works? The SNP and UKIP could make a mockery of the old assumptions that Labour are very well-served by the electoral system [or, of course, they might not].
To date, there has not been the slightest evidence that the Conservatives' ratings will recover in the polls in the coming months. Labour's glissando this year has been pretty much what I expected at the start of the year, but the Conservatives have not so far shown any form of revival. Betting on them doing so next year is placing a lot of blind faith in untested theories.
In political betting, as in horseracing, the best guide to future performance is past form.
But not necessarily the current position of the horse part-way through the race.
In political betting, you have no choice but to use your judgement. A simple reading-through of the current polls to the final result is as big an error as ignoring the polls.
That's why the Fisher model is so useful, as it tells us how much swing from here would be a reasonable guesstimate based on past performance (answer: quite a lot still, plus or minus 6.7% at 95% confidence levels).
Their central forecast is currently Con 281 Lab 278 LD 28 SNP 37 UKIP 3 Plaid 3 Green 1, which is compatible with the SPIN prices on the Conservatives but indicates that Labour are a Sell (and the SNP a screaming buy).
Faites vos jeux, mesdames et messieurs.
Are the SNP really going to get the number of seats you mention? I don't see why the Labour tendency should vote for anything else, not least when the concept of independence is such a busted flush, given the oil price. (it's not so much the current oil price per se, although the consequences of that are obvious, its the clear reality that the price is so volotile)
Of course I do realise we are not dealing with rationality, but in the final analysis will the seats really turn out as predicted??
There are issues with Scotland only polling which I plan to write on. Most are weighted back to the 2011 Holyrood elections when the SNP did very well. For various technical reasons the views of men in Scottish polls are over-inflated and those of women compressed. Women are much less convinced of the indy thing than men.
The Green surge is a bit of a mystery to me. To be continually increasing your vote share and membership with pretty much no coverage or attention just doesn't make sense. If Natalie Bennett or Caroline Lucas were continually on the news or there was some big environmental news event, I could understand the Greens getting a boost in the same way UKIP and SNP have, but that isn't happening. I think their anti-austerity reputation could be one factor.
It depends what you mean by coverage though, doesn't it? As I've said before, there's coverage out there for those interested in looking for it. It might not be front of house on your TV or in your newspaper but it's there all the same - largely online.
The Green surge is a bit of a mystery to me. To be continually increasing your vote share and membership with pretty much no coverage or attention just doesn't make sense. If Natalie Bennett or Caroline Lucas were continually on the news or there was some big environmental news event, I could understand the Greens getting a boost in the same way UKIP and SNP have, but that isn't happening. I think their anti-austerity reputation could be one factor.
Maybe, although what confuses me about it is why now and not, say, a year ago, when pretty much the same factors were in play. I think it may be because rather than an expected recovery of some kind the LDs have slumped even worse, causing even people who want to vote for them to start abandoning ship, and of course Labour sliding a little and with literally nowhere else for lefty voters to go.
I think two factors are different from a year ago. Firstly, a lot of people's patience with Labour finally snapped -- the Labour "high command" were always too complacent about their solid poll ratings and always underestimated how lukewarm a lot of their support was (my dad being exhibit A, being someone who voted Lib Dem in 2010, started to say he'd probably vote Labour by default, but then in recent months has said he's sick of Miliband faffing about saying nothing so he's going to vote Green to "send a message" instead - this is inspite of the fact he had no idea who the Green leader was when I asked him).
Secondly, the European elections frankly might have reminded a lot of people just of the Green Party's mere existence. Maybe a lot of people who always had Greenish views a year just didn't occur to them that voting Green was an option, but then they got a burst of publicity with the European elections and maybe just thought to themselves "hmm, you know what, why not".
Why??? Why would anyone want to vote green? Why would anyone want to vote green as some kind of rational left wing choice?
I'm really hoping the Greens emerge as a major force. Their basic ideology and policy platform is one that can appeal to left-wingers, but will always look like cloud-cuckoo land to the man on the street. They'll hopefully knock out the Lib Dems as a viable political force, deprive Labour of the necessary vote to compete nationally, and yet be a completely unrealistic coalition partner with their utopian aims.
Mr. Smithson, doesn't that assume the old model still works? The SNP and UKIP could make a mockery of the old assumptions that Labour are very well-served by the electoral system [or, of course, they might not].
The outcome of SNP battles with LAB in Scotland have zero impact on CON seats numbers which is the subject of this post.
Casual Green supporters may well think the party is fluffy, soft and nice for the environment.
If they discover they have hard left policies, will they want to vote for them at the general election?
Look at the polling - being opposed to the levels of austerity that the Tories, Lib Dems and Labour (to varying degrees) plan for the next Parliament is not viewed as hard left. Or, if it is, you've just characterised a whopping proportion of the UK electorate as hard left.
Similary nationalisation of the railways actually polls quite well so it's not too surprising that the only serious nationwide party that advocates this might do well in the polls. Again you might call this hard left but then you must view the electorate as a whole as hard left then.
Indeed. But remember that it is us geeks and the journos who have seen the light and trash Ed. His polling is admittedly dire but not yet as dire as the man himself.
For some, perhaps. Others may be surprised that Ed M is merely bland, rather than some uniquely awful and almost comic figure.
Quite a large number of casual politics followers I talk to all have the same view as many on here: Ed Miliband is rubbish therefore Labour won't win.
My general response is that his perceived rubbishness must surely be largely built into the current poll numbers and, in fact, isn't it more likely that his personal ratings will get better, not worse - just because there's not much room for them to fall any further.
I looked back at 1983 to back up my argument, but it looks like Labour were generally polling around 33% at this stage before the election, only to wind up with 27%. Oh well.
A good point that makes total sense.
The counter argument would be that most people don't follow politics at all closely and when they answer a how will you vote polling question at the moment they aren't thinking that Labour = Miliband.
After a GE campaign with Miliband on TV every day they (or at least most people) will be much more aware that Labour = Miliband so some will be less likely to vote Labour.
That sort of ties in to a YouGov a few weeks back which had a Con 3% lead with the leaders named in an otherwise standard voting intention question.
Even with CON on a 3% lead they' be losing 30+ seats.
In your view.
Not in Peter Kellner's - who, incidentally, is one of the very, very few people whose prediction does not match his own party affiliation.
I'm well aware you think Kellner is wrong. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't.
If the Greens are serious about being a force in British politics, then they have to damage the LibDems and then Labour.
If the Greens are serious they should do what suits their agenda not what suits others'.
You mean all that talk of the Common Good was just tosh, and you're only out for yourselves? Beast!
Out for ourselves? Personally I will settle for nothing less than a fascist police state where I get to tell everyone what they can and cant do but baby steps...
I expect the Greens to be squeezed in the actual GE so the polling might only be temporary
If the media coverage is all about a hung parliament being likely, won't voters be thinking about the junior partners forming the next government, rather than Con/Lab?
I expect the Greens to be squeezed in the actual GE so the polling might only be temporary
If the media coverage is all about a hung parliament being likely, won't voters be thinking about the junior partners forming the next government, rather than Con/Lab?
I dont think so, I expect both the Greens and UKIP to be squeezed. Neither are likely to be junior coalition partners in any case.
If the Greens are serious about being a force in British politics, then they have to damage the LibDems and then Labour.
If the Greens are serious they should do what suits their agenda not what suits others'.
You mean all that talk of the Common Good was just tosh, and you're only out for yourselves? Beast!
Out for ourselves? Personally I will settle for nothing less than a fascist police state where I get to tell everyone what they can and cant do but baby steps...
!!!!!! And to think I dismissed Mr Smithson's remarks as sour grapes. What a blind fool I've been!
Casual Green supporters may well think the party is fluffy, soft and nice for the environment.
If they discover they have hard left policies, will they want to vote for them at the general election?
Look at the polling - being opposed to the levels of austerity that the Tories, Lib Dems and Labour (to varying degrees) plan for the next Parliament is not viewed as hard left. Or, if it is, you've just characterised a whopping proportion of the UK electorate as hard left.
Most people surely understand the need to balance the books. Very many people only have debit cards and not credit cards because they recognise the dangers of getting into debt.
The hard left are happy to spend someone elses's money that they have borrowed, as Gordon Briwn did. The Green party wants to go down the same road. Greece has shown where that leads - we should learn from them.
I don't think that he's spinning us a line, but I do think there's an element of wishful thinking.
No reason why you should zealously follow all my posts, but I did note the exception - a switch of a tranche of Labour voters to UKIP - some months ago. It was a fairly quick single switch which happened around the time of the by-elections, and hasn't been obviously repeated (at least in my patch). The other voters still seem unusually dug in.
Mr. Smithson, doesn't that assume the old model still works? The SNP and UKIP could make a mockery of the old assumptions that Labour are very well-served by the electoral system [or, of course, they might not].
The outcome of SNP battles with LAB in Scotland have zero impact on CON seats numbers which is the subject of this post.
UKIP is a much bigger danger to CON than LAB.
But UKIP's current polling is already weighing heavier on CON than LAB, and so is factored into your post already. It is the biggest single reason why LAB are ahead at all (Red Liberals matter too).
Some people think UKIP will continue to soar up to the election; others [including Sean F, IIRC] are expecting swingback.
Direct seat losses to UKIP matter too but I'm not expecting that many.
I expect the Greens to be squeezed in the actual GE so the polling might only be temporary
If the media coverage is all about a hung parliament being likely, won't voters be thinking about the junior partners forming the next government, rather than Con/Lab?
I dont think so, I expect both the Greens and UKIP to be squeezed. Neither are likely to be junior coalition partners in any case.
It would be good to have some polling on the squeezability of the Greens. We know that kippers are pretty alienated from the main parties and thus don't look hugely squeezable. We don't know whether Green supporters will return to the fold if their votes look as though they might count.
Casual Green supporters may well think the party is fluffy, soft and nice for the environment.
If they discover they have hard left policies, will they want to vote for them at the general election?
Look at the polling - being opposed to the levels of austerity that the Tories, Lib Dems and Labour (to varying degrees) plan for the next Parliament is not viewed as hard left. Or, if it is, you've just characterised a whopping proportion of the UK electorate as hard left.
Most people surely understand the need to balance the books.
Well, no, not if that means spending plans along the lines of the Tories (or even Lib Dems or Labour) according to the latest polls. That was rather my point.
See, for example:
"The Populus poll shows that only two in five voters now believe that more austerity and cuts will be needed in the five years after the 2015 election, even though the budget deficit is forecast by the OBR to be £75.2bn in 2015-16."
I expect the Greens to be squeezed in the actual GE so the polling might only be temporary
If the media coverage is all about a hung parliament being likely, won't voters be thinking about the junior partners forming the next government, rather than Con/Lab?
I dont think so, I expect both the Greens and UKIP to be squeezed. Neither are likely to be junior coalition partners in any case.
It would be good to have some polling on the squeezability of the Greens. We know that kippers are pretty alienated from the main parties and thus don't look hugely squeezable. We don't know whether Green supporters will return to the fold if their votes look as though they might count.
Half of them are ex-LDs, so they've already resisted the 'wasted vote' argument at least once.
I've just read a copy of the Daily Mirror. As savage attack on the heartless Tories as I've read. They seem fixated on Osborne taking the country's welfare state back to the '30's.
I wonder whether it has much traction? If people are genuinely suffering and feeling hard done to it'll have a powerful resonance. Sort of Grapes of Wrath
I expect the Greens to be squeezed in the actual GE so the polling might only be temporary
If the media coverage is all about a hung parliament being likely, won't voters be thinking about the junior partners forming the next government, rather than Con/Lab?
I dont think so, I expect both the Greens and UKIP to be squeezed. Neither are likely to be junior coalition partners in any case.
It would be good to have some polling on the squeezability of the Greens. We know that kippers are pretty alienated from the main parties and thus don't look hugely squeezable. We don't know whether Green supporters will return to the fold if their votes look as though they might count.
Half of them are ex-LDs, so they've already resisted the 'wasted vote' argument at least once.
And the Green vote share in all council by elections since June is below 4% and down in almost every single by election . This Green "surge" is a myth . Today;s Populus poll had them at 4% which seems about right .
And the Green vote share in all council by elections since June is below 4% and down in almost every single by election . This Green "surge" is a myth . Today;s Populus poll had them at 4% which seems about right .
Fancy increasing the stake in our Caroline Lucas bet?
I expect the Greens to be squeezed in the actual GE so the polling might only be temporary
If the media coverage is all about a hung parliament being likely, won't voters be thinking about the junior partners forming the next government, rather than Con/Lab?
I dont think so, I expect both the Greens and UKIP to be squeezed. Neither are likely to be junior coalition partners in any case.
It would be good to have some polling on the squeezability of the Greens. We know that kippers are pretty alienated from the main parties and thus don't look hugely squeezable. We don't know whether Green supporters will return to the fold if their votes look as though they might count.
Half of them are ex-LDs, so they've already resisted the 'wasted vote' argument at least once.
The Green revival is a function of Ed Miliband - nothing more, nothing less. The socialists/communists/anarchists should be flocking to Labour given the far-left policies he's espousing. The fact that they're not can only be a reflection on his flattering leadership, general incompetence and lack of spunk. It's Nick Palmer I feel sorry for. How can he look the good folk of Broxtowe in the eye and ask them to vote for a dud leader of a dud party? Nick is a man of intelligence, vim and integrity. It must be hell.
And the Green vote share in all council by elections since June is below 4% and down in almost every single by election . This Green "surge" is a myth . Today;s Populus poll had them at 4% which seems about right .
Fancy increasing the stake in our Caroline Lucas bet?
No thanks , don;t be so greedy , I was very generous to you .
And the Green vote share in all council by elections since June is below 4% and down in almost every single by election . This Green "surge" is a myth . Today;s Populus poll had them at 4% which seems about right .
Fancy increasing the stake in our Caroline Lucas bet?
No thanks , don;t be so greedy , I was very generous to you .
You were, Mark. And it's very naughty of me to ask for more.
Their central forecast is currently Con 281 Lab 278 LD 28 SNP 37 UKIP 3 Plaid 3 Green 1, which is compatible with the SPIN prices on the Conservatives but indicates that Labour are a Sell (and the SNP a screaming buy).
Faites vos jeux, mesdames et messieurs.
Are the SNP really going to get the number of seats you mention? I don't see why the Labour tendency should vote for anything else, not least when the concept of independence is such a busted flush, given the oil price. (it's not so much the current oil price per se, although the consequences of that are obvious, its the clear reality that the price is so volotile)
Of course I do realise we are not dealing with rationality, but in the final analysis will the seats really turn out as predicted??
It's actually highly rational. People vote SNP for two things: (a) independence, and (b) running the country pretty well. Those have decoupled in the past, partly as a deliberate policy of the SNP. So voting is for different things:
Indyref = Indy yes or no. Holyrood =running Scotland under devolution and leaving indy for another time and (another) referendum.
Hitherto, Westminster voting has been about Keeping the Evil Tories Out and hitherto Labour have been the best bet for that, under FPTP.
But now -
1. Labour have turned into the Tories' little helpers which upsets many on principle (and under Labour's own loudly expressed principles, it should be said)
2. Labour came out for not only No but the status quo (and has still tried to, more than the other parties) - which upset a different circle on the Scottish Venn diagram from the above.
3. Right now I'd say well over half of Scots want more powers in a sensible way (all those who voted for indy, plus all those who voted No but expected devo-max: this is consistent with all polling over the last few years). This is not met by the Smith Commission proposals, never mind how they are being publicised, and the best way to get those extra powers is to vote in the SNP.
And 4. the SNP look like achieving a critical mass - if you don't want to vote Tory, LD, or Green, and you have had it with Labour, who are now indistinguishable from the Tories, and/or look like not worth voting for under FPTP, who else is there? It may hit Labour rather than the Tories, so there is a bit of a conflict there, but that is inevitable. And voting Labour is no good as they are part of the Unionist consortium. Voting SNP is the only way to get a big enough voice in a hung Westminster - and remember the Scots have been used to minority governments since 1999.
One other point. We don't know who the new Scottish Labour "leader" will be. Could be very interesting.
If the Greens are serious about being a force in British politics, then they have to damage the LibDems and then Labour.
If the Greens are serious they should do what suits their agenda not what suits others'.
Well, they can try to pitch their tent on UKIPs lawn. Or they can try and peel off the remaining handful of hug-a-husky Tories. Or they can be serious players. That means going for those on the left who cannot stomach Ed Miliband or Nick Clegg. That is a sizeable pool to be fishing in.
Quite a large number of casual politics followers I talk to all have the same view as many on here: Ed Miliband is rubbish therefore Labour won't win.
My general response is that his perceived rubbishness must surely be largely built into the current poll numbers and, in fact, isn't it more likely that his personal ratings will get better, not worse - just because there's not much room for them to fall any further.
I looked back at 1983 to back up my argument, but it looks like Labour were generally polling around 33% at this stage before the election, only to wind up with 27%. Oh well.
A good point that makes total sense.
The counter argument would be that most people don't follow politics at all closely and when they answer a how will you vote polling question at the moment they aren't thinking that Labour = Miliband.
After a GE campaign with Miliband on TV every day they (or at least most people) will be much more aware that Labour = Miliband so some will be less likely to vote Labour.
That sort of ties in to a YouGov a few weeks back which had a Con 3% lead with the leaders named in an otherwise standard voting intention question.
Even with CON on a 3% lead they' be losing 30+ seats.
In your view.
Not in Peter Kellner's - who, incidentally, is one of the very, very few people whose prediction does not match his own party affiliation.
I'm well aware you think Kellner is wrong. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't.
My predictions on this do not match my party affiliation.
Kellner is basing his case on a CON incumbency bonus of 3% which doesn't stand up to scrutiny although I agree with him on Scotland.
Casual Green supporters may well think the party is fluffy, soft and nice for the environment.
If they discover they have hard left policies, will they want to vote for them at the general election?
Look at the polling - being opposed to the levels of austerity that the Tories, Lib Dems and Labour (to varying degrees) plan for the next Parliament is not viewed as hard left. Or, if it is, you've just characterised a whopping proportion of the UK electorate as hard left.
Similary nationalisation of the railways actually polls quite well so it's not too surprising that the only serious nationwide party that advocates this might do well in the polls. Again you might call this hard left but then you must view the electorate as a whole as hard left then.
On a point of detail (even if we ignore NI): the Greens (or at least the party you are discussing, presumably) are not nationwide. The Scottish Greens are separate. But the SNP are also in favour anyway so that adds to the strength of your argument.
The Green surge is a bit of a mystery to me. To be continually increasing your vote share and membership with pretty much no coverage or attention just doesn't make sense. If Natalie Bennett or Caroline Lucas were continually on the news or there was some big environmental news event, I could understand the Greens getting a boost in the same way UKIP and SNP have, but that isn't happening. I think their anti-austerity reputation could be one factor.
I've never seen as much Green party coverage as there has been in recent weeks / months. Someone was even complaining earlier at a 'paper carrying a Green response to the Autumn Statement but not a UKIP one (for some balance - count how many times the media look for a UKIP quote about an issue without running a Green one). I think the exclusion from the debates was a big issue that raised profile and prompted a lot of lefties to remember they are there / what they stand for. 260,000+ people signed one petition alone. It helped that this came when Miliband was having his wobble. And, yes, being anti-austerity when people dont seem to see the need for austerity any more cant hurt.
Interesting that you suggest that people do not seem to see the need for austerity anymore. The anti govt attack is that they have 'missed their deficit reductiuon targets'. Well that suggests the need for more cuts not less. If as an alternative it suggests there is no problem with the deficit then why the attack line?
What is the killer policy that convinces these people to vote Green?
I was told today that the Greens have commissioned another ICM poll in Brighton Pavilion and fieldwork is currently under way. The last one they did wasn't published because it showed Lucas a long way behind.
Casual Green supporters may well think the party is fluffy, soft and nice for the environment.
If they discover they have hard left policies, will they want to vote for them at the general election?
Look at the polling - being opposed to the levels of austerity that the Tories, Lib Dems and Labour (to varying degrees) plan for the next Parliament is not viewed as hard left. Or, if it is, you've just characterised a whopping proportion of the UK electorate as hard left.
Similary nationalisation of the railways actually polls quite well so it's not too surprising that the only serious nationwide party that advocates this might do well in the polls. Again you might call this hard left but then you must view the electorate as a whole as hard left then.
On a point of detail (even if we ignore NI): the Greens (or at least the party you are discussing, presumably) are not nationwide. The Scottish Greens are separate.
I'm more than aware of how the various Green parties in these islands are structured.
The Green surge is a bit of a mystery to me. To be continually increasing your vote share and membership with pretty much no coverage or attention just doesn't make sense. If Natalie Bennett or Caroline Lucas were continually on the news or there was some big environmental news event, I could understand the Greens getting a boost in the same way UKIP and SNP have, but that isn't happening. I think their anti-austerity reputation could be one factor.
I've never seen as much Green party coverage as there has been in recent weeks / months. Someone was even complaining earlier at a 'paper carrying a Green response to the Autumn Statement but not a UKIP one (for some balance - count how many times the media look for a UKIP quote about an issue without running a Green one). I think the exclusion from the debates was a big issue that raised profile and prompted a lot of lefties to remember they are there / what they stand for. 260,000+ people signed one petition alone. It helped that this came when Miliband was having his wobble. And, yes, being anti-austerity when people dont seem to see the need for austerity any more cant hurt.
Interesting that you suggest that people do not seem to see the need for austerity anymore. The anti govt attack is that they have 'missed their deficit reductiuon targets'. Well that suggests the need for more cuts not less. If as an alternative it suggests there is no problem with the deficit then why the attack line? What is the killer policy that convinces these people to vote Green?
They argue against the need for any cuts. Something that Labour and the LDs cannot categorically state. That is their USP.
The Green surge is a bit of a mystery to me. To be continually increasing your vote share and membership with pretty much no coverage or attention just doesn't make sense. If Natalie Bennett or Caroline Lucas were continually on the news or there was some big environmental news event, I could understand the Greens getting a boost in the same way UKIP and SNP have, but that isn't happening. I think their anti-austerity reputation could be one factor.
I've never seen as much Green party coverage as there has been in recent weeks / months. Someone was even complaining earlier at a 'paper carrying a Green response to the Autumn Statement but not a UKIP one (for some balance - count how many times the media look for a UKIP quote about an issue without running a Green one). I think the exclusion from the debates was a big issue that raised profile and prompted a lot of lefties to remember they are there / what they stand for. 260,000+ people signed one petition alone. It helped that this came when Miliband was having his wobble. And, yes, being anti-austerity when people dont seem to see the need for austerity any more cant hurt.
Interesting that you suggest that people do not seem to see the need for austerity anymore. The anti govt attack is that they have 'missed their deficit reductiuon targets'. Well that suggests the need for more cuts not less. If as an alternative it suggests there is no problem with the deficit then why the attack line?
There is something in what you say, and I've had problem with similar lines in the past, but I suppose the issue could well be that a)there is no need for austerity to deal with the deficit and b) even if you think there is a need, the Tories have failed spectacularly to deal with it, so are clearly incompetent.
Personally I agree with the view that people do not see the need for austerity, not really. Most people really did not seem to care the targets had been missed except those trying to use it as political capital, ridiculously so in some cases, and I doubt they will care if targets slip again, as indeed they have multiple times already. Instead it's become an issue where people care it in theory but are far less likely to put up with the practice even as much as they have to date. As the Greens are not going to be in power alone even under the best projections for them, people can believe the deficit needs some dealing with, while still voting for a party that cares nothing for that, as the Greens can help prevent or slow any cutting that is necessary so that it doesn't go too far.
It would be good to have some polling on the squeezability of the Greens. We know that kippers are pretty alienated from the main parties and thus don't look hugely squeezable. We don't know whether Green supporters will return to the fold if their votes look as though they might count.
Polling for "are you sure or might you change party?" has IIRC both Greeens and LibDems much less sure than Con/Lab/UKIP. My anecdotal impression is that the people who voted Green last time are absolutely immoveable, but the ones thinking about it this time are open to argument, more on a tactical basis than by saying that we agree on rail nationalisation etc., because the "maybe Green" voters are not being drawn by policy as much as by a general green/lefty feeling. They're also getting some NOTA support from people who are disgruntled with the main parties but explicitly anti-UKIP.
We actually have one member who belongs to both parties, in breach of the rules of both. I haven't made a fuss about it (life is too short), so she's carried on like that for years, voting Lab at GEs and Green locally.
Polling suggests at least 37 Tory loses to Labour, with the swings in Tory seats predicting around 68 Tory loses to Labour. The problem between betting and polling is simple, the first people betting are partisans and professionals, who tend to be older and wealthier than average so they tend to skew Tory.
Also there's the ridiculous theory of swingback which I have debunked many times as occurring only on half the elections since polling began, and once you get rid of war and leadership change it has occurred only in 1/3rd of elections. Which is also overdue since August and still there's no movement in the polls for the Tories, no wonder that Steven Fisher is forced to change his forecasts to be more in tune with the polls : http://electionsetc.com/2014/10/24/after-a-year-of-forecasting-whats-changed/
And that was 6 weeks ago, since then the forecast has become even worse for the government, lesson is you cannot accurately predict the future based on past results. Each election is unique and should be treated as such.
Mr. Smithson, doesn't that assume the old model still works? The SNP and UKIP could make a mockery of the old assumptions that Labour are very well-served by the electoral system [or, of course, they might not].
The outcome of SNP battles with LAB in Scotland have zero impact on CON seats numbers which is the subject of this post.
Dear Mike, my email isn't working - hope you got my cartoon (for later - I can see this thread is still young!) on the Elgin Marbles statue at the Hermitage. Spot the Putin. Have a good night ... Marf
Dear Mike, my email isn't working - hope you got my cartoon (for later - I can see this thread is still young!) on the Elgin Marbles statue at the Hermitage. Spot the Putin. Have a good night ... Marf
Dear Mike, my email isn't working - hope you got my cartoon (for later - I can see this thread is still young!) on the Elgin Marbles statue at the Hermitage. Spot the Putin. Have a good night ... Marf
May I guess that Putin is the statue himself?
Speedy, email me and I'll send you a sneak preview ... marfcartoons@btinternet.com
And the Green vote share in all council by elections since June is below 4% and down in almost every single by election . This Green "surge" is a myth . Today;s Populus poll had them at 4% which seems about right .
Greens did well in the Euros, gaining a seat.
The lesson may well be that people will vote Green where there is a chance that they can win, but light Greens may well vote tactically in FPTP elections.
I can see the Greens being the party for those opposed to the big 3 but even more opposed to the kippers.
I expect the Greens to be squeezed in the actual GE so the polling might only be temporary
If the media coverage is all about a hung parliament being likely, won't voters be thinking about the junior partners forming the next government, rather than Con/Lab?
I dont think so, I expect both the Greens and UKIP to be squeezed. Neither are likely to be junior coalition partners in any case.
It would be good to have some polling on the squeezability of the Greens. We know that kippers are pretty alienated from the main parties and thus don't look hugely squeezable. We don't know whether Green supporters will return to the fold if their votes look as though they might count.
Half of them are ex-LDs, so they've already resisted the 'wasted vote' argument at least once.
Greens are also fielding significantly more candidates so in many places LD voters will have a Green to vote for this time.
The popular vote is almost irrelevant under FPTP.
Mike, my point is that in some LD seats there was no Green candidate last time unlike this time. A few % could make the difference in an election like this on top of the much mentioned shift from LD to Lab.
Polling suggests at least 37 Tory loses to Labour, with the swings in Tory seats predicting around 68 Tory loses to Labour. The problem between betting and polling is simple, the first people betting are partisans and professionals, who tend to be older and wealthier than average so they tend to skew Tory.
Also there's the ridiculous theory of swingback which I have debunked many times as occurring only on half the elections since polling began, and once you get rid of war and leadership change it has occurred only in 1/3rd of elections. Which is also overdue since August and still there's no movement in the polls for the Tories, no wonder that Steven Fisher is forced to change his forecasts to be more in tune with the polls : http://electionsetc.com/2014/10/24/after-a-year-of-forecasting-whats-changed/
And that was 6 weeks ago, since then the forecast has become even worse for the government, lesson is you cannot accurately predict the future based on past results. Each election is unique and should be treated as such.
There's clear and obvious movement away from Labour. At the start of the year, they led the Tories by 6%. Now, the lead is 1%. Barring accidents, the Conservatives are very likely to lead in terms of vote share in May.
The questions are, by how much, and will this translate into a lead in seats?
BREAKING NEWS ON MONEY MARKETING - Confirmed - Labour lost the 2015 GE.
"Against a backdrop of economic turmoil and swingeing public sector cuts, Labour was already drifting towards a humiliating defeat before March. The Budget pensions bombshell and the Autumn Statement stamp duty reforms - both obvious vote winners - have sealed the deal.
For Labour, the battle is over and the war is lost. And it only has itself to blame."
And the Green vote share in all council by elections since June is below 4% and down in almost every single by election . This Green "surge" is a myth . Today;s Populus poll had them at 4% which seems about right .
Greens did well in the Euros, gaining a seat.
The lesson may well be that people will vote Green where there is a chance that they can win, but light Greens may well vote tactically in FPTP elections.
I can see the Greens being the party for those opposed to the big 3 but even more opposed to the kippers.
There's not likely to be any seat which is good for both UKIP and the Greens, except perhaps Totnes.
I see the old boy in his cords was let out on the radio again today... bless him, he doesn't mean any harm. A genuine british eccentric. What made this country great.
I see the old boy in his cords was let out on the radio again today... bless him, he doesn't mean any harm. A genuine british eccentric. What made this country great.
UKIP doing great. Until they open their mouths....
And the Green vote share in all council by elections since June is below 4% and down in almost every single by election . This Green "surge" is a myth . Today;s Populus poll had them at 4% which seems about right .
Greens did well in the Euros, gaining a seat.
The lesson may well be that people will vote Green where there is a chance that they can win, but light Greens may well vote tactically in FPTP elections.
I can see the Greens being the party for those opposed to the big 3 but even more opposed to the kippers.
There's not likely to be any seat which is good for both UKIP and the Greens, except perhaps Totnes.
And Dr. Sarah Wollaston ain't going anywhere, so that is academic....
"For Labour, the battle is over and the war is lost. And it only has itself to blame."
Almost a mirror image of the editorial in todays Daily Mirror which believes Osborne has blown it. Who do we believe 'Tory' Selby of 'Lefty' Maguire?
Quite frankly on a betting site, anyone spouting absolutes is an opportunity. If they are sure that Labour have already lost, they will have no hesitation in offering us all 1000/1.
With people knowing little about their party policies, voters may judge both UKIP and the Greens on immigration - UKIP who would have a points system on immigration and the Greens who would allow in anybody and everybody.
Incidentally, don't worry about the deficit being £5bn up on last year chaps,
I've not paid my Corporation Tax bill yet - it must be due soon - George and his wheezes are meaning boom times in IFA world..... just as well as betting against traitorous pigdogs as a sideline of business is in near receivership.... but there's still May to turn those bad boys around and turf the headbangers out.
With people knowing little about their party policies, voters may judge both UKIP and the Greens on immigration - UKIP who would have a points system on immigration and the Greens who would allow in anybody and everybody.
Not every voter is obsessed with immigration. But the Greens do speak to those disgusted by the race to the bottom of discourse on this issue:
The Green surge is a bit of a mystery to me. To be continually increasing your vote share and membership with pretty much no coverage or attention just doesn't make sense. If Natalie Bennett or Caroline Lucas were continually on the news or there was some big environmental news event, I could understand the Greens getting a boost in the same way UKIP and SNP have, but that isn't happening. I think their anti-austerity reputation could be one factor.
Your last sentence is the key IMO. It's because they've given up talking about the environment very much, and instead have repositioned themselves as a receptacle for left-of-Labour protest votes. Normally those would have gone to the LibDems, but that option is no longer considered respectable. And, to be fair, the Greens are the only party offering that particular brand of far-left politics; with Ed Miliband, Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper and Tristram Hunt representing the face of Labour, surely the only surprise is that more left-wing voters haven't (yet?) gone over the Greens.
You obviously don't live in Scotland. At FMQs yesterday Sturgeon's line was that even Swinney was left of Ed Miliband; that that wasn't hard and if they wanted to accuse people of being left wing extremists they were going to have to raise the bar.
There is a hint of truth in this. Ed does not have a clear enough idea of what he is going to want to do to label him particularly left wing.
With people knowing little about their party policies, voters may judge both UKIP and the Greens on immigration - UKIP who would have a points system on immigration and the Greens who would allow in anybody and everybody.
I'm sure the Green party policy on immigration is part of its appeal to many of those who have recently joined the ranks.
Polling suggests at least 37 Tory loses to Labour, with the swings in Tory seats predicting around 68 Tory loses to Labour. The problem between betting and polling is simple, the first people betting are partisans and professionals, who tend to be older and wealthier than average so they tend to skew Tory.
Also there's the ridiculous theory of swingback which I have debunked many times as occurring only on half the elections since polling began, and once you get rid of war and leadership change it has occurred only in 1/3rd of elections. Which is also overdue since August and still there's no movement in the polls for the Tories, no wonder that Steven Fisher is forced to change his forecasts to be more in tune with the polls : http://electionsetc.com/2014/10/24/after-a-year-of-forecasting-whats-changed/
And that was 6 weeks ago, since then the forecast has become even worse for the government, lesson is you cannot accurately predict the future based on past results. Each election is unique and should be treated as such.
There's clear and obvious movement away from Labour. At the start of the year, they led the Tories by 6%. Now, the lead is 1%. Barring accidents, the Conservatives are very likely to lead in terms of vote share in May. The questions are, by how much, and will this translate into a lead in seats?
Agreed that these are the questions. If Labour really do stick to the historical "rule" of dropping below 29%, is it 28%?, 27%, 26% or 25%?
I have been collecting the regular Populus data and trying to spot patterns in the period since February.
If you take the difference between each consecutive poll rating and then plot a polynomial trend line of those difference an interesting pattern arises.
There is a regular wave like ebb and flow with parties gathering in strength and then fading back.
What is in point is that the C and UKIP graphs are flowing together; so when C are tending to increase in popularity so are UKIP. Labour is the mirror image. The LD graph does not appear to be linked.
What this suggests is that the battle over the past months has been between L on one side and C and UKIP on the other. There does not appear to be much interplay between C and UKIP.
The Green surge is a bit of a mystery to me. To be continually increasing your vote share and membership with pretty much no coverage or attention just doesn't make sense. If Natalie Bennett or Caroline Lucas were continually on the news or there was some big environmental news event, I could understand the Greens getting a boost in the same way UKIP and SNP have, but that isn't happening. I think their anti-austerity reputation could be one factor.
I've never seen as much Green party coverage as there has been in recent weeks / months. Someone was even complaining earlier at a 'paper carrying a Green response to the Autumn Statement but not a UKIP one (for some balance - count how many times the media look for a UKIP quote about an issue without running a Green one). I think the exclusion from the debates was a big issue that raised profile and prompted a lot of lefties to remember they are there / what they stand for. 260,000+ people signed one petition alone. It helped that this came when Miliband was having his wobble. And, yes, being anti-austerity when people dont seem to see the need for austerity any more cant hurt.
Interesting that you suggest that people do not seem to see the need for austerity anymore. The anti govt attack is that they have 'missed their deficit reductiuon targets'. Well that suggests the need for more cuts not less. If as an alternative it suggests there is no problem with the deficit then why the attack line? What is the killer policy that convinces these people to vote Green?
They argue against the need for any cuts. Something that Labour and the LDs cannot categorically state. That is their USP.
Interesting that you suggest that people do not seem to see the need for austerity anymore. The anti govt attack is that they have 'missed their deficit reductiuon targets'. Well that suggests the need for more cuts not less. If as an alternative it suggests there is no problem with the deficit then why the attack line?
There is something in what you say, and I've had problem with similar lines in the past, but I suppose the issue could well be that a)there is no need for austerity to deal with the deficit and b) even if you think there is a need, the Tories have failed spectacularly to deal with it, so are clearly incompetent.
Personally I agree with the view that people do not see the need for austerity, not really. Most people really did not seem to care the targets had been missed except those trying to use it as political capital, ridiculously so in some cases, and I doubt they will care if targets slip again, as indeed they have multiple times already. Instead it's become an issue where people care it in theory but are far less likely to put up with the practice even as much as they have to date. As the Greens are not going to be in power alone even under the best projections for them, people can believe the deficit needs some dealing with, while still voting for a party that cares nothing for that, as the Greens can help prevent or slow any cutting that is necessary so that it doesn't go too far.
Its hard to see how people say we do not need austerity, ie cuts to govt spending (preumably), when we have growth but still only a slowly falling deficit. It seems hard to criticise the govt for cuts and then say its failed (which must mean its not cut enough - since we have 3% growth). The public might well not care too much about the deficit when the relities of removing it are made plain. But thats why we need a govt that will do the job thats necessary
Polling suggests at least 37 Tory loses to Labour, with the swings in Tory seats predicting around 68 Tory loses to Labour. The problem between betting and polling is simple, the first people betting are partisans and professionals, who tend to be older and wealthier than average so they tend to skew Tory.
Also there's the ridiculous theory of swingback which I have debunked many times as occurring only on half the elections since polling began, and once you get rid of war and leadership change it has occurred only in 1/3rd of elections. Which is also overdue since August and still there's no movement in the polls for the Tories, no wonder that Steven Fisher is forced to change his forecasts to be more in tune with the polls : http://electionsetc.com/2014/10/24/after-a-year-of-forecasting-whats-changed/
And that was 6 weeks ago, since then the forecast has become even worse for the government, lesson is you cannot accurately predict the future based on past results. Each election is unique and should be treated as such.
There's clear and obvious movement away from Labour. At the start of the year, they led the Tories by 6%. Now, the lead is 1%. Barring accidents, the Conservatives are very likely to lead in terms of vote share in May. The questions are, by how much, and will this translate into a lead in seats?
Agreed that these are the questions. If Labour really do stick to the historical "rule" of dropping below 29%, is it 28%?, 27%, 26% or 25%?
Focus on the marginal seats not the national vote shares which don't mean much because of FPTP. National vote shares do not decide the election- the number of seats parties win does.
Polling suggests at least 37 Tory loses to Labour, with the swings in Tory seats predicting around 68 Tory loses to Labour. The problem between betting and polling is simple, the first people betting are partisans and professionals, who tend to be older and wealthier than average so they tend to skew Tory.
Also there's the ridiculous theory of swingback which I have debunked many times as occurring only on half the elections since polling began, and once you get rid of war and leadership change it has occurred only in 1/3rd of elections. Which is also overdue since August and still there's no movement in the polls for the Tories, no wonder that Steven Fisher is forced to change his forecasts to be more in tune with the polls : http://electionsetc.com/2014/10/24/after-a-year-of-forecasting-whats-changed/
And that was 6 weeks ago, since then the forecast has become even worse for the government, lesson is you cannot accurately predict the future based on past results. Each election is unique and should be treated as such.
There's clear and obvious movement away from Labour. At the start of the year, they led the Tories by 6%. Now, the lead is 1%. Barring accidents, the Conservatives are very likely to lead in terms of vote share in May.
The questions are, by how much, and will this translate into a lead in seats?
Look at the seat polling. This election has to be viewed bottom up rather than top down
Polling suggests at least 37 Tory loses to Labour, with the swings in Tory seats predicting around 68 Tory loses to Labour. The problem between betting and polling is simple, the first people betting are partisans and professionals, who tend to be older and wealthier than average so they tend to skew Tory.
Also there's the ridiculous theory of swingback which I have debunked many times as occurring only on half the elections since polling began, and once you get rid of war and leadership change it has occurred only in 1/3rd of elections. Which is also overdue since August and still there's no movement in the polls for the Tories, no wonder that Steven Fisher is forced to change his forecasts to be more in tune with the polls : http://electionsetc.com/2014/10/24/after-a-year-of-forecasting-whats-changed/
And that was 6 weeks ago, since then the forecast has become even worse for the government, lesson is you cannot accurately predict the future based on past results. Each election is unique and should be treated as such.
There's clear and obvious movement away from Labour. At the start of the year, they led the Tories by 6%. Now, the lead is 1%. Barring accidents, the Conservatives are very likely to lead in terms of vote share in May. The questions are, by how much, and will this translate into a lead in seats?
Agreed that these are the questions. If Labour really do stick to the historical "rule" of dropping below 29%, is it 28%?, 27%, 26% or 25%?
Focus on the marginal seats not the national vote shares which don't mean much because of FPTP. National vote shares do not decide the election- the number of seats parties win does.
It is Local vote shares AND the national vote shares. It is a minority of the voters that will be swayed by national views, but that influence is there.
I've never seen as much Green party coverage as there has been in recent weeks / months. Someone was even complaining earlier at a 'paper carrying a Green response to the Autumn Statement but not a UKIP one (for some balance - count how many times the media look for a UKIP quote about an issue without running a Green one). I think the exclusion from the debates was a big issue that raised profile and prompted a lot of lefties to remember they are there / what they stand for. 260,000+ people signed one petition alone. It helped that this came when Miliband was having his wobble. And, yes, being anti-austerity when people dont seem to see the need for austerity any more cant hurt.
Interesting that you suggest that people do not seem to see the need for austerity anymore. The anti govt attack is that they have 'missed their deficit reductiuon targets'. Well that suggests the need for more cuts not less. If as an alternative it suggests there is no problem with the deficit then why the attack line? What is the killer policy that convinces these people to vote Green?
They argue against the need for any cuts. Something that Labour and the LDs cannot categorically state. That is their USP.
Any cuts except Trident!
It can only be my unsubstantiatred opinion but its quite plausible to say (given the nature of the YES campaign) that lefty desire to remove Trident, and anti nuclear in general, has fuelled the left wing anti Labour movement in Scotland. An independent Scotland was a way of abolishing the deterrent. A NO vote was a betrayal of that and so this may have swing opinion to SNP (and indeed Green). Maybe others can argue for or against - but is 'Green' in reality the CND party?
Watford and Stockton South have both been recovered by the Tories since the early summer in the most recent polls, while Southampton Itchen is now a tie.
And we have no polling of Labour marginals in areas where the SNP or UKIP are serious challengers.
Re previous thread on Ashcroft polling in Con/LD marginals. Am prepared to wager £50 that final UNS in England and Wales and UNS Scotland separately will be a more accurate at predicting LD overall number seat losses than The Ashcroft seat specific polls of Lib Dem marginals with Con , Lab and SNP. Opportunity for wager to only to first person to respond.
Polling suggests at least 37 Tory loses to Labour, with the swings in Tory seats predicting around 68 Tory loses to Labour. The problem between betting and polling is simple, the first people betting are partisans and professionals, who tend to be older and wealthier than average so they tend to skew Tory.
Also there's the ridiculous theory of swingback which I have debunked many times as occurring only on half the elections since polling began, and once you get rid of war and leadership change it has occurred only in 1/3rd of elections. Which is also overdue since August and still there's no movement in the polls for the Tories, no wonder that Steven Fisher is forced to change his forecasts to be more in tune with the polls : http://electionsetc.com/2014/10/24/after-a-year-of-forecasting-whats-changed/
And that was 6 weeks ago, since then the forecast has become even worse for the government, lesson is you cannot accurately predict the future based on past results. Each election is unique and should be treated as such.
There's clear and obvious movement away from Labour. At the start of the year, they led the Tories by 6%. Now, the lead is 1%. Barring accidents, the Conservatives are very likely to lead in terms of vote share in May.
The questions are, by how much, and will this translate into a lead in seats?
Look at the seat polling. This election has to be viewed bottom up rather than top down
I'd love to see a lot more individual seat polling.
Interesting that you suggest that people do not seem to see the need for austerity anymore. The anti govt attack is that they have 'missed their deficit reductiuon targets'. Well that suggests the need for more cuts not less. If as an alternative it suggests there is no problem with the deficit then why the attack line?
There is something in what you say, and I've had problem with similar lines in the past, but I suppose the issue could well be that a)there is no need for austerity to deal with the deficit and b) even if you think there is a need, the Tories have failed spectacularly to deal with it, so are clearly incompetent.
Personally I agree with the view that people do not see the need for austerity, not really. Most people really did not seem to care the targets had been missed except those trying to use it as political capital, ridiculously so in some cases, and I doubt they will care if targets slip again, as indeed they have multiple times already. Instead it's become an issue where people care it in theory but are far less likely to put up with the practice even as much as they have to date. As the Greens are not going to be in power alone even under the best projections for them, people can believe the deficit needs some dealing with, while still voting for a party that cares nothing for that, as the Greens can help prevent or slow any cutting that is necessary so that it doesn't go too far.
Its hard to see how people say we do not need austerity, ie cuts to govt spending (preumably), when we have growth but still only a slowly falling deficit. It seems hard to criticise the govt for cuts and then say its failed (which must mean its not cut enough - since we have 3% growth). The public might well not care too much about the deficit when the relities of removing it are made plain. But thats why we need a govt that will do the job thats necessary
I think this might be your first post where I agree with every word.
Comments
But, re this thread, how many Con supporters will be buying Lab seats and how many Lab supporters will be buying Con seats? Very, very few going by the posts we generally get on here.
Indeed. But remember that it is us geeks and the journos who have seen the light and trash Ed. His polling is admittedly dire but not yet as dire as the man himself. The man in the street is yet to enjoy a full blown Ed epiphany.
He might recover but he might get a whole lot worse. I suspect explaining not having an economic plan or explaining one he does come up with foon the telly r 6 weeks and endlessly being asked "you can't be be serious can you' and then crying / gurning / floundering / melting / farting / grinning / eating a nice bit of Wensleydale is going to be a joy to behold.
If they discover they have hard left policies, will they want to vote for them at the general election?
UKIP is a much bigger danger to CON than LAB.
Similary nationalisation of the railways actually polls quite well so it's not too surprising that the only serious nationwide party that advocates this might do well in the polls. Again you might call this hard left but then you must view the electorate as a whole as hard left then.
Not in Peter Kellner's - who, incidentally, is one of the very, very few people whose prediction does not match his own party affiliation.
I'm well aware you think Kellner is wrong. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't.
News or conjecture, haven't yet seen any confirmation?
And to think I dismissed Mr Smithson's remarks as sour grapes. What a blind fool I've been!
The hard left are happy to spend someone elses's money that they have borrowed, as Gordon Briwn did. The Green party wants to go down the same road. Greece has shown where that leads - we should learn from them.
Some people think UKIP will continue to soar up to the election; others [including Sean F, IIRC] are expecting swingback.
Direct seat losses to UKIP matter too but I'm not expecting that many.
See, for example:
"The Populus poll shows that only two in five voters now believe that more austerity and cuts will be needed in the five years after the 2015 election, even though the budget deficit is forecast by the OBR to be £75.2bn in 2015-16."
From the FT - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e05843de-6423-11e4-bac8-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3L2uhsc6K
Rochester (SE) 4.2
Wythenshawe (NW) 3.1
Heywood (NW) 3.1
Newark (E mids) 2.7
Clacton (east) 1.9
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/10/27/ukip-greens-and-new-politics-protest/
http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/
If I had to guess what they might be at GE2015, I'd say about 35% each, so a swing of about 11%.
I wonder whether it has much traction? If people are genuinely suffering and feeling hard done to it'll have a powerful resonance. Sort of Grapes of Wrath
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/03/09/article-2290879-188A2179000005DC-152_634x953.jpg
Indyref = Indy yes or no.
Holyrood =running Scotland under devolution and leaving indy for another time and (another) referendum.
Hitherto, Westminster voting has been about Keeping the Evil Tories Out and hitherto Labour have been the best bet for that, under FPTP.
But now -
1. Labour have turned into the Tories' little helpers which upsets many on principle (and under Labour's own loudly expressed principles, it should be said)
2. Labour came out for not only No but the status quo (and has still tried to, more than the other parties) - which upset a different circle on the Scottish Venn diagram from the above.
3. Right now I'd say well over half of Scots want more powers in a sensible way (all those who voted for indy, plus all those who voted No but expected devo-max: this is consistent with all polling over the last few years). This is not met by the Smith Commission proposals, never mind how they are being publicised, and the best way to get those extra powers is to vote in the SNP.
And 4. the SNP look like achieving a critical mass - if you don't want to vote Tory, LD, or Green, and you have had it with Labour, who are now indistinguishable from the Tories, and/or look like not worth voting for under FPTP, who else is there? It may hit Labour rather than the Tories, so there is a bit of a conflict there, but that is inevitable. And voting Labour is no good as they are part of the Unionist consortium. Voting SNP is the only way to get a big enough voice in a hung Westminster - and remember the Scots have been used to minority governments since 1999.
One other point. We don't know who the new Scottish Labour "leader" will be. Could be very interesting.
Kellner is basing his case on a CON incumbency bonus of 3% which doesn't stand up to scrutiny although I agree with him on Scotland.
The anti govt attack is that they have 'missed their deficit reductiuon targets'. Well that suggests the need for more cuts not less.
If as an alternative it suggests there is no problem with the deficit then why the attack line?
What is the killer policy that convinces these people to vote Green?
Personally I agree with the view that people do not see the need for austerity, not really. Most people really did not seem to care the targets had been missed except those trying to use it as political capital, ridiculously so in some cases, and I doubt they will care if targets slip again, as indeed they have multiple times already. Instead it's become an issue where people care it in theory but are far less likely to put up with the practice even as much as they have to date. As the Greens are not going to be in power alone even under the best projections for them, people can believe the deficit needs some dealing with, while still voting for a party that cares nothing for that, as the Greens can help prevent or slow any cutting that is necessary so that it doesn't go too far.
We actually have one member who belongs to both parties, in breach of the rules of both. I haven't made a fuss about it (life is too short), so she's carried on like that for years, voting Lab at GEs and Green locally.
The problem between betting and polling is simple, the first people betting are partisans and professionals, who tend to be older and wealthier than average so they tend to skew Tory.
Also there's the ridiculous theory of swingback which I have debunked many times as occurring only on half the elections since polling began, and once you get rid of war and leadership change it has occurred only in 1/3rd of elections.
Which is also overdue since August and still there's no movement in the polls for the Tories, no wonder that Steven Fisher is forced to change his forecasts to be more in tune with the polls :
http://electionsetc.com/2014/10/24/after-a-year-of-forecasting-whats-changed/
And that was 6 weeks ago, since then the forecast has become even worse for the government, lesson is you cannot accurately predict the future based on past results.
Each election is unique and should be treated as such.
The lesson may well be that people will vote Green where there is a chance that they can win, but light Greens may well vote tactically in FPTP elections.
I can see the Greens being the party for those opposed to the big 3 but even more opposed to the kippers.
The questions are, by how much, and will this translate into a lead in seats?
"Against a backdrop of economic turmoil and swingeing public sector cuts, Labour was already drifting towards a humiliating defeat before March. The Budget pensions bombshell and the Autumn Statement stamp duty reforms - both obvious vote winners - have sealed the deal.
For Labour, the battle is over and the war is lost. And it only has itself to blame."
http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/opinion/outflanked-osborne-has-stolen-the-electionand-ed-balls-just-stood-and-watched/2016935.article?page=1&PageNo=1&SortOrder=dateadded&PageSize=10#comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/11275746/Draghis-authority-drains-away-as-half-ECB-board-joins-mutiny.html
"For Labour, the battle is over and the war is lost. And it only has itself to blame."
Almost a mirror image of the editorial in todays Daily Mirror which believes Osborne has blown it. Who do we believe 'Tory' Selby or 'Lefty' Maguire?
I think I remembered that correctly....
I've not paid my Corporation Tax bill yet - it must be due soon - George and his wheezes are meaning boom times in IFA world..... just as well as betting against traitorous pigdogs as a sideline of business is in near receivership.... but there's still May to turn those bad boys around and turf the headbangers out.
http://greenparty.org.uk/news/2014/02/10/natalie-bennett-speech-immigration-policy-time-for-the-facts,-time-for-humanity/
There is a hint of truth in this. Ed does not have a clear enough idea of what he is going to want to do to label him particularly left wing.
If you take the difference between each consecutive poll rating and then plot a polynomial trend line of those difference an interesting pattern arises.
There is a regular wave like ebb and flow with parties gathering in strength and then fading back.
What is in point is that the C and UKIP graphs are flowing together; so when C are tending to increase in popularity so are UKIP. Labour is the mirror image. The LD graph does not appear to be linked.
What this suggests is that the battle over the past months has been between L on one side and C and UKIP on the other. There does not appear to be much interplay between C and UKIP.
Will this trend continue?
The public might well not care too much about the deficit when the relities of removing it are made plain. But thats why we need a govt that will do the job thats necessary
'but is 'Green' in reality the CND party?'
It's old Labour on a vegan diet.
And we have no polling of Labour marginals in areas where the SNP or UKIP are serious challengers.
' The last one they did wasn't published because it showed Lucas a long way behind.'
Not surprised with the antics of the Green party running Brighton council.