Old people the least likely to think the TV debates would be important in helping them decide who to vote for - they don't trust this new fangled speaking box no doubt.
Apparently I am on the wrong side of public opinion about including the regional focused parties in the debates though.
Also, I don't normally bother to look at such data in-depth - I go with my gut! - but there seems a high 'Don't Know' response to the party trust on specific issues questions, is that usual?
Odds of 2/5 Nick regaining the seat look fairly attractive to me.
As you indicate, Anna Soubry isn't the sort of representative likely to have the voters climbing out of their sick beds to reach the ballot box.
Hmm, I think there might be some projection going on here. SeanF of course doesn't like her because she's not anti-EU. I can see that she might not be quite to the taste of an old metropolitan lefty roué such as yourself(!). But it would be a mistake to assume that she won't be popular with a good chunk of her voters. She's commendably feisty, speaks her mind (and how!), and is quite high-profile on the TV and as a minister.
I naturally have a bias, but I think she'd probably accept that she's a Marmite candidate, who appeals most to people with a strong Tory preference and people who simply like politicians like John Prescott who offer highly spiced politics. Her problem is that there were 17% LibDems, who are not natural fans. The Libdems are in coalition with us locally, and have postponed selecting a candidate until next month: it's fair to say they are not expected to contest the seat as vigorously as in 2010.
That said, I think the margin is currently more like 7% than 14%, matching the national shift since April. If the Tories were ahead by 7-8 nationwide as Audreyanne expects, it'd be a different matter.
Soubry is a nasty piece of work. If a male politician had said about a female what she said about Farage, they'd be sacked. But Cameron buys into the sexual double standard and let's her stay on. Probably just likes her because she's a deluded Europhile.
False Flag: what motivates you when you post about the conflict in Ukraine?
Because I see my country actively participating in an attack on a reemerging world power meant to weaken it simply because they pursue their own goals and interests which inevitably collide with the Americans. There is faux concern for the collateral damage it causes that is particularly cynical. It is an evil and vindictive policy. So really no different to my opposition to Iraq, Libya, Syria etc.
Is the reemerging world power Russia, Ukraine or merely Novorussia, as someone stated earlier this was purely an internal Ukrainian matter and none of our business (and on that logic, none of Russia's either), so if we are being fair the Russians and us should not be pursuing any goals there, including rhetoric, which at the least they certainly have been too.
Curious that someone else pursuing their goals and interests is ok, but 'our' side doing the same is morally indefensible.
@AudreyAnne - good on you for posting the reasoning behind your predictions.
On a betting site that's important: it allows us to debate and test those assumptions, and discuss the reasoning, so we're all as informed as we can be when assessing the possible spread of results, and to place bets accordingly.
Whilst I don't agree with your conclusions, and would question the evidence behind most of your assumptions, I respect you for posting them.
So it's down to the campaign, the Budget, any "Black Swan" events, Scotland and what a few thousand voters in a few constituencies will decide.
No, it's about how many voters, having got to the Miliband abyss and finding themselves staring into it, decide to jump in anyway. At the moment it's not a decision they have to take.
Maybe. I just wonder whether Milliband is as offputting as all that.
Even if they think he's geeky and a bit odd, they might think that he's going to help with fuel bills and he's not obviously a heartless rich chappie. Or they might just vote Labour anyway for other reasons.
Plenty of people voted for Brown and he struck me as even odder and geekier than Milliband.
I may be wholly wrong on this but I could imagine - one-to-one - having a conversation with Ed and being pleasantly surprised in a way that I cannot with Cameron. Possibly I've seen too many types like Cameron in the City.
I just wonder whethr the Ed is odd and not Prime Ministerial meme is overdone. Thatcher was viewed in the same way, thought from a different perspective. Even Heath who was about as far from being a human being as a human can be won an election.
It seems to be an article of faith amongst many contributors here (some of them punters) that when the day dawns, voters will consider the prospect of Ed as PM and say 'No'.
Of course this is perfectly possible, but nobody knows, and nobody will know until May 8th. Meanwhile, punters have to go on the form, which comprises mainly of the polls. They suggest it is going to be tight, but the most likely outcome is NOM with Labour more likely to have most seats. The Tories have three months to turn it around but at the moment you'd have to say their progress is glacially slow.
I've written to you separately about Cheltenham, through Vanilla. Do check.
False Flag: what motivates you when you post about the conflict in Ukraine?
Because I see my country actively participating in an attack on a reemerging world power meant to weaken it simply because they pursue their own goals and interests which inevitably collide with the Americans. There is faux concern for the collateral damage it causes that is particularly cynical. It is an evil and vindictive policy. So really no different to my opposition to Iraq, Libya, Syria etc.
Is the reemerging world power Russia, Ukraine or merely Novorussia, as someone stated earlier this was purely an internal Ukrainian matter and none of our business (and on that logic, none of Russia's either), so if we are being fair the Russians and us should not be pursuing any goals there, including rhetoric, which at the least they certainly have been too.
Curious that someone else pursuing their goals and interests is ok, but 'our' side doing the same is morally indefensible.
It isn't in our interest at all, there has been a heavy cost to Europe, all of it. Pursuit of one's interests must be done so through a moral framework.
Re Putin and all that. While nobody who has read any Vasily Grossman can for a moment doubt the role of the Red Army in the destruction of the Nazi murder machine, nevertheless a degree of humility may also be appropriate on such a solemn occasion. I have in mind the Molotov/Ribbentoff pact and the Red Army's hesitation during the Warsaw Rising.
Both the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact in 1939 and the Red Army halt before Warsaw in 1944 was on the direct command of Stalin. The Red Army didn't just halt; they sat on their bums and watched as the Polish military and partisans were destroyed by the Waffen SS and Gestapo execution squads piece by piece.
But then, those same Polish forces also sat on their bums in 1943 and did nothing at all to help the Jews who were rising from the Warsaw Ghetto.
They were also, deludedly, expecting a Tory landslide at the expense of the Liberal Democrats.
How do you know its a delusion? the election is still 100 days away. Judging on the poll figures and every real election since 2014, its a perfectly logical forecast to make, isn't it?
Surely the 'lib dems ground game / anti tory vote is strong' reasoning is far more illogical.
I'd be surprised if there's much of an anti tory vote in some of the Southern lib dem seats. Prosperous constituencies like Kingston and Surbiton have no such qualms, connected as they are to the economic powerhouse of London.
Labour does pretty well in the economic powerhouse, except when Boris is standing, and being Tory is toxic in much of inner London. In my Junction ward in North London (by no means a deprived area), they were outpolled by Labour last year by a margin of 6 to 1. The Tories have strongholds too but prosperity isn't a guarantor for them.
I have the advantage of having visited the constituency, and spoken to voters there. There's also Nick's own accounts. Naturally he is not impartial, but nor is he one to call his geese swans. You can ask him yourself but I think he would say that winning friends and influencing people isn't one of her strong suit.
No, she's not smooth, she says what she thinks. That might indeed put some people off, but (as the Kippers keep telling us) plain-speaking can also be what people want.
What Nick actually said a few days ago was that she's a 'Marmite' politician. I suspect that is right, and all I'm saying is that it would be a mistake for those who can't stand Marmite to assume that everyone feels the same.
Having said all that, I still make Nick favourite, but not to the extent that I'd bet on him at current odds.
You are theorising, Richard. I'm talking from first hand experience. It was clear to me from canvassing there last time that Nick had a considerable edge on personal vote. This was rather borne out by the actual vote.
Marmite candidate? I suspect Nick is being tactful, but I won't put words in his mouth. I'll just say that I doubt his 'personal edge' has diminished from five years ago.
I'm on at 1/2, so the 2/5 is not unduly tempting, but for those starting with a blank sheet I would say the current odds contain a smidgeon of value. As for yourself, I will of course stretch things a bit and offer you a little over the odds if you fancy a bet on Ms Soubry.
Shall we say 5/2, maximum £100?
She's sitting on a majority of <1%. Polling suggests a swing of 3-4% to Labour in England. Even if that's cut back to 1-2% by May, it's hard to see her holding on, without a big personal following. The Ashcroft poll suggests she doesn't have it.
They were also, deludedly, expecting a Tory landslide at the expense of the Liberal Democrats.
How do you know its a delusion? the election is still 100 days away. Judging on the poll figures and every real election since 2014, its a perfectly logical forecast to make, isn't it?
Surely the 'lib dems ground game / anti tory vote is strong' reasoning is far more illogical.
I'd be surprised if there's much of an anti tory vote in some of the Southern lib dem seats. Prosperous constituencies like Kingston and Surbiton have no such qualms, connected as they are to the economic powerhouse of London.
At the next election, I'd favour the Conservatives to gain Berwick, Somerton & Frome, Solihull, Portsmouth South, Mid-Dorset, and Chippenham.
I think they have a real chance of gaining Brecon & Radnor, the three Cornish seats, North Devon, Torbay, Roxburgh, and West Aberdeenshire.
I don't think you understand, the Russians are providing absolutely no aid or equipment to the rebels. They don't allow fighter across the border into Ukraine, they provide no logistical support and they absolutely don't provide any heavy equipment. This is a purely internal Ukraine matter. Anyone who says otherwise, especially NATO, is a liar.
Given Putin's personal history and Russian involvement in Abkhazia, South Ossetia et al, it is difficult to take the above seriously. Since sarcasm is difficult to perceive in writing, it was possible you were being sarcastic (in which case I apologise). But if you meant it sincerely, I am honour bound to point out that a) the Russians are providing the support you deny, and b) this is a proxy war between NATO and the Russians.
I am apparently really bad at making my sarcastic posts clear. I will try harder next time!
Comments
Apparently I am on the wrong side of public opinion about including the regional focused parties in the debates though.
Also, I don't normally bother to look at such data in-depth - I go with my gut! - but there seems a high 'Don't Know' response to the party trust on specific issues questions, is that usual?
Curious that someone else pursuing their goals and interests is ok, but 'our' side doing the same is morally indefensible.
On a betting site that's important: it allows us to debate and test those assumptions, and discuss the reasoning, so we're all as informed as we can be when assessing the possible spread of results, and to place bets accordingly.
Whilst I don't agree with your conclusions, and would question the evidence behind most of your assumptions, I respect you for posting them.
Of course this is perfectly possible, but nobody knows, and nobody will know until May 8th. Meanwhile, punters have to go on the form, which comprises mainly of the polls. They suggest it is going to be tight, but the most likely outcome is NOM with Labour more likely to have most seats. The Tories have three months to turn it around but at the moment you'd have to say their progress is glacially slow.
I've written to you separately about Cheltenham, through Vanilla. Do check.
PS Be glad I did not give you any tips today!
But then, those same Polish forces also sat on their bums in 1943 and did nothing at all to help the Jews who were rising from the Warsaw Ghetto.
Eastern European history is thick with betrayal.
I think they have a real chance of gaining Brecon & Radnor, the three Cornish seats, North Devon, Torbay, Roxburgh, and West Aberdeenshire.