Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Remember 2005 when LAB and CON were level pegging on votes
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Remember 2005 when LAB and CON were level pegging on votes in England but LAB won 92 more seats
The blue team has understandably found great cheer and encouragement in the latest polling from a range of firms. The race is undoubtedly getting closer in terms of votes but it’s seats that matter.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I can look forward to a morning of caterwauling from the usual quarters.
With all due respect, and psephological changes notwithstanding, Ed Miliband doesn't have quite the same appeal.
So, how many seats do you actually think the LibDems are going to win Mike?
For a start one reason 2005 was so distorted was because they piled up votes in safe seats. Many of those votes have now gone to UKIP yet tories still level with Labour shows tory vote spread is different this time.
Add in Milibands utter charisma, incumbent government better the devil you know factor, libdem collapse and green rise and anything could happen.
A senior Ukip Environment & Weather spokesman this morning claimed that the overnight earthquake in the East Midlands was the result of a weather dance by a local gay MP. In an exclusive interview from South Thanet Nigel Bonkers-cum-Nuttjob said :
"This huge tremor in Rutland was caused by local gay MP Alan Duncan. My understanding is that this homosexualist was seen dancing under a glitter ball in the Gay Hussar night club in Oakham singing "It's raining men Hallelujah".
Clearly the extensive gyrating by this influential gay man has caused the tectonic plates to shift in Rutland. He should be deported to San Francisco where his brand of politics and earth moving activities would be more suited."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31032930
I also think the rise of UKIP has softened the desire to stop the Tories, giving the haters another target to go for, and also making the Tories appear more centrist.
Can we compare? - doesn’t this rather ignore the vastly increased polling share of SNP/UKIP and the near collapse of the LibDem vote?
(And the Greens who polled 1% in 2005.)
http://tapnewswire.com/2015/01/earthquakes-caused-by-fracking-can-be-fun-says-scientist-in-support-of-industry/
Anyone able to explain this to me
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html
Man and woman meet, both stone cold sober
They end up in bed
He asks if she wants sex
She says yes
They make love
The next morning she wakes up and decided it was a bad idea
She goes to the police and presses charges
How does he prove consent ?
Are about to require contracts before bedtime ?
Meanwhile, post-election discussions will be different for the Conservatives next time, it seems:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31031672
Shurly shome mishtake
At the moment, a woman can meet a man, she can end up in a private place with him, and if the man decides he wants sex regardless of her wishes she has no way of proving her lack of consent to a court. Consequently sexual violence is a crime that is being committed almost without risk of prosecution, and is endemic.
I do not have a problem with assuming that a woman is telling the truth about her lack of consent when she is under oath in a court of law, unless evidence is presented to the contrary.
Can you tell us which of Lord Ashcroft's seat polls you think is wrong?
I've been a champion of the idea that the LibDems are excellent at marshalling votes where they're needed (and have a bet with Isam they'll win 4x UKIP seats), but that only goes so far Mike. It remains to be seen how useful are Lord Ashcroft's now rather stale polls from last year, before we saw GE campaigning kick in, Conservative attention focus, and especially the Green surge which is a factor you ignore at your peril: they're polling around 800% of their 2005 position. The LibDems are slumping down in the gutter at the moment: at around 25% of their 2005 position. You're ignoring the facts, Mike.
As for me, I posted yesterday and the day before an extremely detailed list of the 20 out of 25 seats I think the Conservatives will take from the yellows, plus another 8 seats I rate as possible outsiders.
So I repeat: can you tell us how many seats you think the LibDems will win? I'm sure I'm not alone in being fascinated to hear your response. It's easy to snipe, harder to stick your neck above the parapet. Come on, how many?
If Labour and the Conservatives got equal votes in England and there was a uniform swing then Labour would win about 25 - 30 seats more than the Conservatives in England. The Ashcroft polls have shown the swing in the Lab / Con marginals is, on average, in line with the national swing, indicating this is a rough mean point.
This also assumes Labour and Conservatives win a similar number of seats from the Lib Dems. This is supported by Ashcroft polling which shows a huge swing in Lab / LD marginals and a much smaller one in Con / LD marginals but leading to a similar seat loss.
This is down a long way from 2005 - because 2005 was a perfect storm for the Conservatives due to:
- Iraq / tuition fees hurt Labour disproportionately in safe seats, boosting LD national vote share but only losing a handful of seats.
- Blair was clearly an asset in marginal seats.
- Incumbency was entrenched and few people stood down (as happened in many marginals in 2010).
- There had been no boundary changes for a decade, maximising 'electoral drag', whereby on average the electorate in Con seats grows faster than in Lab seats.
- Pure luck. Labour won lots of super marginals by very, very slim margins.
This meant in 2010 the Tories significantly outperformed UNS in England. They achieved very big swings in some seats moving them from marginals to virtually safe seats. Take Kent as an example. In 2005 Labour won a number of these seats by wafer thin margins, the Conservatives now hold these by 10k plus margins in many cases.
There are a lot of things which could affect whether Labour or the Conservatives under or over perform the UNS this year:
- How much of an incumbency boost will the Conservatives get?
- How much will 'electoral drag' affect the Conservatives?
- How much will Labour benefit from the 'marginal effect' whereby (see 2010 and 1997) when there is a swing to the opposition in the marginal seats?
- How will minor parties like the Lib Dems / Greens and UKIP affect the distribution of seats?
- Will the Conservatives win lots of seats from the Lib Dems?
There is a lot of uncertainty and it is likely one party will outperform UNS but it is difficult to say which one that will be.
Based on UNS Labour could win a plurality of English seats while being 2% behind the Conservatives in England. Of course, even with a disastrous election in Scotland they are unlikely to not have some seat lead in Scotland - plus they are likely to win at least 15 seats more than the Conservatives in Wales. This all means Labour could win a plurality of seats overall while being 3-4% behind in England (i.e about a 4% swing).
The polls at the moment seem to be suggesting about a 3% swing overall across GB, but that probably would be 4% or more in England given Labour's under performance in Scotland (and to a lesser extent Wales).
Admittedly, the news report seems to imply that prosecutors should assume that the burden of proof rests with the Defence.
Other posters please look and learn.
As a punter, I prefer form to faith. It's a preference borne of decades betting on horses. The racecourses of the world are strewn with the picked bones of punters those who believed that '...on the day, it will all be different'.
Is it different with politics?
http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/bsa-survey-2014/who-satisfied-with-nhs
Though satisfaction levels are noticeably lower in Wales.
It's notable that not even the most optimistic Labour supporter is expecting to win any of these this year (with the possible exception of Thanet South if there's a very even 3 way split).
twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/560404884634492928?s=09
I'll have to pick you up on that one. The boundaries used in 2005 were based on 1991 electorates, so 14 years out-of-date. The boundaries to be used this year are based on the year 2000 electorates, so 15 years out-of-date.
Mr. Indigo, so, the law now doesn't believe people are innocent until proven guilty?
It's insane to assume men are lying and women are telling the truth (also ignoring homosexual rape and when women take sexual advantage of men, but there we are...).
My honest impression is that most people aren't currently planning to vote on leader preference - none of the leaders is really attracting either love or hatred. If you ask people who they prefer they'll have a think and tell you, but it's not a decisive factor. In fact, the elusive thing about this election is that there aren't any obvious decisive factors, and people are defaulting to instinctive preferences for the flavour of one party or another (plus some tactical voting). Those instinctive preferences are quite hard to shift either way, which is IMO why the polls are so stable.
Howard was not an appealing figure to the majority of floating voters, and the Tories had catastrophically mismanaged the business of being in opposition. The country had tired of Blair by 2005, but the Tories did not manage to provide a viable alternative.
Cameron is a more emollient figure than Howard, his ratings correctly show he his a boost to his party.
So, I am not convinced by the analogy to 2005 (or indeed any other previous election).
The 2015 election will be unique. That is its charm.
Lab lead: 22
Con lead: 7
Tie: 9
I wonder how long Labour will be able to keep their figure above 50%. It'll obviously drop below that level if they fail to register a lead in all of the next 7 polls.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31027549
Fallopian-deprived ape Simon Hughes has called for the number of women in prison to be halved. Despite there being more than 20 men incarcerated for every one woman. And women getting lighter custodial sentences.
The random firing of neurons which approximates in the skull of Hughes to what normal people enjoy as 'reasoning' has led him to claim this:
"Female offenders are a "special case" and should be treated differently to men because many had been victims themselves, he told BBC Radio 5 live Breakfast."
It's true, ovaries do attract victimhood, whereas testicle deflect being criminal activity from their bearer, whilst filling the plum-possessor with nasty criminal desire of his own (which, of course, are only committed against women).
We could always judge people by the content of their characters, rather than the content of their trousers.
"When asked why female offenders should be treated differently to men Mr Hughes said: "Women are a special case for very good, evidenced reasons. Firstly, many more women who go to prison have themselves been victims. They've often been abused or in violent partnerships.
"Secondly, many more women have caring responsibilities than men do.""
The first is also true of men. A huge minority (around 40%, give or take) of domestic abuse victims are men. The second is giving women a huge unfair advantage in the field of custody and then using that blatant sexist prejudice to justify leniency for criminal behaviour!
What a cretin.
To calculate - Sum all the Ashcroft polls in LD marginals and adjust by the Ashcroft 2nd question
Assume same no of votes as last time for simplicity:
e.g.
For Southport there is a 16% increase which is an extra 7000 votes.
Sum that over all Lib Dem marginals (Including current Con Holds, Lab holds) and you're left with an "extra" vote figure.
Assuming the effect is 5000 votes on average in 20 seats (I have no idea), then thats an extra 100,000 votes.
Then feed it back in to the national vote share.
As Lord A says, a poll is only a snapshot in time and valid for that moment, but probably is more valuable the nearer the poll is to the Event.
So if the LDs get 10% of the GB vote at the GE, is OGH and others saying that the vast majority of that 10% will be concentrated in the 57 seats that the LDs are defending and very few votes in the other 575 GB seats? This does not seem credible.
This is one of the pet policies of liberal extremists. The fact is women are capable of being as evil and criminally-minded as men, something people like Hughes like to turn a blind eye to. It's all down to "hormones" and "circumstances" as far as they're concerned, which is actually immensely patronising to women.
Until three years ago almost all the headers were headlined by a question. That was changed as a matter of policy in 2012 so that the headline now makes an assertion which some may agree with and others won't.
In that year I was blogging on the US election for Telegraph which then did not like posts that posed questions. I changed my style and thought that it worked and we changed things on PB as well.
I think the NHS is now in fairly neutral territory, with LibLabConKip all advocating much the same policy, and only the Greens willing to go the full Syrizia.
I agree with you that most voters choose by overall impression rather than detailed manifesto analysis. I am not convinced the rather lacklustre Labour front bench is giving the right first impression, apart from Liz Kendall of course!
The LibDems have the smell death about them
Labour has the stench of hypocrisy.
UKIP has the pong of wee, with a whiff of racism.
The Tories have the smell of bleach. Pungent, but gets the job done.
http://labourlist.org/2015/01/pmqs-verdict-its-two-blokes-shouting-at-each-other-whats-that-got-to-do-with-my-life/
On his first visit to Glasgow since Jim Murphy became Scottish Labour leader, he also pledges to devolve work programme'
http://tinyurl.com/nw29yf4
Game changer.
I wonder if Morphy, McTernan & co will get Ed into a Scotland strip and arrange a game of keepie-up with a haggis in front of the press?
Tbh if he goes too far he could start losing some unionist votes to the Tories, whose vote appears resolute.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html
@AnasSarwar 08:10: Anas Sarwar
I can confirm that Sarwar snr. has resigned as Governor of Punjab. An honest man, doing the honest thing. More details soon...
" These low rates have now persisted for an awfully long time, lending them an air of permanence. What makes this so worrying is that we know from experience that recessions typically take a three to four percentage point reduction in interest rates to turn them around.
Nobody can know when the next recession might be, but it could be quite soon if the cycle conforms to type. With rates already on the floor, there will be little central bankers can do to counter it when it comes, other than crank up the printing press anew. Fiscal policy too will struggle to deliver. For most governments, the fiscal cannon is already exhausted, with public sector debts approaching or in excess of 100pc of GDP. "
All very true.
Remember when the Conservatives used to criticize Gordon Brown for 'not fixing the roof when the sun was shining' ?
Perhaps they could explain why they're still running a government deficit of £100bn at this stage of the economic cycle ?
Desperate times call for desperate measures. Will this have the desired effect of rescuing a whole raft of Scottish seats for Labour at this 11th hour - and should Cameron react by matching EdM's offer as well as committing to something very similar for England and Wales? Pretty much inevitable I would say ..... it's now simply a matter of time.
Some of the things the report found
1) 4 out 10 women in prison convictions were linked to a need to support their children, usually theft or money related
2) Women aren't in for violence or sexual crimes
3) 45% of women are convicted of a new crime within 12 months of release
4) the above is linked to the fact, ex male prisoners are three times likely to have a job after release than women, the figures are 27% for men, and 9% women
5) Women prisoners prior to first sentence, are likely to have drug, drink and mental health problems than male prisoners.
I don't think anyone can disagree with this statement
"There are some women who do terrible things and deserve to be locked up for a very long time......My concern is for those who are not a danger to society, who have become caught by a system which then does not help them out of it."
Thus the setting up of a new programme to deal with these problems in a few women's prisons, which will be rolled out this year.
Obviously when Labour elect a new leader in July it will all be different :-)
Cowardice in that there's been a complete refusal to think about anything.
Complacency in that its been assumed that Labour would retain all its 2010 and would automatically get a large slice of 2010 LibDems.
Now cowardice and complacency were the two faults which led to EdM's elder brother failing to become Labour leader.
So its odd that EdM has followed these two traits as leader rather than the ruthlessness and boldness which he used to become leader himself.
Weren't we told it was to become a once a decade event ?
https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=22501&p=0
Edinburgh's results are by Westminster Constituency
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/3976/analysis_of_voting_totals_in_the_scottish_independence_referendum_for_the_city_of_edinburgh_area
EDIT: MARYHILL & SPRINGBURN which covers Glasgow North and some of Glasgow North East had the highest Yes vote in Glasgow.
Eg they are in favour of abortion because a foetus isn't human, but they're opposed to the abortion of girls. If you can abort a foetus because it's not human how can it be a girl? "It" isn't anything. It's just a skin tag or a mole or something.
Liberals' prejudices are particularly uninstructive to them in rape cases, as we've seen with Julian Assange. He had all kinds of people wading on his side, including Women Against Rape, arguing that he'd done nothing wrong. If you're anti-American enough, liberals will defend your reputation against rape charges.
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/election-maps/gb/
"1) 4 out 10 women in prison convictions were linked to a need to support their children, usually theft or money related
2) Women aren't in for violence or sexual crimes
3) 45% of women are convicted of a new crime within 12 months of release
4) the above is linked to the fact, ex male prisoners are three times likely to have a job after release than women, the figures are 27% for men, and 9% women
5) Women prisoners prior to first sentence, are likely to have drug, drink and mental health problems than male prisoners."
1) What percentage of this is true for men, comparing only valid populations (ie men and women who have kids)?
2) People who don't commit crimes aren't imprisoned for them. Gosh.
3) Again, what's the figure for men? Why is reoffending important only for women? And why should being a potential serial criminal be considered grounds for leniency after the first crime? It's an argument for longer sentences and/or better rehabilitation, not soft treatment.
4) So, 73% of around 80,000 men do not have a job, versus 91% of about 4,000 women. People who commit crimes deserve the penalty, not to be let off because it might adversely affect their employment prospects. That's over 56,000 men against around 3,600 women.
5) Indeed and they're twice as likely as men to get a psych intervention during the court process which will lead to more such problems being identified. Plus, the two most common psych conditions (depression and stress) are more common in women than men. These are mitigating factors which will be considered during the judicial process.
It's a demented act to look at the prison population, overwhelmingly male, and decide action *must* be done to reduce the female population. Women already benefit from more lenient sentences and are a clear minority of the prison population. This is politically correct sexism.