Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Populus has LAB 3% ahead while Ashcroft has it level peggin

SystemSystem Posts: 11,688
edited February 2015 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Populus has LAB 3% ahead while Ashcroft has it level pegging

Compared with some recent Mondays today’s two polls, Populus and the Ashcroft weekly phone poll, are broadly in the same territory.The former is more favourable to Labour while the latter to the Greens. Apart from those there’s little difference between the shares for the other parties.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,826
    edited February 2015
    Ashcroft Scottish poll being released 11am Wednesday. Just before PMQ's, helpfully...
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,826
    Ashcroft National Poll, 28-30 January: CON 31%, LAB 31%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 15%, GRN 9%. Full details on @ConHome, 4pm.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Whats the Ashcroft changes from the last one ?
  • Options
    TGOHF said:

    Whats the Ashcroft changes from the last one ?

    Lab -1
    Con -1
    UKIP nc
    LD +2
    Grn nc
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    LA's question about Labour learning lessons has some stark results.

    58% of all voters think they still haven't.
  • Options
    FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    FPT

    It is highly likely that this year one of the UK's major civil engineering companies will be bought by the Chinese.

    It would be very interesting to see EdM enforce payment of either Corporation tax or any tax on fees, salary and benefits received by a member of the Chinese board, sat in Beijing or Shanghai.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,328
    edited February 2015
    [sigh] Looking at the tables, I make it LibDems 9 not 8 (so neck and neck with Greens), and UKIP 14, not 15
  • Options
    BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    edited February 2015
    Lab ahead - No way Greens are on 9.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,850
    BenM said:

    Lab ahead - No way Greens are on 9.

    Lord Ashcroft generally finds low figures for both the two main parties.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited February 2015
    A rather pathetic 2% increase for Labour in England according to Ashcroft.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/region/48.stm

    A combined rise of 22.5 points for UKIP / Greens in England.
  • Options
    FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Lord A has some fun sat the end of his commentary:

    "Finally, my thanks to all the Twitter followers who suggested questions to reveal more about voters’ perceptions. I will use as many as I can, but this week (with thanks to Chris Deerin)… party leaders as cartoon characters.

    Mr Cameron? “Top Cat. He doesn’t get flustered”, or for those who took a less benign view, Dick Dastardly.

    Mr Clegg? The clean-cut but somewhat ineffectual Fred Jones from Scooby-Doo.

    Mr Miliband? The hapless but by no means unlikeable Deputy Dawg, or possibly Elmer Fudd, in perennial but fruitless pursuit of the Prime Ministerial wabbit.

    For Mr Farage we have another example of what the Telegraph’s Stephen Bush has called the Sean Bean/Mr Bean dichotomy: is the real UKIP leader Andy Capp or Cruella Deville?"





  • Options
    EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Interesting to see the Tories 4% ahead in England. Fully expect that lead to grow substantially before 7th May.

    Wonder how widely the media will report Ed's response re his work experience outside politics, acting as an adviser to the Brown Treasury.
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Financier said:

    Lord A has some fun sat the end of his commentary:

    "Finally, my thanks to all the Twitter followers who suggested questions to reveal more about voters’ perceptions. I will use as many as I can, but this week (with thanks to Chris Deerin)… party leaders as cartoon characters.

    Mr Cameron? “Top Cat. He doesn’t get flustered”, or for those who took a less benign view, Dick Dastardly.

    Mr Clegg? The clean-cut but somewhat ineffectual Fred Jones from Scooby-Doo.

    Mr Miliband? The hapless but by no means unlikeable Deputy Dawg, or possibly Elmer Fudd, in perennial but fruitless pursuit of the Prime Ministerial wabbit.

    For Mr Farage we have another example of what the Telegraph’s Stephen Bush has called the Sean Bean/Mr Bean dichotomy: is the real UKIP leader Andy Capp or Cruella Deville?"





    Perhaps Enos from Dukes of Hazzard for Milliband
  • Options
    ELBOWing Ashcroft (using figures in the tables) and Populus gives

    Lab 33.1
    Con 31.3
    UKIP 14.2
    LD 8.5
    Grn 6.3

  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    john_zims said:

    @Socrates

    'I also disagree on EU product type-approvals. That's true for UK exports to Europe, but we probably wouldn't want our products to have to meet EU standards for export to Canada and the US, for example.'

    Instead of using EU standards that are universally approved & used by numerous countries around the world you would prefer to get approval on a country by country basis?

    Assume you have no connection with business.

    Canada is signing a EU comprehensive trade agreement - which includes products standards amongst many other things like greater movement of Labour. 'Agreements' with other countries would involve much more than tariffs and standards. These things go very deep the structure of an economy.
    CETA's standards chapter is about mutual recognition of each other's standards, not about forcing Canada to abide by the EU's.

    What "greater movement of labour" is there in it?!?
  • Options
    Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    TGOHF said:

    LA's question about Labour learning lessons has some stark results.

    58% of all voters think they still haven't.

    To be fair, that leaves the proportion of people who think they have (42%) as comfortably enough for a win.

    Their problem is that they're not promising enough to make anywhere near to all of that 42% enthusiastic enough to vote for them, rather than for one of the various other non-Tory parties.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,873
    AndyJS said:

    A rather pathetic 2% increase for Labour in England according to Ashcroft.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/region/48.stm

    A combined rise of 22.5 points for UKIP / Greens in England.

    Still EICIPM though eh? (2.42 Betfair) I am on at up to 2.5
  • Options
    TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    BenM said:

    Lab ahead - No way Greens are on 9.

    Rabbit in the headlights.
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Interesting to see the Tories 4% ahead in England. Fully expect that lead to grow substantially before 7th May.

    Tories on 34 and UKIP on 17 equals more than half the English electorate.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    Interesting to see the Tories 4% ahead in England. Fully expect that lead to grow substantially before 7th May.

    Wonder how widely the media will report Ed's response re his work experience outside politics, acting as an adviser to the Brown Treasury.

    This should be worth a thread. I believe OGH is very keen on the England only polling:)
  • Options
    Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091

    ELBOWing Ashcroft (using figures in the tables) and Populus gives

    Lab 33.1
    Con 31.3
    UKIP 14.2
    LD 8.5
    Grn 6.3

    Are you anticipating crossover this week?
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,873

    ELBOWing Ashcroft (using figures in the tables) and Populus gives

    Lab 33.1
    Con 31.3
    UKIP 14.2
    LD 8.5
    Grn 6.3

    How does a 1.8% lead compare with 3 months ago say end of October, as we are now only 3 months away from GE 2015?
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited February 2015
    AndyJS said:

    A rather pathetic 2% increase for Labour in England according to Ashcroft.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/region/48.stm

    A combined rise of 22.5 points for UKIP / Greens in England.

    That explains Ed's "dilute the English vote" strategy.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    taffys said:

    Interesting to see the Tories 4% ahead in England. Fully expect that lead to grow substantially before 7th May.

    Tories on 34 and UKIP on 17 equals more than half the English electorate.

    BenM said:

    Lab ahead - No way Greens are on 9.

    UKIP are on 17 and the Greens on 9. Thinking either is going to "come home" is wishful thinking/will probably cancel each other out on both sides.
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I've had another canvassing request from CCHQ for Lewes. Its tooth and claw here.
    taffys said:

    Interesting to see the Tories 4% ahead in England. Fully expect that lead to grow substantially before 7th May.

    Tories on 34 and UKIP on 17 equals more than half the English electorate.

  • Options
    FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    More from Lord A's comments

    "When it came to specific reservations, 63% of voters (up five points since September), including 41% of those who currently intended to vote Labour, said one of the reservations they had about the party was that “they might spend and borrow more than the country can afford”. Nearly as many of the electorate as a whole (60%), and even more current Labour voters (44%), said one of their reservations was that “I don’t think Ed Miliband would be a very good Prime Minister”. A similar overall proportion (61%), including 36% of Labour voters and 70% of swing voters, said one of their concerns was that the party has “not made clear what they would do to improve things.”
  • Options
    MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    I see Lord A has dropped the extra data table 4 that he introduced in the last poll . I wonder why ?
  • Options
    Danny565 said:

    ELBOWing Ashcroft (using figures in the tables) and Populus gives

    Lab 33.1
    Con 31.3
    UKIP 14.2
    LD 8.5
    Grn 6.3

    Are you anticipating crossover this week?
    I thought it would happen last week!!
  • Options
    OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    edited February 2015

    [sigh] Looking at the tables, I make it LibDems 9 not 8 (so neck and neck with Greens), and UKIP 14, not 15

    From the tables I get Lib Dems at 7.7%, Greens at 9.3% and UKIP at 15.2%. Note that the tables don't include the final figures after the "spiral of silence" adjustment, so you would sometimes expect a difference compared to the headline numbers.

    What numbers are you using?
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    Plato said:

    I've had another canvassing request from CCHQ for Lewes. Its tooth and claw here.

    taffys said:

    Interesting to see the Tories 4% ahead in England. Fully expect that lead to grow substantially before 7th May.

    Tories on 34 and UKIP on 17 equals more than half the English electorate.

    Baker is safe as houses.

    That's all I'll say on the matter.
  • Options
    Two tables that explore Labour's weaknesses:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B82fI3yCEAEUonv.jpg

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B82e0X0CQAEAtnh.jpg

    The second in particular is worth studying. More present Lib Dem supporters than present Labour supporters think that the last Labour government did a pretty good job and don't think that they have lessons to learn.

    On the first table, note the difference between Labour supporters and UKIP supporters on whether Labour are on the side of people like me.
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    IMHO Mandy was a key metric to Gordon's performance in GE2010 - without Mandy it'd would've been a bloodbath.

    Where is Mandy now? He's nowhere near EdM politically and has little political bruvverhood.

    A thread on this mood music would be fascinating. Financier said:More from Lord A's comments

    "When it came to specific reservations, 63% of voters (up five points since September), including 41% of those who currently intended to vote Labour, said one of the reservations they had about the party was that “they might spend and borrow more than the country can afford”. Nearly as many of the electorate as a whole (60%), and even more current Labour voters (44%), said one of their reservations was that “I don’t think Ed Miliband would be a very good Prime Minister”. A similar overall proportion (61%), including 36% of Labour voters and 70% of swing voters, said one of their concerns was that the party has “not made clear what they would do to improve things.”

  • Options

    ELBOWing Ashcroft (using figures in the tables) and Populus gives

    Lab 33.1
    Con 31.3
    UKIP 14.2
    LD 8.5
    Grn 6.3

    How does a 1.8% lead compare with 3 months ago say end of October, as we are now only 3 months away from GE 2015?
    November's monthly Lab lead was 1.8%
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited February 2015
    antifrank said:

    Two tables that explore Labour's weaknesses:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B82fI3yCEAEUonv.jpg

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B82e0X0CQAEAtnh.jpg

    The second in particular is worth studying. More present Lib Dem supporters than present Labour supporters think that the last Labour government did a pretty good job and don't think that they have lessons to learn.

    On the first table, note the difference between Labour supporters and UKIP supporters on whether Labour are on the side of people like me.

    44% of Labour voters don't think Ed Miliband will make a good PM! Only 27% of them think the last Labour government did a pretty good job!
  • Options

    I see Lord A has dropped the extra data table 4 that he introduced in the last poll . I wonder why ?

    LDs should be on 9 not 8.

    Lab 172+10 (10 from 50% 13+6 in table 2)
    Con 172+11 (11 from 50% 19+3 in table 2)
    LD 43+10 (10 from 50% 12+7 in table 2)
    UKIP 85
    LD 52

    total sample 560+10+11+10 = 591
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Plato said:

    I've had another canvassing request from CCHQ for Lewes. Its tooth and claw here.

    taffys said:

    Interesting to see the Tories 4% ahead in England. Fully expect that lead to grow substantially before 7th May.

    Tories on 34 and UKIP on 17 equals more than half the English electorate.

    I wonder whether Norman Baker might suddenly step down if he realises he might lose the seat? He's got about 9 weeks to go until the campaign starts.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,850

    ELBOWing Ashcroft (using figures in the tables) and Populus gives

    Lab 33.1
    Con 31.3
    UKIP 14.2
    LD 8.5
    Grn 6.3

    How does a 1.8% lead compare with 3 months ago say end of October, as we are now only 3 months away from GE 2015?
    You don't want to rely on such a tiny dataset. A week's polls will probably tell you something.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    The most recent Welsh poll had Labour support rising by 1 percentage point. They're down in Scotland of course and now Ashcroft shows a 2 point rise in England.
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    AndyJS said:

    Plato said:

    I've had another canvassing request from CCHQ for Lewes. Its tooth and claw here.

    taffys said:

    Interesting to see the Tories 4% ahead in England. Fully expect that lead to grow substantially before 7th May.

    Tories on 34 and UKIP on 17 equals more than half the English electorate.

    I wonder whether Norman Baker might suddenly step down if he realises he might lose the seat? He's got about 9 weeks to go until the campaign starts.
    Why would he do that?

    Not that I think he's very likely to lose his seat.

  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I've had 3-4 requests from CCHQ - they clearly disagree. Interesting intelligence. Are they diverting efforts to attack a *safe* LD seat or think they can overwhelm and win?

    If I were cynical - I'd go for the former so they can get Eastbourne by default by splitting the effort. Think siege mentality.
    Pulpstar said:

    Plato said:

    I've had another canvassing request from CCHQ for Lewes. Its tooth and claw here.

    taffys said:

    Interesting to see the Tories 4% ahead in England. Fully expect that lead to grow substantially before 7th May.

    Tories on 34 and UKIP on 17 equals more than half the English electorate.

    Baker is safe as houses.

    That's all I'll say on the matter.
  • Options
    MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    AndyJS said:

    Plato said:

    I've had another canvassing request from CCHQ for Lewes. Its tooth and claw here.

    taffys said:

    Interesting to see the Tories 4% ahead in England. Fully expect that lead to grow substantially before 7th May.

    Tories on 34 and UKIP on 17 equals more than half the English electorate.

    I wonder whether Norman Baker might suddenly step down if he realises he might lose the seat? He's got about 9 weeks to go until the campaign starts.
    Norman Baker is very safe in Lewes . I expect his majority will increase . Conservative support in the Seaford area in particular has gone over to UKIP .
  • Options
    BenM - as much as I agree it is very unlikely the Greens will poll 9% on the day (not least because they are only at day 1 of the painful process of reconciling their aspirations with reality), I think it is optimistic of you to think that translates into a Labour lead. It is POSSIBLE that some of those greens will hold their nose and vote red, but bear in mind many of them were saying they would vote Labour 12-24 months ago, and are now saying they will not (or alternatively were previously non-voters who have been replaced as non-voters by former Labour supporters). There's no particular reason to think they will support Labour come the election, having consciously opted not to thus far, despite the horrors of a Conservative-led government.

    The big polling story of the last two years has been the steady erosion of support for Labour. What reason is there to believe that this will be reversed?
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    #visitmymosque day didn't go too well for Channel 4 presenter Cathy Newman. She was turned away from her local mosque for not being male:

    http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/02/cathy-newman-turned-away-from-mosque-on-visitmymosque-day
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    ELBOWing Ashcroft (using figures in the tables) and Populus gives

    Lab 33.1
    Con 31.3
    UKIP 14.2
    LD 8.5
    Grn 6.3

    How does a 1.8% lead compare with 3 months ago say end of October, as we are now only 3 months away from GE 2015?
    You don't want to rely on such a tiny dataset. A week's polls will probably tell you something.
    Remember last week's lead was 0.4% (smallest yet since ELBOW started in August), and the monthly score for January was 1.0%, again a record low.
  • Options
    Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited February 2015
    Will the Lib Dems increase their vote in a single seat this time?

    Even the Tories in their 1997 meltdown (where they dropped by 11% nationwide, with the Lib Dems looking on course for something similar or perhaps a bit bigger) managed to increase their vote in two seats.
  • Options

    I see Lord A has dropped the extra data table 4 that he introduced in the last poll . I wonder why ?

    LDs should be on 9 not 8.

    Lab 172+10 (10 from 50% 13+6 in table 2)
    Con 172+11 (11 from 50% 19+3 in table 2)
    LD 43+10 (10 from 50% 12+7 in table 2)
    UKIP 85
    LD 52

    total sample 560+10+11+10 = 591
    Oh, you're applying the spiral of silence adjustment yourself. I think you have done it wrong, though, as you could be including people who have answered that they are unlikely to vote in Qn1.

    It doesn't look like Ashcroft has included all the information you would need to reconstruct his headline numbers (and therefore calculate them to 1 decimal place).
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    AndyJS said:

    #visitmymosque day didn't go too well for Channel 4 presenter Cathy Newman. She was turned away from her local mosque for not being male:

    http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/02/cathy-newman-turned-away-from-mosque-on-visitmymosque-day

    She would have had a friendlier reception at this well known mosque in the Victoria area:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11257761/Ukip-mercilessly-mocked-over-Westminster-Cathedral-mosque-Twitter-gaffe.html
  • Options
    AndyJS said:

    #visitmymosque day didn't go too well for Channel 4 presenter Cathy Newman. She was turned away from her local mosque for not being male:

    http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/02/cathy-newman-turned-away-from-mosque-on-visitmymosque-day

    #everydaysexism ?
  • Options

    AndyJS said:

    #visitmymosque day didn't go too well for Channel 4 presenter Cathy Newman. She was turned away from her local mosque for not being male:

    http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/02/cathy-newman-turned-away-from-mosque-on-visitmymosque-day

    #everydaysexism ?
    Clearly not. This was #specialdaysexism
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Off topic. I had commented previously that Hillary might not even run. It appears that others, while still thinking that to be highly unlikely, are now at least thinking about the prospect. Here is a very Clintonista take on the issue:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/30/what-if-hillary-doesnt-run/
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,850

    BenM - as much as I agree it is very unlikely the Greens will poll 9% on the day (not least because they are only at day 1 of the painful process of reconciling their aspirations with reality), I think it is optimistic of you to think that translates into a Labour lead. It is POSSIBLE that some of those greens will hold their nose and vote red, but bear in mind many of them were saying they would vote Labour 12-24 months ago, and are now saying they will not (or alternatively were previously non-voters who have been replaced as non-voters by former Labour supporters). There's no particular reason to think they will support Labour come the election, having consciously opted not to thus far, despite the horrors of a Conservative-led government.

    The big polling story of the last two years has been the steady erosion of support for Labour. What reason is there to believe that this will be reversed?

    BenM - as much as I agree it is very unlikely the Greens will poll 9% on the day (not least because they are only at day 1 of the painful process of reconciling their aspirations with reality), I think it is optimistic of you to think that translates into a Labour lead. It is POSSIBLE that some of those greens will hold their nose and vote red, but bear in mind many of them were saying they would vote Labour 12-24 months ago, and are now saying they will not (or alternatively were previously non-voters who have been replaced as non-voters by former Labour supporters). There's no particular reason to think they will support Labour come the election, having consciously opted not to thus far, despite the horrors of a Conservative-led government.

    The big polling story of the last two years has been the steady erosion of support for Labour. What reason is there to believe that this will be reversed?

    The Greens won't poll 9%, but it would be unwise simply to add the difference to the Labour total. In the same way, UKIP won't poll 23%, but we can't conclude the Conservatives are doing much better than their poll ratings show.
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    A Google Fu person may find a super Christmas Party video on YouTube with Cathy Newman playing a fiddle/violin. It also had some great parodies from other presenters. I assume it was published by someone who others disapproved of sharing their own personal fun times. Hypocrapcy = that's on purpose...

    IIRC it was removed from YT a few years back but I haven't forgotten it.

    AndyJS said:

    #visitmymosque day didn't go too well for Channel 4 presenter Cathy Newman. She was turned away from her local mosque for not being male:

    http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/02/cathy-newman-turned-away-from-mosque-on-visitmymosque-day

    #everydaysexism ?
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    Danny565 said:

    Will the Lib Dems increase their vote in a single seat this time?

    Even the Tories in their 1997 meltdown (where they dropped by 11% nationwide, with the Lib Dems looking on course for something similar or perhaps a bit bigger) managed to increase their vote in two seats.

    Sutton and Cheam,

    Watford ?
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,328
    edited February 2015

    I see Lord A has dropped the extra data table 4 that he introduced in the last poll . I wonder why ?

    LDs should be on 9 not 8.

    Lab 172+10 (10 from 50% 13+6 in table 2)
    Con 172+11 (11 from 50% 19+3 in table 2)
    LD 43+10 (10 from 50% 12+7 in table 2)
    UKIP 85
    LD 52

    total sample 560+10+11+10 = 591
    Oh, you're applying the spiral of silence adjustment yourself. I think you have done it wrong, though, as you could be including people who have answered that they are unlikely to vote in Qn1.

    It doesn't look like Ashcroft has included all the information you would need to reconstruct his headline numbers (and therefore calculate them to 1 decimal place).
    It looks like the percentages are identical in Tabs 3 AND 4 - my worry is: has the spiral even been applied?
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    MTimT said:

    Off topic. I had commented previously that Hillary might not even run. It appears that others, while still thinking that to be highly unlikely, are now at least thinking about the prospect. Here is a very Clintonista take on the issue:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/30/what-if-hillary-doesnt-run/

    How likely do you think it is that Clinton won't run, and are you willing to bet on it?
  • Options

    I see Lord A has dropped the extra data table 4 that he introduced in the last poll . I wonder why ?

    LDs should be on 9 not 8.

    Lab 172+10 (10 from 50% 13+6 in table 2)
    Con 172+11 (11 from 50% 19+3 in table 2)
    LD 43+10 (10 from 50% 12+7 in table 2)
    UKIP 85
    LD 52

    total sample 560+10+11+10 = 591
    Oh, you're applying the spiral of silence adjustment yourself. I think you have done it wrong, though, as you could be including people who have answered that they are unlikely to vote in Qn1.

    It doesn't look like Ashcroft has included all the information you would need to reconstruct his headline numbers (and therefore calculate them to 1 decimal place).
    It looks like the percentages are identical in Tabs 3 AND 4 - my worry is: has the spiral even been applied?
    Sunil, no disrespect, but I think the people who do Lord Ashcroft's fieldwork probably know what they're doing, even if they don't show all their working. Perhaps you should stop trying to find "errors" in every poll result?
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929

    I see Lord A has dropped the extra data table 4 that he introduced in the last poll . I wonder why ?

    LDs should be on 9 not 8.

    Lab 172+10 (10 from 50% 13+6 in table 2)
    Con 172+11 (11 from 50% 19+3 in table 2)
    LD 43+10 (10 from 50% 12+7 in table 2)
    UKIP 85
    LD 52

    total sample 560+10+11+10 = 591
    Oh, you're applying the spiral of silence adjustment yourself. I think you have done it wrong, though, as you could be including people who have answered that they are unlikely to vote in Qn1.

    It doesn't look like Ashcroft has included all the information you would need to reconstruct his headline numbers (and therefore calculate them to 1 decimal place).
    It looks like the percentages are identical in Tabs 3 AND 4 - my worry is: has the spiral even been applied?
    Sunil, no disrespect, but I think the people who do Lord Ashcroft's fieldwork probably know what they're doing, even if they don't show all their working. Perhaps you should stop trying to find "errors" in every poll result?
    Isn't that what politicalbetting.com is all about though :) ?
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,320
    edited February 2015
    MTimT said:

    Off topic. I had commented previously that Hillary might not even run. It appears that others, while still thinking that to be highly unlikely, are now at least thinking about the prospect. Here is a very Clintonista take on the issue:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/30/what-if-hillary-doesnt-run/

    It will be mayhem if she does not run, which is a good clue that she will. It will certainly be a GOP President if she passes.

    Btw, are you the same TimT that owns a beautiful Alsatian (German Shepherd) dog, name of Heidi? It's very important not to mix one's Tims up around here.
  • Options
    Sean_F, I agree. It astounds me how many Tories are still lazily assuming Ukip voters are going to come home en masse at the election. I think a small number will, and more "Ukip switchers" will switch to the Conservatives than to Labour. But my gut feel is that will be worth less than 2pts net for the Tories. More likely both parties will benefit a little (probably only a little) from Ukip leaners staying at home. To win this election the Tories have to (i) out perform my prediction in terms of attracting Ukip switchers, (ii) motivate shy Tories/GOTV, (iii) splinter the left and/or (iv) further demoralise the Labour core into staying at home. Quite a big ask, but not insurmountable.

    BTW, I hope you and Casino Royale will permit me one attempt in due course to try to persuade you back to the fold... What separates us pales into insignificance when compared to our shared beliefs. In return I promise to read the Ukip manifesto...
  • Options
    MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699

    I see Lord A has dropped the extra data table 4 that he introduced in the last poll . I wonder why ?

    LDs should be on 9 not 8.

    Lab 172+10 (10 from 50% 13+6 in table 2)
    Con 172+11 (11 from 50% 19+3 in table 2)
    LD 43+10 (10 from 50% 12+7 in table 2)
    UKIP 85
    LD 52

    total sample 560+10+11+10 = 591
    Oh, you're applying the spiral of silence adjustment yourself. I think you have done it wrong, though, as you could be including people who have answered that they are unlikely to vote in Qn1.

    It doesn't look like Ashcroft has included all the information you would need to reconstruct his headline numbers (and therefore calculate them to 1 decimal place).
    It looks like the percentages are identical in Tabs 3 AND 4 - my worry is: has the spiral even been applied?
    Sunil, no disrespect, but I think the people who do Lord Ashcroft's fieldwork probably know what they're doing, even if they don't show all their working. Perhaps you should stop trying to find "errors" in every poll result?
    Given the c**k up that happened with the Ashcroft poll in Ed M's seat you seem to be a bit optimistic in your view that they know what they are doing .
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983


    Btw, are you the same TimT that owns a beautiful Alsatian (German Shepherd) dog, name of Heidi? It's very important not to mix one's Tims up around here.

    I was wondering whether it was the same TimT too but surely it is TimB who has the lovely dog?
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Socrates said:

    MTimT said:

    Off topic. I had commented previously that Hillary might not even run. It appears that others, while still thinking that to be highly unlikely, are now at least thinking about the prospect. Here is a very Clintonista take on the issue:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/30/what-if-hillary-doesnt-run/

    How likely do you think it is that Clinton won't run, and are you willing to bet on it?
    I think 1-10% is probably right at the moment, and no, I don't bet, even though this is a betting site. [I bet tim once and won, but didn't bother to collect - a bet on Obama's winning margin in 2012].

    Looked at the issue rationally, Clinton will run, probably essentially unopposed. I just have this nagging persistent feeling that she may not as there is simply no enthusiasm for her run, outside the true Clintonistas which is a shrinking clan - just a sense of inevitability. Furthermore, she is hardly exuding confidence and occupying the space with brio. And we know that 'inevitability' is a very fragile thing, particularly if something shiny, new and sexy unexpectedly pops up.

    For a Republican take on the issue (and they seem to be salivating at the prospect of a Clinton coronation), see http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/29/is-hillary-clinton-the-healthcaregov-of
  • Options
    PongPong Posts: 4,693
    This is a weird story.

    "Plans to build a power station at a Milford Haven gas storage plant are being mothballed by owners.

    The UK government gave the green light to build the 500MW station at South Hook in October.

    But the joint owners announced on Monday that the proposal will now be deferred, due to falling prices in the energy market."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-31099335

    On the surface of it, lower wholesale gas prices should make a new, efficient power plant right next to where ships drop off the UK's gas much more competitive surely?

    What's the problem here?
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Neil said:


    Btw, are you the same TimT that owns a beautiful Alsatian (German Shepherd) dog, name of Heidi? It's very important not to mix one's Tims up around here.

    I was wondering whether it was the same TimT too but surely it is TimB who has the lovely dog?
    TimB owns a beautiful Alsation dog by the name of Heidi. TimT owns two beautiful German Shepherds by the names of Zopher and Aoife.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,873
    @neil just noticed your comment FPT

    Given you are projecting a Labour majority should you not be focussing your resources on the far more generous odds available on that?


    Not sure what you mean.

    Never had a penny on Lab maj.

    BEJESUS been predicting EICIPM for months as part of a NOM result.

    I have taken some profit on LAB most seats when it was 1.8ish I was on at about 2.0 but still been betting on EICIPM at the very generous odds available.

    Back to 4 fig gain/loss posn on most seats and Eicipm now
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,328
    edited February 2015

    I see Lord A has dropped the extra data table 4 that he introduced in the last poll . I wonder why ?

    LDs should be on 9 not 8.

    Lab 172+10 (10 from 50% 13+6 in table 2)
    Con 172+11 (11 from 50% 19+3 in table 2)
    LD 43+10 (10 from 50% 12+7 in table 2)
    UKIP 85
    LD 52

    total sample 560+10+11+10 = 591
    Oh, you're applying the spiral of silence adjustment yourself. I think you have done it wrong, though, as you could be including people who have answered that they are unlikely to vote in Qn1.

    It doesn't look like Ashcroft has included all the information you would need to reconstruct his headline numbers (and therefore calculate them to 1 decimal place).
    It looks like the percentages are identical in Tabs 3 AND 4 - my worry is: has the spiral even been applied?
    Sunil, no disrespect, but I think the people who do Lord Ashcroft's fieldwork probably know what they're doing, even if they don't show all their working. Perhaps you should stop trying to find "errors" in every poll result?
    ELBOW requires sample sizes (as opposed to %-age) given in each pollster's tables. No disrespect to His Lordship, but Lord Ashcroft's tables I find the most difficult to fathom. Populus, Opinium, MORI, TNS and Survation are all nice and easy to read off the data I desire. YG's only problem is that you need to do a (simple enough) calculation to get total sample size (using % don't know and refused), as well as estimate the Green sample using their quoted %-age.

    Since August I have been applying the up-thread calculation, which is based on ICM's spiral of silence, to all of His Lordship's polls to try and get the quoted %-ages to make sense. Since there's only three months left till Polling Day, I'll continue with that to make things consistent!
  • Options

    I see Lord A has dropped the extra data table 4 that he introduced in the last poll . I wonder why ?

    LDs should be on 9 not 8.

    Lab 172+10 (10 from 50% 13+6 in table 2)
    Con 172+11 (11 from 50% 19+3 in table 2)
    LD 43+10 (10 from 50% 12+7 in table 2)
    UKIP 85
    LD 52

    total sample 560+10+11+10 = 591
    Oh, you're applying the spiral of silence adjustment yourself. I think you have done it wrong, though, as you could be including people who have answered that they are unlikely to vote in Qn1.

    It doesn't look like Ashcroft has included all the information you would need to reconstruct his headline numbers (and therefore calculate them to 1 decimal place).
    It looks like the percentages are identical in Tabs 3 AND 4 - my worry is: has the spiral even been applied?
    Sunil, no disrespect, but I think the people who do Lord Ashcroft's fieldwork probably know what they're doing, even if they don't show all their working. Perhaps you should stop trying to find "errors" in every poll result?
    Given the c**k up that happened with the Ashcroft poll in Ed M's seat you seem to be a bit optimistic in your view that they know what they are doing .
    How many other cock-ups in simple data handling/entry has the polling industry made in the last 5 years? Genuine question.
  • Options
    FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Socrates said:

    john_zims said:
    Canada is signing a EU comprehensive trade agreement - which includes products standards amongst many other things like greater movement of Labour. 'Agreements' with other countries would involve much more than tariffs and standards. These things go very deep the structure of an economy.
    CETA's standards chapter is about mutual recognition of each other's standards, not about forcing Canada to abide by the EU's.

    What "greater movement of labour" is there in it?!?
    ''The reality is that this agreement is about much more than trade. According to the CCPA, the CETA is a “sweeping constitutional-style document that affects many matters only loosely related to trade, including investor rights, intellectual property protection for pharmaceuticals, government procurement, buy-local food policies, public interest and financial regulation, the temporary movement of workers, domestic regulation and public services.”
    See more at: http://theindependent.ca/2014/10/03/the-threat-of-ceta-trade-investment-and-workers-rights/#sthash.9kCUs376.dpuf
    ''Canada and the EU commit themselves in this chapter to “strong market access rules, prohibition of performance requirements, non-discriminatory treatment of foreign investors, and high standards of investor protection.”

    ''Despite being less discussed than tariff cuts and investor protection, easier movement of workers between Canada and the European Union (EU) could lead to commercial gains under the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).
    Removing barriers to labour mobility could make it easier for Canadians to tap into the vast EU market and beyond.
    The biggest gains are likely to come from other parts of the deal, including labour mobility. CETA is expected to remove labour mobility barriers related to gaining temporary entry and permission to work (from 90 days to 3 years), and getting recognition of professional and technical qualifications. ''
    http://www.conferenceboard.ca/press/newsrelease/14-07-31/better_labour_mobility_key_part_of_canadian_gains_from_trade_agreement_with_europe.aspx'

    This is the world of globalisation and so called free trade.
    Canada has significant immigration as it is and nothing to to with NAFTA. (Canada, pop 32 million, incl. 7 million immigrants, immigration 250,000 annually)
    http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05/08/young-suburban-and-mostly-asian-canadas-immigrant-population-surges/
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    MTimT said:

    Neil said:


    Btw, are you the same TimT that owns a beautiful Alsatian (German Shepherd) dog, name of Heidi? It's very important not to mix one's Tims up around here.

    I was wondering whether it was the same TimT too but surely it is TimB who has the lovely dog?
    TimB owns a beautiful Alsation dog by the name of Heidi. TimT owns two beautiful German Shepherds by the names of Zopher and Aoife.
    I do remember a post from the other Tim about how he couldnt understand how people might mix you up and then listing all the superficial similarities. Aoife is a beautiful name, clearly someone in the family has decent heritage ;)

  • Options
    FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    OT

    Interesting comment on Greece from D Group Economic Letter:

    Tsipras’s Cabinet selections are also provocative, and do not hint at any sort of compromise. The key figures appear to be:

    - Yanis Varoufakis, 53, a super-cool ‘libertarian Marxist’ economist who holds Greek and Australian passports, who is the shiny new Finance Minister. Although his academic background (PhD from Essex University, teaching in Australia and Texas) is in game theory (which might suggest room for compromise), his style is deliberately confrontational and bombastic; indeed, he has his own very popular blog and has been an economic ‘shock-jock’ on Greek radio for some time.
    - Giannis Dragasakis, 68, an ex-Communist who becomes deputy PM and who will oversee negotiations with the troika. Despite his background he is considered (at least by the people I talk to) to be a reasonably cool head – probably the most reasonable figure in the Cabinet.
    - Georgios Stathakis, 62, another ex-Communist, who heads an economics “super-ministry”.
    - Panagiotis Lafazanis, 62, yet another ex-Communist, who becomes Energy Minister. Even by Syriza’s standards, he is considered to be from the extreme left.
    - Nikos Kotzias, 64, yet another ex-Communist, who has been a professor of politics in Piraeus, and who becomes Foreign Minister. He is said to be ‘very nationalistic’ – ie anti-German.
    - Panos Kammenos, the head of ANEL, who becomes Defence Minister. He and Kotzias (despite their different backgrounds) are both ultra-nationalists, strongly anti-German and equally strongly pro-Russian. (He was also the only Cabinet minister who was sworn in by a priest, as is normal in Greece; the rest are militant atheists.)

    Varoufakis has also said he wants a ‘new contract’ with Greece’s creditors – while conceding that could take months to achieve. Beyond that, one or another Minister has pledged:

    - To halt the troika-imposed privatisation programme, particularly the privatization of Greece’s ports (which were in the process of being sold to the Chinese) and the Public Power Corporation, and to fire the head of the privatization programme;
    - To rehire up to 16,000 civil servants (including 30 cleaners at the Finance Ministry, whose case had become a cause celebre);
    - To restore public sector pensions to pre-crisis levels; and
    To end a hated annual property tax (Enfia) that hit second home-owners hard.
    There has also been talk of imposing new taxes on Greek shipowners – who currently pay only a (low) tonnage tax, but who insist they will pull out of Greece if there is any attempt to hit them harder. (This is a perennial issue: it is not just that they have a sweetheart tax deal, they flaunt it – to the disgust of most Greeks.)"
  • Options
    MTimT said:

    Neil said:


    Btw, are you the same TimT that owns a beautiful Alsatian (German Shepherd) dog, name of Heidi? It's very important not to mix one's Tims up around here.

    I was wondering whether it was the same TimT too but surely it is TimB who has the lovely dog?
    TimB owns a beautiful Alsation dog by the name of Heidi. TimT owns two beautiful German Shepherds by the names of Zopher and Aoife.
    Ah, right.

    Would it be too much to ask you to add the suffix ZA to your name?

    I'm a border collie man myself, as you can see from the Avatar. But I like GSs too - in fact most dogs.
  • Options

    I see Lord A has dropped the extra data table 4 that he introduced in the last poll . I wonder why ?

    LDs should be on 9 not 8.

    Lab 172+10 (10 from 50% 13+6 in table 2)
    Con 172+11 (11 from 50% 19+3 in table 2)
    LD 43+10 (10 from 50% 12+7 in table 2)
    UKIP 85
    LD 52

    total sample 560+10+11+10 = 591
    Oh, you're applying the spiral of silence adjustment yourself. I think you have done it wrong, though, as you could be including people who have answered that they are unlikely to vote in Qn1.

    It doesn't look like Ashcroft has included all the information you would need to reconstruct his headline numbers (and therefore calculate them to 1 decimal place).
    It looks like the percentages are identical in Tabs 3 AND 4 - my worry is: has the spiral even been applied?
    Sunil, no disrespect, but I think the people who do Lord Ashcroft's fieldwork probably know what they're doing, even if they don't show all their working. Perhaps you should stop trying to find "errors" in every poll result?
    Given the c**k up that happened with the Ashcroft poll in Ed M's seat you seem to be a bit optimistic in your view that they know what they are doing .
    Mark you may be glad to know that I'm sticking to my guns and entering in the LibDems Ashcroft % as a 9 and not an 8 in my table.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    MTimT said:

    Socrates said:

    MTimT said:

    Off topic. I had commented previously that Hillary might not even run. It appears that others, while still thinking that to be highly unlikely, are now at least thinking about the prospect. Here is a very Clintonista take on the issue:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/30/what-if-hillary-doesnt-run/

    How likely do you think it is that Clinton won't run, and are you willing to bet on it?
    I think 1-10% is probably right at the moment, and no, I don't bet, even though this is a betting site. [I bet tim once and won, but didn't bother to collect - a bet on Obama's winning margin in 2012].

    Looked at the issue rationally, Clinton will run, probably essentially unopposed. I just have this nagging persistent feeling that she may not as there is simply no enthusiasm for her run, outside the true Clintonistas which is a shrinking clan - just a sense of inevitability. Furthermore, she is hardly exuding confidence and occupying the space with brio. And we know that 'inevitability' is a very fragile thing, particularly if something shiny, new and sexy unexpectedly pops up.

    For a Republican take on the issue (and they seem to be salivating at the prospect of a Clinton coronation), see http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/29/is-hillary-clinton-the-healthcaregov-of
    Closer to 1% than 10%. I disagree with you about the enthusiasm. It's clearly not at the levels of Obama supporters in 2008, but she definitely has a very determined block of support in the broader electorate in a way that, say, Romney never did. Mostly these are long-standing Democratic supporters, who feel they have been through thick and thin with her, and also professional women, particularly those of a certain age, who want her to become the first woman president. The hard liberals generally oppose her, but there are a lot of Obama supporters that, while not buzzing with excitement, appreciated the way she buried differences with their man and served under him loyally.
  • Options
    audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    Pulpstar said:

    Plato said:

    I've had another canvassing request from CCHQ for Lewes. Its tooth and claw here.

    taffys said:

    Interesting to see the Tories 4% ahead in England. Fully expect that lead to grow substantially before 7th May.

    Tories on 34 and UKIP on 17 equals more than half the English electorate.

    Baker is safe as houses.

    That's all I'll say on the matter.
    Posts like that amuse me, especially as you know as well as I do that he isn't.

    Anyone who underestimates the CCHQ machine this time round is making a mistake.
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    I see Lord A has dropped the extra data table 4 that he introduced in the last poll . I wonder why ?

    LDs should be on 9 not 8.

    Lab 172+10 (10 from 50% 13+6 in table 2)
    Con 172+11 (11 from 50% 19+3 in table 2)
    LD 43+10 (10 from 50% 12+7 in table 2)
    UKIP 85
    LD 52

    total sample 560+10+11+10 = 591
    Oh, you're applying the spiral of silence adjustment yourself. I think you have done it wrong, though, as you could be including people who have answered that they are unlikely to vote in Qn1.

    It doesn't look like Ashcroft has included all the information you would need to reconstruct his headline numbers (and therefore calculate them to 1 decimal place).
    It looks like the percentages are identical in Tabs 3 AND 4 - my worry is: has the spiral even been applied?
    Sunil, no disrespect, but I think the people who do Lord Ashcroft's fieldwork probably know what they're doing, even if they don't show all their working. Perhaps you should stop trying to find "errors" in every poll result?
    Given the c**k up that happened with the Ashcroft poll in Ed M's seat you seem to be a bit optimistic in your view that they know what they are doing .
    Mark you may be glad to know that I'm sticking to my guns and entering in the LibDems Ashcroft % as a 9 and not an 8 in my table.
    Mark knows that it doesnt matter whether it's 9% or 8% - it's the by-election result from rural-on-the-backwater that shows us that the Greens are really in serious trouble.

  • Options
    Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    MTimT said:

    Socrates said:

    MTimT said:

    Off topic. I had commented previously that Hillary might not even run. It appears that others, while still thinking that to be highly unlikely, are now at least thinking about the prospect. Here is a very Clintonista take on the issue:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/30/what-if-hillary-doesnt-run/

    How likely do you think it is that Clinton won't run, and are you willing to bet on it?
    I think 1-10% is probably right at the moment, and no, I don't bet, even though this is a betting site. [I bet tim once and won, but didn't bother to collect - a bet on Obama's winning margin in 2012].

    Looked at the issue rationally, Clinton will run, probably essentially unopposed. I just have this nagging persistent feeling that she may not as there is simply no enthusiasm for her run, outside the true Clintonistas which is a shrinking clan - just a sense of inevitability. Furthermore, she is hardly exuding confidence and occupying the space with brio. And we know that 'inevitability' is a very fragile thing, particularly if something shiny, new and sexy unexpectedly pops up.

    For a Republican take on the issue (and they seem to be salivating at the prospect of a Clinton coronation), see http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/29/is-hillary-clinton-the-healthcaregov-of
    Is there any chance of an Elizabeth Warren run?
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    Pulpstar said:

    Plato said:

    I've had another canvassing request from CCHQ for Lewes. Its tooth and claw here.

    taffys said:

    Interesting to see the Tories 4% ahead in England. Fully expect that lead to grow substantially before 7th May.

    Tories on 34 and UKIP on 17 equals more than half the English electorate.

    Baker is safe as houses.

    That's all I'll say on the matter.
    Posts like that amuse me, especially as you know as well as I do that he isn't.

    Anyone who underestimates the CCHQ machine this time round is making a mistake.
    Have you ever met IoS? I suspect the two of you would get on like a house on fire.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    I see Lord A has dropped the extra data table 4 that he introduced in the last poll . I wonder why ?

    LDs should be on 9 not 8.

    Lab 172+10 (10 from 50% 13+6 in table 2)
    Con 172+11 (11 from 50% 19+3 in table 2)
    LD 43+10 (10 from 50% 12+7 in table 2)
    UKIP 85
    LD 52

    total sample 560+10+11+10 = 591
    Oh, you're applying the spiral of silence adjustment yourself. I think you have done it wrong, though, as you could be including people who have answered that they are unlikely to vote in Qn1.

    It doesn't look like Ashcroft has included all the information you would need to reconstruct his headline numbers (and therefore calculate them to 1 decimal place).
    It looks like the percentages are identical in Tabs 3 AND 4 - my worry is: has the spiral even been applied?
    Sunil, no disrespect, but I think the people who do Lord Ashcroft's fieldwork probably know what they're doing, even if they don't show all their working. Perhaps you should stop trying to find "errors" in every poll result?
    Given the c**k up that happened with the Ashcroft poll in Ed M's seat you seem to be a bit optimistic in your view that they know what they are doing .
    Not sure why everyone is so excited about Wednesday - it will show the SNP doing better than 2010 but showing a greater level of support than they will actually poll in May.



  • Options
    audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    In other news I'm putting the finishing touches to my GE projection algorithm. Will post the first of my 4 projections here on May 8th. Sadly I've had to rule out Heart and Hunch and stick with Head, so far as possible: I'm using it myself for my betting.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Danny565 said:

    MTimT said:

    Socrates said:

    MTimT said:

    Off topic. I had commented previously that Hillary might not even run. It appears that others, while still thinking that to be highly unlikely, are now at least thinking about the prospect. Here is a very Clintonista take on the issue:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/30/what-if-hillary-doesnt-run/

    How likely do you think it is that Clinton won't run, and are you willing to bet on it?
    I think 1-10% is probably right at the moment, and no, I don't bet, even though this is a betting site. [I bet tim once and won, but didn't bother to collect - a bet on Obama's winning margin in 2012].

    Looked at the issue rationally, Clinton will run, probably essentially unopposed. I just have this nagging persistent feeling that she may not as there is simply no enthusiasm for her run, outside the true Clintonistas which is a shrinking clan - just a sense of inevitability. Furthermore, she is hardly exuding confidence and occupying the space with brio. And we know that 'inevitability' is a very fragile thing, particularly if something shiny, new and sexy unexpectedly pops up.

    For a Republican take on the issue (and they seem to be salivating at the prospect of a Clinton coronation), see http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/29/is-hillary-clinton-the-healthcaregov-of
    Is there any chance of an Elizabeth Warren run?
    Very little assuming Clinton runs (which she will).
  • Options
    Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    edited February 2015

    In other news I'm putting the finishing touches to my GE projection algorithm. Will post the first of my 4 projections here on May 8th. Sadly I've had to rule out Heart and Hunch and stick with Head, so far as possible: I'm using it myself for my betting.

    Is there not a serious risk of aftertiming in making projections on May 8th?
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    @Flightpath

    In terms of product regulation, your sources documents the opposite of your position. They are criticising the reduction of product regulation, not the increase which you claim will happen.

    Fair enough on labour migration, it's just for temporary work travels - nothing permanent.
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    UKIP Preston retweeted
    The Sun ‏@TheSunNewspaper 8h8 hours ago
    Ed’s former friend says Labour may lose 20 seats to Ukip: http://sunpl.us/6018IvTq

    Well thats 20 of my forecast 40+ seats for UKIP. :)
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,328
    edited February 2015
    To be fair to His Lordship, applying "spiral of silence" to his first and second polls of this year, on 11th and 18th January, gave exactly the numbers he decided to publish!
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929

    In other news I'm putting the finishing touches to my GE projection algorithm. Will post the first of my 4 projections here on May 8th. Sadly I've had to rule out Heart and Hunch and stick with Head, so far as possible: I'm using it myself for my betting.

    Is there not a serious risk of aftertiming in making projections on May 8th?
    I'll be sticking up my net positions at some point, I'll work out my prediction as the most profitable outcome from those and be judged on my p&l.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,873
    http://labourlist.org/2015/02/almost-200000-labour-membership-rises-to-highest-point-since-2005/

    Lab membership at highest since 2005 Ground War could be interesting
  • Options
    Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited February 2015
    Socrates said:

    Danny565 said:

    MTimT said:

    Socrates said:

    MTimT said:

    Off topic. I had commented previously that Hillary might not even run. It appears that others, while still thinking that to be highly unlikely, are now at least thinking about the prospect. Here is a very Clintonista take on the issue:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/30/what-if-hillary-doesnt-run/

    How likely do you think it is that Clinton won't run, and are you willing to bet on it?
    I think 1-10% is probably right at the moment, and no, I don't bet, even though this is a betting site. [I bet tim once and won, but didn't bother to collect - a bet on Obama's winning margin in 2012].

    Looked at the issue rationally, Clinton will run, probably essentially unopposed. I just have this nagging persistent feeling that she may not as there is simply no enthusiasm for her run, outside the true Clintonistas which is a shrinking clan - just a sense of inevitability. Furthermore, she is hardly exuding confidence and occupying the space with brio. And we know that 'inevitability' is a very fragile thing, particularly if something shiny, new and sexy unexpectedly pops up.

    For a Republican take on the issue (and they seem to be salivating at the prospect of a Clinton coronation), see http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/29/is-hillary-clinton-the-healthcaregov-of
    Is there any chance of an Elizabeth Warren run?
    Very little assuming Clinton runs (which she will).
    Even though I doubt anyone could beat Clinton to the Democrat nomination, I'd like to see someone give her a run for her money in the primaries and force her to a more anti-big business position.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    In other news I'm putting the finishing touches to my GE projection algorithm. Will post the first of my 4 projections here on May 8th. Sadly I've had to rule out Heart and Hunch and stick with Head, so far as possible: I'm using it myself for my betting.

    Fat lot of use May 8th will be. :smile:

  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,873
    MikeK said:

    UKIP Preston retweeted
    The Sun ‏@TheSunNewspaper 8h8 hours ago
    Ed’s former friend says Labour may lose 20 seats to Ukip: http://sunpl.us/6018IvTq

    Well thats 20 of my forecast 40+ seats for UKIP. :)

    No wonder he is a former friend!!
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929

    http://labourlist.org/2015/02/almost-200000-labour-membership-rises-to-highest-point-since-2005/

    Lab membership at highest since 2005 Ground War could be interesting

    In England, the SNP have the equivalent of over a million though !
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    City A.M. ‏@CityAM 2h2 hours ago
    Syriza minister vows to veto TTIP http://dlvr.it/8MB0by
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,488
    edited February 2015

    In other news I'm putting the finishing touches to my GE projection algorithm. Will post the first of my 4 projections here on May 8th. Sadly I've had to rule out Heart and Hunch and stick with Head, so far as possible: I'm using it myself for my betting.

    Is there not a serious risk of aftertiming in making projections on May 8th?
    I plan to use one of the Sunday threads as an open thread where people post what they consider their best and worst bets for the forthcoming election as well as their general predictions.

    It'll be a hoot and a half rereading that thread after the election.
  • Options
    Pong said:

    This is a weird story.

    "Plans to build a power station at a Milford Haven gas storage plant are being mothballed by owners.

    The UK government gave the green light to build the 500MW station at South Hook in October.

    But the joint owners announced on Monday that the proposal will now be deferred, due to falling prices in the energy market."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-31099335

    On the surface of it, lower wholesale gas prices should make a new, efficient power plant right next to where ships drop off the UK's gas much more competitive surely?

    What's the problem here?

    Given the long lead times for these sorts of projects, lots of things could have changed that would make them think again, but taking just the stated reason. If the price of gas is lower, then you would save less money by replacing an inefficient gas plant with a more efficient gas plant - so it might not be worth the capital investment to do so.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,328
    edited February 2015
    JackW said:

    In other news I'm putting the finishing touches to my GE projection algorithm. Will post the first of my 4 projections here on May 8th. Sadly I've had to rule out Heart and Hunch and stick with Head, so far as possible: I'm using it myself for my betting.

    Fat lot of use May 8th will be. :smile:

    Assuming Houghton & Sunderland South will declare at 1am, she'll have an hour :)
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,873

    MTimT said:

    Neil said:


    Btw, are you the same TimT that owns a beautiful Alsatian (German Shepherd) dog, name of Heidi? It's very important not to mix one's Tims up around here.

    I was wondering whether it was the same TimT too but surely it is TimB who has the lovely dog?
    TimB owns a beautiful Alsation dog by the name of Heidi. TimT owns two beautiful German Shepherds by the names of Zopher and Aoife.
    Ah, right.

    Would it be too much to ask you to add the suffix ZA to your name?

    I'm a border collie man myself, as you can see from the Avatar. But I like GSs too - in fact most dogs.
    I am in trouble with Peter from Putney for asking him about Huntingdon races yesterday.

    Where were you yesterday PFP imposed a 1 pint fine on me for mixing you up!!
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929

    In other news I'm putting the finishing touches to my GE projection algorithm. Will post the first of my 4 projections here on May 8th. Sadly I've had to rule out Heart and Hunch and stick with Head, so far as possible: I'm using it myself for my betting.

    Is there not a serious risk of aftertiming in making projections on May 8th?
    I plan to use one of the Sunday threads as an open thread where people post what they consider their best and worst bets for the forthcoming election as well as their general predictions.

    It'll be a hoot and a half rereading that thread after the election.
    £20 on the Tories to win Twickenham is a stinker I got convinced by someone...
  • Options
    Good evening, everyone.

    UKIP and Greens up massively since 2010. Unsurprising the blue lead is down.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    Personally I think I have my best and worst bets in the same seat.
  • Options
    Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Voters believe government should do more, not less
    Whatever doubts they have about the politicians in charge, British voters tend to give "government" the benefit of the doubt

    Conservatives are against "big government". They tend to think of government as a problem, not a solution. In this, they are out of step with the expectations of the British people, as a new YouGov poll for Red Box makes clear.
    Which do you lean more towards: 'goverment doing more' or 'government doing less'?

    More: 62%
    Less: 38%

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/02/02/voters-believe-government-should-do-more-not-less/
This discussion has been closed.