Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Latest YouGov makes it 8 consecutive polls without a CON le

SystemSystem Posts: 12,218
edited February 2015 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Latest YouGov makes it 8 consecutive polls without a CON lead but there’s more dire news for LAB from Scotland

Curtice in the Indy: GE15 "more about what kind of hung parliament we acquire rather than who can win a majority" pic.twitter.com/QSW8BK6QA5

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited February 2015
    Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB - LAB desperately needs positive news from Scotland. Maybe the Good Lord will provide.

    Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcrof -@MSmithsonPB - mmmmm



    Arf - his lordship is such a tease…!
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Is Prof Curtice indicating how many seats Labour will hold North of the Border?
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,175

    Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB - LAB desperately needs positive news from Scotland. Maybe the Good Lord will provide.

    Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcrof -@MSmithsonPB - mmmmm



    Arf - his lordship is such a tease…!

    Things are already so bad for Labour in Scotland it would be extraordinary if Ashcroft does not give them some mild relief. Either way I see no long-term future for the Union in its present form We need a new settlement, not least for England.
  • RodCrosby said:

    Is Prof Curtice indicating how many seats Labour will hold North of the Border?

    Something like that!
  • felix said:

    Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB - LAB desperately needs positive news from Scotland. Maybe the Good Lord will provide.

    Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcrof -@MSmithsonPB - mmmmm



    Arf - his lordship is such a tease…!

    Things are already so bad for Labour in Scotland it would be extraordinary if Ashcroft does not give them some mild relief. Either way I see no long-term future for the Union in its present form We need a new settlement, not least for England.
    Absolutely right ..... the Union as it stands is toast.
    A completely new framework is required and a definitive commitment to this effect from one or more of the major parties may have a major influence at the forthcoming GE, particularly with English voters who are becoming heartily sick of being treated as second class citizens when it comes to the sharing out of the UK cake. Things have to change big time and soon.
  • An unusual Gold Star is due to Spreadex over its rival Sporting Index in terms of their respective 2015 GE Seats markets.
    While Spreadex's market remains open 24hrs per day, overly cautious Sporting choose to close theirs by late afternoon and then don't bother re-opening it until and unless they feel so inclined the following day.
    What is needed is for financial spread-betting giant IG to enter the fray for the GE season to spice things up, introduce additional interesting markets and to provide more competition generally.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,175

    felix said:

    Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB - LAB desperately needs positive news from Scotland. Maybe the Good Lord will provide.

    Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcrof -@MSmithsonPB - mmmmm



    Arf - his lordship is such a tease…!

    Things are already so bad for Labour in Scotland it would be extraordinary if Ashcroft does not give them some mild relief. Either way I see no long-term future for the Union in its present form We need a new settlement, not least for England.
    Absolutely right ..... the Union as it stands is toast.
    A completely new framework is required and a definitive commitment to this effect from one or more of the major parties may have a major influence at the forthcoming GE, particularly with English voters who are becoming heartily sick of being treated as second class citizens when it comes to the sharing out of the UK cake. Things have to change big time and soon.
    I think the end of Labour and the LDs as a significant force in Scotland - mirroring what happened to the Conservatives earlier says it all - it is a different animal than the rUK. The Union maybe unsaveable completely but trying to maintain it by ever greater subsidies is simply not acceptable.
  • felix said:

    Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB - LAB desperately needs positive news from Scotland. Maybe the Good Lord will provide.

    Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcrof -@MSmithsonPB - mmmmm



    Arf - his lordship is such a tease…!

    Things are already so bad for Labour in Scotland it would be extraordinary if Ashcroft does not give them some mild relief. Either way I see no long-term future for the Union in its present form We need a new settlement, not least for England.
    Absolutely right ..... the Union as it stands is toast.
    A completely new framework is required and a definitive commitment to this effect from one or more of the major parties may have a major influence at the forthcoming GE, particularly with English voters who are becoming heartily sick of being treated as second class citizens when it comes to the sharing out of the UK cake. Things have to change big time and soon.
    The expression 'be careful what you wish for' springs to mind when viewing the sweeties & goodies being paraded before Scottish voters.....

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    I notice that's a 5 "mmmmm" lower case comment from Lord A.

    Followers of the AAA ratings (Ashcroft Analytical Assessments) on twitter will be aware that this reflects that :

    Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister.
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    edited February 2015
    Mike - as we near the final 3 month period prior to the GE, it occurred to me that it would be fun to have a "Bet of the Week" competition, with the winners decided by your good self, say at each weekend.

    To enable such suggested bets to stand out, these should be highlighted under the established ***** Betting Post ***** banner.

    Allow me to kick things off this week with what I consider is a cracking value bet from bet365:
    The Tories to win <286.5 GE Seats at odds of 10/11 (aka 1.91 decimal).
    DYOR.
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    Not sharing the gloom about Cons. Our share of the vote is actually up. I'll take this right now given those grim days of polls showing the 20's.

    Anyway, Labour will not win from here. More anon.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    edited February 2015
    Since 1992 the Conservatives have realistically had the chance to win outright two elections. The Cameroons blew one election due to very poor strategy and appear to be failing a second time. Should be polling consistent small leads by now. I doubt the damage can be repaired now as the policy choices that did the damage were made over the period of government.

    Brent crude continuing its rise. WTI still low enough to bankrupt US shale.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Todays BJESUS

    3.2.15 LAB 313 (310) CON 267(269) LD29(31) UKIP2(2) Others39(38) Ed is crap is PM

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546

    Todays BJESUS

    3.2.15 LAB 313 (310) CON 267(269) LD29(31) UKIP2(2) Others39(38) Ed is crap is PM

    I don't think you're taking Scotland sufficiently into account.
  • FalseFlag said:



    Brent crude continuing its rise. WTI still low enough to bankrupt US shale.

    Dead cat bounce.

  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited February 2015
    Plenty of atypical subsample numbers in the last two Yougovs.

    The 2010:2015 vote ratios are roughly 31.5 each to both CON and LAB across the last ten days,

    Must be a lot of first time voters or people who sat on their hands last time who are wildly enthused by Ed.

  • Another Scottish poll, another ginormous SNP lead. If Lord Ashcroft is finding something different at constituency level, it's going to need a lot of explaining. So I conclude that Lord Ashcroft will find results that are reasonably consistent with the SNP's large poll leads.

    Today may well be the last chance to get odds-against prices on the SNP in a dozen Scottish constituencies.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    Sean_F said:

    Todays BJESUS

    3.2.15 LAB 313 (310) CON 267(269) LD29(31) UKIP2(2) Others39(38) Ed is crap is PM

    I don't think you're taking Scotland sufficiently into account.
    I would agree but that does not seem to me to impact on the EICIPM proposition. If Labour are down another 20 seats from this projection to the low 290s they will still be the largest party and the SNP will favour them over any tory alternative anyway in a confidence vote.

    Those who continue to pile into Tory most seats make President Romney's most fervent supporters look sanguine. The bet of this week must surely be EICIPM. It may not happen, Labour may implode, there may be sudden and radical shifts in the polling but the odds being offered are ridiculous and driven by the weight of money.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Labour could lose 6 out of 7 seats in Glasgow if the national Scottish surveys are borne out by Ashcroft's constituency polling.
  • DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:

    Todays BJESUS

    3.2.15 LAB 313 (310) CON 267(269) LD29(31) UKIP2(2) Others39(38) Ed is crap is PM

    I don't think you're taking Scotland sufficiently into account.
    I would agree but that does not seem to me to impact on the EICIPM proposition. If Labour are down another 20 seats from this projection to the low 290s they will still be the largest party and the SNP will favour them over any tory alternative anyway in a confidence vote.

    Those who continue to pile into Tory most seats make President Romney's most fervent supporters look sanguine. The bet of this week must surely be EICIPM. It may not happen, Labour may implode, there may be sudden and radical shifts in the polling but the odds being offered are ridiculous and driven by the weight of money.
    It's safer to lay David Cameron than back Ed Miliband, as Pulpstar noted the other day. If Labour are second in seats, the Labour leader may be a casualty of party manoeuvring or coalition-building.
  • Not sharing the gloom about Cons. Our share of the vote is actually up. I'll take this right now given those grim days of polls showing the 20's.

    Anyway, Labour will not win from here. More anon.

    There's no evidence that the Conservative share has broken out of the range 32 +/-1.5 that it has been in since summer 2013.
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    chestnut said:

    Plenty of atypical subsample numbers in the last two Yougovs.

    The 2010:2015 vote ratios are roughly 31.5 each to both CON and LAB across the last ten days,

    Must be a lot of first time voters or people who sat on their hands last time who are wildly enthused by Ed.

    That's odd.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    antifrank said:

    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:

    Todays BJESUS

    3.2.15 LAB 313 (310) CON 267(269) LD29(31) UKIP2(2) Others39(38) Ed is crap is PM

    I don't think you're taking Scotland sufficiently into account.
    I would agree but that does not seem to me to impact on the EICIPM proposition. If Labour are down another 20 seats from this projection to the low 290s they will still be the largest party and the SNP will favour them over any tory alternative anyway in a confidence vote.

    Those who continue to pile into Tory most seats make President Romney's most fervent supporters look sanguine. The bet of this week must surely be EICIPM. It may not happen, Labour may implode, there may be sudden and radical shifts in the polling but the odds being offered are ridiculous and driven by the weight of money.
    It's safer to lay David Cameron than back Ed Miliband, as Pulpstar noted the other day. If Labour are second in seats, the Labour leader may be a casualty of party manoeuvring or coalition-building.
    I missed that but don't really get the logic.

    The only precedent I can think of for that would be when Ken Livingstone let someone else go to the trouble of winning the election for the GLC and then staged a coup after the election to take control.

    Given Labour's constitutional paralysis I really cannot conceive how a leader who has won the most seats is going to get the heave. And it is not as if Ed is a Nick Clegg or Gordon Brown type divisive figure that others will just refuse to work with. Most of them will be confident that they can bully him more easily than the alternatives (with the possible exception of Burnham).
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    SNP targets:

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dEpmY19JSTdHWm02WUZRWE1NY2xraFE&usp=drive_web#gid=0

    Changes in YouGov poll are SNP+28%, Lab-15%. Swing Lab to SNP: 21.5%.

    SNP would gain 32 Lab seats, Labour would hold 9 seats.

    SNP swing required to win Glasgow seats:

    Glasgow South : 15.79%
    Glasgow Central: 17.26%
    Glasgow East: 18.41%
    Glasgow North West: 19.40%
    Glasgow North: 19.43%
    Glasgow South West: 23.08%
    Glasgow North East: 27.10%

    Swing in Glasgow likely to be higher than average swing,
  • DavidL said:

    antifrank said:

    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:

    Todays BJESUS

    3.2.15 LAB 313 (310) CON 267(269) LD29(31) UKIP2(2) Others39(38) Ed is crap is PM

    I don't think you're taking Scotland sufficiently into account.
    I would agree but that does not seem to me to impact on the EICIPM proposition. If Labour are down another 20 seats from this projection to the low 290s they will still be the largest party and the SNP will favour them over any tory alternative anyway in a confidence vote.

    Those who continue to pile into Tory most seats make President Romney's most fervent supporters look sanguine. The bet of this week must surely be EICIPM. It may not happen, Labour may implode, there may be sudden and radical shifts in the polling but the odds being offered are ridiculous and driven by the weight of money.
    It's safer to lay David Cameron than back Ed Miliband, as Pulpstar noted the other day. If Labour are second in seats, the Labour leader may be a casualty of party manoeuvring or coalition-building.
    I missed that but don't really get the logic.

    The only precedent I can think of for that would be when Ken Livingstone let someone else go to the trouble of winning the election for the GLC and then staged a coup after the election to take control.

    Given Labour's constitutional paralysis I really cannot conceive how a leader who has won the most seats is going to get the heave. And it is not as if Ed is a Nick Clegg or Gordon Brown type divisive figure that others will just refuse to work with. Most of them will be confident that they can bully him more easily than the alternatives (with the possible exception of Burnham).
    If Labour come second in seats, they will probably also have come second in votes. But they may yet be able to put together a government with Lib Dem and SNP support. In those circumstances, many within Labour will blame Ed Miliband for their relative failure. And while the SNP would be delighted to have a government with a weak leader, the Lib Dems would not. So in the jostling, Ed Miliband might well find himself on the cutting room floor with someone like Alan Johnson given the top job.
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Good news! Betfair again has background stats available for tennis matches. Only checked it quickly, but it seems, irritatingly, to be one set of stats per match, rather than a single page where all forthcoming matches have stats available. But it's still better than nothing (if worse than before).

    Day 3 of the first test. McLaren having teething problems, but that shouldn't be over-estimated. Generally, reliability is good. Get the feeling Sauber are doing low fuel runs to get nice times and try and get sponsors interested.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    antifrank said:

    DavidL said:

    antifrank said:

    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:

    Todays BJESUS

    3.2.15 LAB 313 (310) CON 267(269) LD29(31) UKIP2(2) Others39(38) Ed is crap is PM

    I don't think you're taking Scotland sufficiently into account.
    .
    It's safer to lay David Cameron than back Ed Miliband, as Pulpstar noted the other day. If Labour are second in seats, the Labour leader may be a casualty of party manoeuvring or coalition-building.
    I missed that but don't really get the logic.

    The only precedent I can think of for that would be when Ken Livingstone let someone else go to the trouble of winning the election for the GLC and then staged a coup after the election to take control.

    Given Labour's constitutional paralysis I really cannot conceive how a leader who has won the most seats is going to get the heave. And it is not as if Ed is a Nick Clegg or Gordon Brown type divisive figure that others will just refuse to work with. Most of them will be confident that they can bully him more easily than the alternatives (with the possible exception of Burnham).
    If Labour come second in seats, they will probably also have come second in votes. But they may yet be able to put together a government with Lib Dem and SNP support. In those circumstances, many within Labour will blame Ed Miliband for their relative failure. And while the SNP would be delighted to have a government with a weak leader, the Lib Dems would not. So in the jostling, Ed Miliband might well find himself on the cutting room floor with someone like Alan Johnson given the top job.
    If Labour come first in votes they will be so close to an overall majority that they will have viable option of having a minority government. If they are (just) second but still have the most seats then EICIPM. If they are second in seats as well the tories will have won the popular vote by quite a margin and are likely to remain in government in some form.

    Why would the defeated, demoralised and probably leaderless Lib Dems insist on Ed standing down? The idea that Alan Johnson might be chosen shows the desperation of the idea.

    Ed walked over his brother's body to get this job. He may be useless but he is probably more driven to justify his decisions than any leader in recent years.
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    Got to say I'm pretty upbeat right now. Might have something to do with my dream when I was chatting near Downing Street with David Cameron. 'We're winning' I said to him. He didn't actually reply but it felt good saying it.

    In the waking world, no reason for any despondency. Neck and neck at around 32-33 with just over three months to go against a Labour party led by EdM? I'll take that very happily thank you very much.

    Watch this space.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @politicshome: Labour's row with big businesses continues, with former heads of B&Q, M&S, and current Heathrow chief weighing in. http://t.co/GRldhKvPl1
  • antifrank said:

    DavidL said:

    antifrank said:

    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:

    Todays BJESUS

    3.2.15 LAB 313 (310) CON 267(269) LD29(31) UKIP2(2) Others39(38) Ed is crap is PM

    I don't think you're taking Scotland sufficiently into account.
    I would agree but that does not seem to me to impact on the EICIPM proposition. If Labour are down another 20 seats from this projection to the low 290s they will still be the largest party and the SNP will favour them over any tory alternative anyway in a confidence vote.

    Those who continue to pile into Tory most seats make President Romney's most fervent supporters look sanguine. The bet of this week must surely be EICIPM. It may not happen, Labour may implode, there may be sudden and radical shifts in the polling but the odds being offered are ridiculous and driven by the weight of money.
    It's safer to lay David Cameron than back Ed Miliband, as Pulpstar noted the other day. If Labour are second in seats, the Labour leader may be a casualty of party manoeuvring or coalition-building.
    I missed that but don't really get the logic.

    The only precedent I can think of for that would be when Ken Livingstone let someone else go to the trouble of winning the election for the GLC and then staged a coup after the election to take control.

    Given Labour's constitutional paralysis I really cannot conceive how a leader who has won the most seats is going to get the heave. And it is not as if Ed is a Nick Clegg or Gordon Brown type divisive figure that others will just refuse to work with. Most of them will be confident that they can bully him more easily than the alternatives (with the possible exception of Burnham).
    If Labour come second in seats, they will probably also have come second in votes. But they may yet be able to put together a government with Lib Dem and SNP support. In those circumstances, many within Labour will blame Ed Miliband for their relative failure. And while the SNP would be delighted to have a government with a weak leader, the Lib Dems would not. So in the jostling, Ed Miliband might well find himself on the cutting room floor with someone like Alan Johnson given the top job.
    I think the only circumstance in which the PM is not one of the party leaders - ie Miliband or Cameron - is where a unifying candidate is required to lead a grand coalition/government of national unity*.

    Absolutely no idea who that candidate would be, but I think you'd need such an unusual scenario to force the party leader to step aside from becoming PM in the immediate post-election period.

    * Odd name because it would largely exclude the SNP-dominated Scotland, but, you-know-what-I-mean.
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    I thought we were getting the Ashcroft polling yesterday, do we know when it's coming out?
  • Freggles said:

    I thought we were getting the Ashcroft polling yesterday, do we know when it's coming out?

    Wednesday 11am.
  • Amazing BBC F1 insight from the livefeed:
    "There's no point reading into headline times because we don't know the spec in which each team is running their car, nor do we know fuel loads.
    But Ferrari and Sebastian Vettel will still be pleased with their efforts so far as the German finished top of the pile on both days and racked up a solid amount of laps."

    Let's not look at the times, they're worthless. Vettel was fastest both days, he must be pleased.
  • Got to say I'm pretty upbeat right now. Might have something to do with my dream when I was chatting near Downing Street with David Cameron. 'We're winning' I said to him. He didn't actually reply but it felt good saying it.

    In the waking world, no reason for any despondency. Neck and neck at around 32-33 with just over three months to go against a Labour party led by EdM? I'll take that very happily thank you very much.

    Watch this space.

    I think it's a step forward in your relationship with reality to place the source of your confidence in a dream.

    I do agree with your second paragraph. There's everything to play for in the current situation. The election can be won by either side.
  • There's no enthusiasm for Labour, even less so for their freak accidental leader EdM. They'll get around 26 % in the GE, postal votes and rotten boroughs willing.
  • DavidL said:

    If Labour come first in votes they will be so close to an overall majority that they will have viable option of having a minority government. If they are (just) second but still have the most seats then EICIPM. If they are second in seats as well the tories will have won the popular vote by quite a margin and are likely to remain in government in some form.

    You underestimate the challenge for the Conservatives. This is best illustrated with numbers. Imagine a Parliament roughly as follows:

    Con 290
    Lab 270
    SNP 40
    Lib Dem 25

    There is no plausible Conservative-led majority that is stable. But Labour + SNP + Lib Dem would have a majority of 18, not to mention the support in practice from Plaid Cymru, the SDLP and others in all probability. So some government of that type would be formed.

    Would Ed Miliband be seen as the man to lead it, given that Labour would have been seen to have underperformed and he would presumably be personally blamed for that? The point is at least open to question.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    The man who restored Marks & Spencer’s fortunes today accuses Ed Miliband of being a ‘1970s throwback’ who has wrecked Britain’s pro-business consensus.

    Stuart Rose claims Labour’s ‘business-bashing’ could curb investment and lead to ‘shuttered shop fronts, empty high streets and lengthening dole queues’.His intervention, in an article for the Daily Mail, is especially significant because he was handpicked by Gordon Brown to advise him directly as prime minister.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2937172/Man-saved-M-S-savages-Ed-Stuart-Rose-brands-Miliband-seventies-throwback-day-Boots-chief-attacked-Labour.html#ixzz3QfUSVQRz


    Oh dear.....

  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801

    Not sharing the gloom about Cons. Our share of the vote is actually up. I'll take this right now given those grim days of polls showing the 20's.

    Anyway, Labour will not win from here. More anon.

    There's no evidence that the Conservative share has broken out of the range 32 +/-1.5 that it has been in since summer 2013.
    The loss of support to UKIP makes the high 30s far off. I suppose a more efficient vote will help due to a decline in anti Tory voting as well as the rise in Con UKIP, but it really is unconvincing lesser of two evils stuff.
  • antifrank said:

    Another Scottish poll, another ginormous SNP lead. If Lord Ashcroft is finding something different at constituency level, it's going to need a lot of explaining. So I conclude that Lord Ashcroft will find results that are reasonably consistent with the SNP's large poll leads.

    Today may well be the last chance to get odds-against prices on the SNP in a dozen Scottish constituencies.

    Until the SNP actually select their candidates.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032

    Got to say I'm pretty upbeat right now. Might have something to do with my dream when I was chatting near Downing Street with David Cameron. 'We're winning' I said to him. He didn't actually reply but it felt good saying it.

    In the waking world, no reason for any despondency. Neck and neck at around 32-33 with just over three months to go against a Labour party led by EdM? I'll take that very happily thank you very much.

    Watch this space.

    I think it's a step forward in your relationship with reality to place the source of your confidence in a dream.

    I do agree with your second paragraph. There's everything to play for in the current situation. The election can be won by either side.
    Only a fool would not recognise that either side can win one of the most uncertain elections in our history. But the current polling, the boundaries, the efficiency of the Labour vote, the massive increase in the UKIP vote and the flat consistency of the tory vote that you pointed out earlier all make a Labour victory more likely than not. And yet the markets say the opposite.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,569
    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:

    Todays BJESUS

    3.2.15 LAB 313 (310) CON 267(269) LD29(31) UKIP2(2) Others39(38) Ed is crap is PM

    I don't think you're taking Scotland sufficiently into account.
    I would agree but that does not seem to me to impact on the EICIPM proposition. If Labour are down another 20 seats from this projection to the low 290s they will still be the largest party and the SNP will favour them over any tory alternative anyway in a confidence vote.

    That's right IMO. I'm certainly expecting terrible figures from Scotland, but even if they accurately reflect differential turnout (the big question in areas like Glasgow) they don't actually affect the next PM betting (though they do affect the odds for largest party, which is why betting on Ed as PM makes most sense). The probability of Labour gaining lots of English seats and then instantly replacing Ed is zero - Labour doesn't even force out unsuccessful leaders, let alone leaders who put us in a position to form a government.

    The overall trend over the last 3 months is quite nicely shown by

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/02/03/labour-lead-2/

    Within MOE, the fairest summary is to say there isn't a trend at all. Nobody is changing their minds. People backing a Tory majority are betting that these lines will dramatically alter in the next 3 months. It's not very likely.



  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376

    Got to say I'm pretty upbeat right now. Might have something to do with my dream when I was chatting near Downing Street with David Cameron. 'We're winning' I said to him. He didn't actually reply but it felt good saying it.

    In the waking world, no reason for any despondency. Neck and neck at around 32-33 with just over three months to go against a Labour party led by EdM? I'll take that very happily thank you very much.

    Watch this space.

    I think it's a step forward in your relationship with reality to place the source of your confidence in a dream.

    I do agree with your second paragraph. There's everything to play for in the current situation. The election can be won by either side.
    I agree with your second paragraph but, alas, not your first. Don't lose your sense of humour old boy. 3 months is a long time if you're overly serious.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    antifrank said:

    DavidL said:

    If Labour come first in votes they will be so close to an overall majority that they will have viable option of having a minority government. If they are (just) second but still have the most seats then EICIPM. If they are second in seats as well the tories will have won the popular vote by quite a margin and are likely to remain in government in some form.

    You underestimate the challenge for the Conservatives. This is best illustrated with numbers. Imagine a Parliament roughly as follows:

    Con 290
    Lab 270
    SNP 40
    Lib Dem 25

    There is no plausible Conservative-led majority that is stable. But Labour + SNP + Lib Dem would have a majority of 18, not to mention the support in practice from Plaid Cymru, the SDLP and others in all probability. So some government of that type would be formed.

    Would Ed Miliband be seen as the man to lead it, given that Labour would have been seen to have underperformed and he would presumably be personally blamed for that? The point is at least open to question.
    That would be a really stable coalition, it wouldn't destroy the parties involved.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited February 2015
    Peter from Putney Not necessarily at all, in Canada's 1993 general election the nationalists won 54/75 seats in Quebec and 49% of the vote and were the official Canadian opposition, and won the next year's Quebec elections with a comfortable majority, 2 years later in Quebec's second independence referendum it voted to stay in Canada 51-49%
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1993
  • FalseFlag said:

    antifrank said:

    DavidL said:

    If Labour come first in votes they will be so close to an overall majority that they will have viable option of having a minority government. If they are (just) second but still have the most seats then EICIPM. If they are second in seats as well the tories will have won the popular vote by quite a margin and are likely to remain in government in some form.

    You underestimate the challenge for the Conservatives. This is best illustrated with numbers. Imagine a Parliament roughly as follows:

    Con 290
    Lab 270
    SNP 40
    Lib Dem 25

    There is no plausible Conservative-led majority that is stable. But Labour + SNP + Lib Dem would have a majority of 18, not to mention the support in practice from Plaid Cymru, the SDLP and others in all probability. So some government of that type would be formed.

    Would Ed Miliband be seen as the man to lead it, given that Labour would have been seen to have underperformed and he would presumably be personally blamed for that? The point is at least open to question.
    That would be a really stable coalition, it wouldn't destroy the parties involved.
    It wouldn't be a coalition. It would be a Labour minority government. And it would be grisly, but it would at least control a majority in the Commons.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,045
    HYUFD said:

    Peter from Putney Not necessarily at all, in Canada's 1993 general election the nationalists won 54/75 seats in Quebec and 49% of the vote, and the next year's Quebec elections with a comfortable majority, 2 years later in Quebec's second independence referendum it voted to stay in Canada 51-49%
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1993

    and they aren't doing too well nowadays!
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    DavidL said:

    Got to say I'm pretty upbeat right now. Might have something to do with my dream when I was chatting near Downing Street with David Cameron. 'We're winning' I said to him. He didn't actually reply but it felt good saying it.

    In the waking world, no reason for any despondency. Neck and neck at around 32-33 with just over three months to go against a Labour party led by EdM? I'll take that very happily thank you very much.

    Watch this space.

    I think it's a step forward in your relationship with reality to place the source of your confidence in a dream.

    I do agree with your second paragraph. There's everything to play for in the current situation. The election can be won by either side.
    Only a fool would not recognise that either side can win one of the most uncertain elections in our history. But the current polling, the boundaries, the efficiency of the Labour vote, the massive increase in the UKIP vote and the flat consistency of the tory vote that you pointed out earlier all make a Labour victory more likely than not. And yet the markets say the opposite.
    The polling makes clear Labour won't win the popular vote and are unlikely to win most seats, any victory would be a pyrrhic victory.
  • Mr. Flag, a Labour victory would be sufficient for them to bugger up English devolution. The best we could hope for is for them to ignore it, though empty-headed meddling would seem more likely.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    antifrank said:

    FalseFlag said:

    antifrank said:

    DavidL said:

    If Labour come first in votes they will be so close to an overall majority that they will have viable option of having a minority government. If they are (just) second but still have the most seats then EICIPM. If they are second in seats as well the tories will have won the popular vote by quite a margin and are likely to remain in government in some form.

    You underestimate the challenge for the Conservatives. This is best illustrated with numbers. Imagine a Parliament roughly as follows:

    Con 290
    Lab 270
    SNP 40
    Lib Dem 25

    There is no plausible Conservative-led majority that is stable. But Labour + SNP + Lib Dem would have a majority of 18, not to mention the support in practice from Plaid Cymru, the SDLP and others in all probability. So some government of that type would be formed.

    Would Ed Miliband be seen as the man to lead it, given that Labour would have been seen to have underperformed and he would presumably be personally blamed for that? The point is at least open to question.
    That would be a really stable coalition, it wouldn't destroy the parties involved.
    It wouldn't be a coalition. It would be a Labour minority government. And it would be grisly, but it would at least control a majority in the Commons.
    Elected on dodgy boundaries, without the consent of England, imposing austerity they denied was necessary and subject to continual by election defeats.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited February 2015
    RobD Indeed, the Quebec nationalists lost power in the 2014 Quebec election after pushing for a third referendum
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited February 2015
    One thing Quebec has turned into is a Liberal v Nationalist battle, so much so that a former progressive conservative leader ended up leading the Liberals back into power in 2003
  • DavidL said:

    Got to say I'm pretty upbeat right now. Might have something to do with my dream when I was chatting near Downing Street with David Cameron. 'We're winning' I said to him. He didn't actually reply but it felt good saying it.

    In the waking world, no reason for any despondency. Neck and neck at around 32-33 with just over three months to go against a Labour party led by EdM? I'll take that very happily thank you very much.

    Watch this space.

    I think it's a step forward in your relationship with reality to place the source of your confidence in a dream.

    I do agree with your second paragraph. There's everything to play for in the current situation. The election can be won by either side.
    Only a fool would not recognise that either side can win one of the most uncertain elections in our history. But the current polling, the boundaries, the efficiency of the Labour vote, the massive increase in the UKIP vote and the flat consistency of the tory vote that you pointed out earlier all make a Labour victory more likely than not. And yet the markets say the opposite.
    The Tories have some things in their favour too: They're the incumbent government, the public largely still blame Labour for the dire state of the economy, Cameron is an asset, there are enough fools in Labour ranks who believe the battle is lost that they are fighting the blame game already, etc.

    That's why it is so hard to call.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    FalseFlag said:

    DavidL said:

    Got to say I'm pretty upbeat right now. Might have something to do with my dream when I was chatting near Downing Street with David Cameron. 'We're winning' I said to him. He didn't actually reply but it felt good saying it.

    In the waking world, no reason for any despondency. Neck and neck at around 32-33 with just over three months to go against a Labour party led by EdM? I'll take that very happily thank you very much.

    Watch this space.

    I think it's a step forward in your relationship with reality to place the source of your confidence in a dream.

    I do agree with your second paragraph. There's everything to play for in the current situation. The election can be won by either side.
    Only a fool would not recognise that either side can win one of the most uncertain elections in our history. But the current polling, the boundaries, the efficiency of the Labour vote, the massive increase in the UKIP vote and the flat consistency of the tory vote that you pointed out earlier all make a Labour victory more likely than not. And yet the markets say the opposite.
    The polling makes clear Labour won't win the popular vote and are unlikely to win most seats, any victory would be a pyrrhic victory.
    With respect the polling shows the exact opposite on both counts. The expectation is that by polling day this will have developed into a tory most votes scenario. I still believe that although as Nick points out the evidence over the last 3 months is somewhat inconclusive.

    As Mike repeatedly points out a narrow win on share of the vote is absolutely no use to the tories. They will lose at least 50 seats in England to Labour with a small lead. They need to be well ahead and only models based on different, inaccurate polling in very different circumstances give any credence to the idea that they will.

    This is the election where anything is possible but not necessarily likely.
  • Got to say I'm pretty upbeat right now. Might have something to do with my dream when I was chatting near Downing Street with David Cameron. 'We're winning' I said to him. He didn't actually reply but it felt good saying it.

    In the waking world, no reason for any despondency. Neck and neck at around 32-33 with just over three months to go against a Labour party led by EdM? I'll take that very happily thank you very much.

    Watch this space.

    I think it's a step forward in your relationship with reality to place the source of your confidence in a dream.

    I do agree with your second paragraph. There's everything to play for in the current situation. The election can be won by either side.
    I agree with your second paragraph but, alas, not your first. Don't lose your sense of humour old boy. 3 months is a long time if you're overly serious.
    I assure you that I was most amused by your dream-based psephology. It rather reminded me of this.

    Maybe JackW puts a "special ingredient" into his pies? Time to swear off them for February?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032

    DavidL said:

    Got to say I'm pretty upbeat right now. Might have something to do with my dream when I was chatting near Downing Street with David Cameron. 'We're winning' I said to him. He didn't actually reply but it felt good saying it.

    In the waking world, no reason for any despondency. Neck and neck at around 32-33 with just over three months to go against a Labour party led by EdM? I'll take that very happily thank you very much.

    Watch this space.

    I think it's a step forward in your relationship with reality to place the source of your confidence in a dream.

    I do agree with your second paragraph. There's everything to play for in the current situation. The election can be won by either side.
    Only a fool would not recognise that either side can win one of the most uncertain elections in our history. But the current polling, the boundaries, the efficiency of the Labour vote, the massive increase in the UKIP vote and the flat consistency of the tory vote that you pointed out earlier all make a Labour victory more likely than not. And yet the markets say the opposite.
    The Tories have some things in their favour too: They're the incumbent government, the public largely still blame Labour for the dire state of the economy, Cameron is an asset, there are enough fools in Labour ranks who believe the battle is lost that they are fighting the blame game already, etc.

    That's why it is so hard to call.
    I agree with all of that. It is indeed hard to say. Unlike the majority on here I think Cameron has been an excellent PM and is a far more formidable campaigner than he is given credit for. He is their best chance and Ed is Labour's biggest problem.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417
    DavidL said:

    FalseFlag said:

    DavidL said:

    Got to say I'm pretty upbeat right now. Might have something to do with my dream when I was chatting near Downing Street with David Cameron. 'We're winning' I said to him. He didn't actually reply but it felt good saying it.

    In the waking world, no reason for any despondency. Neck and neck at around 32-33 with just over three months to go against a Labour party led by EdM? I'll take that very happily thank you very much.

    Watch this space.

    I think it's a step forward in your relationship with reality to place the source of your confidence in a dream.

    I do agree with your second paragraph. There's everything to play for in the current situation. The election can be won by either side.
    Only a fool would not recognise that either side can win one of the most uncertain elections in our history. But the current polling, the boundaries, the efficiency of the Labour vote, the massive increase in the UKIP vote and the flat consistency of the tory vote that you pointed out earlier all make a Labour victory more likely than not. And yet the markets say the opposite.
    The polling makes clear Labour won't win the popular vote and are unlikely to win most seats, any victory would be a pyrrhic victory.
    With respect the polling shows the exact opposite on both counts. The expectation is that by polling day this will have developed into a tory most votes scenario. I still believe that although as Nick points out the evidence over the last 3 months is somewhat inconclusive.

    As Mike repeatedly points out a narrow win on share of the vote is absolutely no use to the tories. They will lose at least 50 seats in England to Labour with a small lead. They need to be well ahead and only models based on different, inaccurate polling in very different circumstances give any credence to the idea that they will.

    This is the election where anything is possible but not necessarily likely.
    Yes, totting up at the moment I'm +500 Labour Minority, -200 Labour Majority when various next gov't and the overall bets are taken into account (Not counting most seats in this analysis)

    For most parliaments that would be a bonkers position but I'm happy with it.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    antifrank said:

    Another Scottish poll, another ginormous SNP lead. If Lord Ashcroft is finding something different at constituency level, it's going to need a lot of explaining. So I conclude that Lord Ashcroft will find results that are reasonably consistent with the SNP's large poll leads.

    Today may well be the last chance to get odds-against prices on the SNP in a dozen Scottish constituencies.

    Until the SNP actually select their candidates.

    They've selected 31 non-incumbents. 20 men and 11 women.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,509

    felix said:

    Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB - LAB desperately needs positive news from Scotland. Maybe the Good Lord will provide.

    Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcrof -@MSmithsonPB - mmmmm



    Arf - his lordship is such a tease…!

    Things are already so bad for Labour in Scotland it would be extraordinary if Ashcroft does not give them some mild relief. Either way I see no long-term future for the Union in its present form We need a new settlement, not least for England.
    Absolutely right ..... the Union as it stands is toast.
    A completely new framework is required and a definitive commitment to this effect from one or more of the major parties may have a major influence at the forthcoming GE, particularly with English voters who are becoming heartily sick of being treated as second class citizens when it comes to the sharing out of the UK cake. Things have to change big time and soon.
    LOL, unionists whinging that they only get 95% of the cake, you could not make it up
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Got to say I'm pretty upbeat right now. Might have something to do with my dream when I was chatting near Downing Street with David Cameron. 'We're winning' I said to him. He didn't actually reply but it felt good saying it.

    In the waking world, no reason for any despondency. Neck and neck at around 32-33 with just over three months to go against a Labour party led by EdM? I'll take that very happily thank you very much.

    Watch this space.

    I think it's a step forward in your relationship with reality to place the source of your confidence in a dream.

    I do agree with your second paragraph. There's everything to play for in the current situation. The election can be won by either side.
    I agree with your second paragraph but, alas, not your first. Don't lose your sense of humour old boy. 3 months is a long time if you're overly serious.
    I assure you that I was most amused by your dream-based psephology. It rather reminded me of this.

    Maybe JackW puts a "special ingredient" into his pies? Time to swear off them for February?
    A diet that is replete with a selection of Auchentennach Fine Pies (Est 1745) will ensure any PBer remains regular in the ARSE department.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @JohnRentoul: EdM's spinners call Boots spat a "clarifying row". @stephenkb: "Perhaps, but not in the way that Labour would wish." https://t.co/Kxzfxj1o2b

    @iainmartin1: Boots moved to Switzerland in 2008, under Gordon Brown. Did anyone attack them at the time? Rather than now (93 days from general election)
  • Moses_ said:

    The man who restored Marks & Spencer’s fortunes today accuses Ed Miliband of being a ‘1970s throwback’ who has wrecked Britain’s pro-business consensus.

    Stuart Rose claims Labour’s ‘business-bashing’ could curb investment and lead to ‘shuttered shop fronts, empty high streets and lengthening dole queues’.His intervention, in an article for the Daily Mail, is especially significant because he was handpicked by Gordon Brown to advise him directly as prime minister.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2937172/Man-saved-M-S-savages-Ed-Stuart-Rose-brands-Miliband-seventies-throwback-day-Boots-chief-attacked-Labour.html#ixzz3QfUSVQRz


    Oh dear.....

    Is that the Lord Rose who sits as a Tory peer in the House of Lords? Whoever would have thought it?

  • antifrank said:

    DavidL said:

    If Labour come first in votes they will be so close to an overall majority that they will have viable option of having a minority government. If they are (just) second but still have the most seats then EICIPM. If they are second in seats as well the tories will have won the popular vote by quite a margin and are likely to remain in government in some form.

    You underestimate the challenge for the Conservatives. This is best illustrated with numbers. Imagine a Parliament roughly as follows:

    Con 290
    Lab 270
    SNP 40
    Lib Dem 25

    There is no plausible Conservative-led majority that is stable. But Labour + SNP + Lib Dem would have a majority of 18, not to mention the support in practice from Plaid Cymru, the SDLP and others in all probability. So some government of that type would be formed.

    Would Ed Miliband be seen as the man to lead it, given that Labour would have been seen to have underperformed and he would presumably be personally blamed for that? The point is at least open to question.
    I'm not sure about that. A Con+Lib Dem coalition would have 315 seats. It'd be able to outvote any Labour+SNP arrangement.

    If some sort of arrangement was reached with the DUP that'd take it to 322/323 seats, which would scrape an effective overall majority, and the government would be stable enough. At least for a couple of years until it started to internally fragment.

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    AndyJS said:

    antifrank said:

    Another Scottish poll, another ginormous SNP lead. If Lord Ashcroft is finding something different at constituency level, it's going to need a lot of explaining. So I conclude that Lord Ashcroft will find results that are reasonably consistent with the SNP's large poll leads.

    Today may well be the last chance to get odds-against prices on the SNP in a dozen Scottish constituencies.

    Until the SNP actually select their candidates.

    They've selected 31 non-incumbents. 20 men and 11 women.
    One issue we need to factor into the Lord A constituency polling in the absence of named candidates. This is especially true of high profile incumbents and particularly the barnacle candidates of the yellow peril.

  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    DavidL said:

    FalseFlag said:

    DavidL said:

    Got to say I'm pretty upbeat right now. Might have something to do with my dream when I was chatting near Downing Street with David Cameron. 'We're winning' I said to him. He didn't actually reply but it felt good saying it.

    In the waking world, no reason for any despondency. Neck and neck at around 32-33 with just over three months to go against a Labour party led by EdM? I'll take that very happily thank you very much.

    Watch this space.

    I think it's a step forward in your relationship with reality to place the source of your confidence in a dream.

    I do agree with your second paragraph. There's everything to play for in the current situation. The election can be won by either side.
    Only a fool would not recognise that either side can win one of the most uncertain elections in our history. But the current polling, the boundaries, the efficiency of the Labour vote, the massive increase in the UKIP vote and the flat consistency of the tory vote that you pointed out earlier all make a Labour victory more likely than not. And yet the markets say the opposite.
    The polling makes clear Labour won't win the popular vote and are unlikely to win most seats, any victory would be a pyrrhic victory.
    With respect the polling shows the exact opposite on both counts. The expectation is that by polling day this will have developed into a tory most votes scenario. I still believe that although as Nick points out the evidence over the last 3 months is somewhat inconclusive.

    As Mike repeatedly points out a narrow win on share of the vote is absolutely no use to the tories. They will lose at least 50 seats in England to Labour with a small lead. They need to be well ahead and only models based on different, inaccurate polling in very different circumstances give any credence to the idea that they will.

    This is the election where anything is possible but not necessarily likely.
    UKIP's regional variations make the English seats annoying to predict, though. Thurrock is the classic example. Not that Labour won't expect to pick up numerous seats if they keep the popular vote close.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    You say anything is possible. I think a Labour majority is impossible unless they retake the lead in Scotland.
    DavidL said:

    FalseFlag said:

    DavidL said:

    Got to say I'm pretty upbeat right now. Might have something to do with my dream when I was chatting near Downing Street with David Cameron. 'We're winning' I said to him. He didn't actually reply but it felt good saying it.

    In the waking world, no reason for any despondency. Neck and neck at around 32-33 with just over three months to go against a Labour party led by EdM? I'll take that very happily thank you very much.

    Watch this space.

    I think it's a step forward in your relationship with reality to place the source of your confidence in a dream.

    I do agree with your second paragraph. There's everything to play for in the current situation. The election can be won by either side.
    Only a fool would not recognise that either side can win one of the most uncertain elections in our history. But the current polling, the boundaries, the efficiency of the Labour vote, the massive increase in the UKIP vote and the flat consistency of the tory vote that you pointed out earlier all make a Labour victory more likely than not. And yet the markets say the opposite.
    The polling makes clear Labour won't win the popular vote and are unlikely to win most seats, any victory would be a pyrrhic victory.
    With respect the polling shows the exact opposite on both counts. The expectation is that by polling day this will have developed into a tory most votes scenario. I still believe that although as Nick points out the evidence over the last 3 months is somewhat inconclusive.

    As Mike repeatedly points out a narrow win on share of the vote is absolutely no use to the tories. They will lose at least 50 seats in England to Labour with a small lead. They need to be well ahead and only models based on different, inaccurate polling in very different circumstances give any credence to the idea that they will.

    This is the election where anything is possible but not necessarily likely.
  • Mr. Observer, that's a valid point (on Rose's allegiance). On the other hand, I can't recall hearing from him in a party political sense before, and he does make a good point (many FTSE bosses aren't UK-born/resident. Are their opinions irrelevant?).
  • You Gov Scotland cross break getting closer,today 35 SNP/ 28 LAB,all to play for but in reality SNP will support Labour if Labour fails to get an overall majority.Good polls for Labour last night,feeling confident this morning.George Osbornes business chit chat strategy in tatters!
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Got to say I'm pretty upbeat right now. Might have something to do with my dream when I was chatting near Downing Street with David Cameron. 'We're winning' I said to him. He didn't actually reply but it felt good saying it.

    In the waking world, no reason for any despondency. Neck and neck at around 32-33 with just over three months to go against a Labour party led by EdM? I'll take that very happily thank you very much.

    Watch this space.

    I think it's a step forward in your relationship with reality to place the source of your confidence in a dream.

    I do agree with your second paragraph. There's everything to play for in the current situation. The election can be won by either side.
    Only a fool would not recognise that either side can win one of the most uncertain elections in our history. But the current polling, the boundaries, the efficiency of the Labour vote, the massive increase in the UKIP vote and the flat consistency of the tory vote that you pointed out earlier all make a Labour victory more likely than not. And yet the markets say the opposite.
    The Tories have some things in their favour too: They're the incumbent government, the public largely still blame Labour for the dire state of the economy, Cameron is an asset, there are enough fools in Labour ranks who believe the battle is lost that they are fighting the blame game already, etc.

    That's why it is so hard to call.
    I agree with all of that. It is indeed hard to say. Unlike the majority on here I think Cameron has been an excellent PM and is a far more formidable campaigner than he is given credit for. He is their best chance and Ed is Labour's biggest problem.
    The absurd right wing of the tory party are to blame for the boundaries. Its painful to see the way the right wing of the tory party have behaved. Labour must think the same about their CND wing. Its correct about the incumbent and the better the devil you know movement, there are a lot of headless chickens out there. True, there may be some drift from the UKIP vote and a defensive vote against UKIP in some seats. But the split caused by UKIP is what will let Labour in.

    UKIP and the SNP seem intent on trying to split the nation in different ways and never mind the election - the sores they are opening may take a long time to heal if ever.
  • malcolmg said:

    felix said:

    Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB - LAB desperately needs positive news from Scotland. Maybe the Good Lord will provide.

    Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcrof -@MSmithsonPB - mmmmm



    Arf - his lordship is such a tease…!

    Things are already so bad for Labour in Scotland it would be extraordinary if Ashcroft does not give them some mild relief. Either way I see no long-term future for the Union in its present form We need a new settlement, not least for England.
    Absolutely right ..... the Union as it stands is toast.
    A completely new framework is required and a definitive commitment to this effect from one or more of the major parties may have a major influence at the forthcoming GE, particularly with English voters who are becoming heartily sick of being treated as second class citizens when it comes to the sharing out of the UK cake. Things have to change big time and soon.
    LOL, unionists whinging that they only get 95% of the cake, you could not make it up

    It is pretty pathetic, isn't it?

    Anyone who actually cares about English voters as a whole getting their voices heard would support PR, not a voting system that is skewed in favour of two big parties that never look likely to get close to 40% of the vote in England again.

  • DavidL said:

    FalseFlag said:

    DavidL said:

    Got to say I'm pretty upbeat right now. Might have something to do with my dream when I was chatting near Downing Street with David Cameron. 'We're winning' I said to him. He didn't actually reply but it felt good saying it.

    In the waking world, no reason for any despondency. Neck and neck at around 32-33 with just over three months to go against a Labour party led by EdM? I'll take that very happily thank you very much.

    Watch this space.

    I think it's a step forward in your relationship with reality to place the source of your confidence in a dream.

    I do agree with your second paragraph. There's everything to play for in the current situation. The election can be won by either side.
    Only a fool would not recognise that either side can win one of the most uncertain elections in our history. But the current polling, the boundaries, the efficiency of the Labour vote, the massive increase in the UKIP vote and the flat consistency of the tory vote that you pointed out earlier all make a Labour victory more likely than not. And yet the markets say the opposite.
    The polling makes clear Labour won't win the popular vote and are unlikely to win most seats, any victory would be a pyrrhic victory.
    With respect the polling shows the exact opposite on both counts. The expectation is that by polling day this will have developed into a tory most votes scenario. I still believe that although as Nick points out the evidence over the last 3 months is somewhat inconclusive.

    As Mike repeatedly points out a narrow win on share of the vote is absolutely no use to the tories. They will lose at least 50 seats in England to Labour with a small lead. They need to be well ahead and only models based on different, inaccurate polling in very different circumstances give any credence to the idea that they will.

    This is the election where anything is possible but not necessarily likely.
    That assumes voting patterns and densities are exactly the same as last time, together with voter behaviour in the marginals.

    It won't be.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    edited February 2015

    The absurd right wing of the tory party are to blame for the boundaries.

    First time I have heard the Lib Dems described as "The absurd right wing of the tory party"
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    DavidL said:

    FalseFlag said:

    DavidL said:

    Got to say I'm pretty upbeat right now. Might have something to do with my dream when I was chatting near Downing Street with David Cameron. 'We're winning' I said to him. He didn't actually reply but it felt good saying it.

    In the waking world, no reason for any despondency. Neck and neck at around 32-33 with just over three months to go against a Labour party led by EdM? I'll take that very happily thank you very much.

    Watch this space.

    I think it's a step forward in your relationship with reality to place the source of your confidence in a dream.

    I do agree with your second paragraph. There's everything to play for in the current situation. The election can be won by either side.
    Only a fool would not recognise that either side can win one of the most uncertain elections in our history. But the current polling, the boundaries, the efficiency of the Labour vote, the massive increase in the UKIP vote and the flat consistency of the tory vote that you pointed out earlier all make a Labour victory more likely than not. And yet the markets say the opposite.
    The polling makes clear Labour won't win the popular vote and are unlikely to win most seats, any victory would be a pyrrhic victory.
    With respect the polling shows the exact opposite on both counts. The expectation is that by polling day this will have developed into a tory most votes scenario. I still believe that although as Nick points out the evidence over the last 3 months is somewhat inconclusive.

    As Mike repeatedly points out a narrow win on share of the vote is absolutely no use to the tories. They will lose at least 50 seats in England to Labour with a small lead. They need to be well ahead and only models based on different, inaccurate polling in very different circumstances give any credence to the idea that they will.

    This is the election where anything is possible but not necessarily likely.
    I just think the clamp down on fraud, continuing anti tactical vote unwind and UKIP Con tactical voting means the Con vote will be more efficient. Could be nonsense.

    Is Cameron an asset? Yes and no, he lacks political and strategic nous, and fails to connect with ordinary voters. Better than most though.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    JackW said:

    AndyJS said:

    antifrank said:

    Another Scottish poll, another ginormous SNP lead. If Lord Ashcroft is finding something different at constituency level, it's going to need a lot of explaining. So I conclude that Lord Ashcroft will find results that are reasonably consistent with the SNP's large poll leads.

    Today may well be the last chance to get odds-against prices on the SNP in a dozen Scottish constituencies.

    Until the SNP actually select their candidates.

    They've selected 31 non-incumbents. 20 men and 11 women.
    One issue we need to factor into the Lord A constituency polling in the absence of named candidates. This is especially true of high profile incumbents and particularly the barnacle candidates of the yellow peril.

    Most of the SNP candidates have been selected in the last few days, so probably too late to have been included in the Ashcroft polling questions.
  • antifrank said:

    DavidL said:

    If Labour come first in votes they will be so close to an overall majority that they will have viable option of having a minority government. If they are (just) second but still have the most seats then EICIPM. If they are second in seats as well the tories will have won the popular vote by quite a margin and are likely to remain in government in some form.

    You underestimate the challenge for the Conservatives. This is best illustrated with numbers. Imagine a Parliament roughly as follows:

    Con 290
    Lab 270
    SNP 40
    Lib Dem 25

    There is no plausible Conservative-led majority that is stable. But Labour + SNP + Lib Dem would have a majority of 18, not to mention the support in practice from Plaid Cymru, the SDLP and others in all probability. So some government of that type would be formed.

    Would Ed Miliband be seen as the man to lead it, given that Labour would have been seen to have underperformed and he would presumably be personally blamed for that? The point is at least open to question.
    I'm not sure about that. A Con+Lib Dem coalition would have 315 seats. It'd be able to outvote any Labour+SNP arrangement.

    If some sort of arrangement was reached with the DUP that'd take it to 322/323 seats, which would scrape an effective overall majority, and the government would be stable enough. At least for a couple of years until it started to internally fragment.

    Would the Tories want to govern as what is in effect a minority coalition government? Would the LibDems with fewer ministers, they might be better off rebuilding outside the government.
  • Scott_P said:

    @JohnRentoul: EdM's spinners call Boots spat a "clarifying row". @stephenkb: "Perhaps, but not in the way that Labour would wish." https://t.co/Kxzfxj1o2b

    @iainmartin1: Boots moved to Switzerland in 2008, under Gordon Brown. Did anyone attack them at the time? Rather than now (93 days from general election)

    ...and Nick P, of this parish, was the local MP (for Boots) at the time.
  • Mr. Observer, disagree vehemently. FPTP tends to lead to strong governments.

    We speak of fragmentation under the current system, which is correct, but imagine if we had PR right now, and the polls equated to an electoral result.

    33% Lab, 32% Con, 13% UKIP, 8% Lib Dem, 8% Green, 6% Other.

    215 Labour MPs
    208 Con MPs
    85 UKIP MPs
    52 Lib Dem MPs
    52 Green MPs
    38 Other MPs

    For a stable coalition you're looking at a minimum of three parties. Manifesto pledges become entirely optional. The government would be determined more by the back-room political horse-trading of politicians than by the will of the people. It'd even be theoretically possible for UKIP to become the major party of government.

    FPTP is not a perfect system, but it's better than the nonsense of PR.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Anyone live in North Somerset? David Derbyshire has been selected as Green candidate:

    twitter.com/GreenDavidD/status/561915094603685888
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Got to say I'm pretty upbeat right now. Might have something to do with my dream when I was chatting near Downing Street with David Cameron. 'We're winning' I said to him. He didn't actually reply but it felt good saying it.

    In the waking world, no reason for any despondency. Neck and neck at around 32-33 with just over three months to go against a Labour party led by EdM? I'll take that very happily thank you very much.

    Watch this space.

    I think it's a step forward in your relationship with reality to place the source of your confidence in a dream.

    I do agree with your second paragraph. There's everything to play for in the current situation. The election can be won by either side.
    Only a fool would not recognise that either side can win one of the most uncertain elections in our history. But the current polling, the boundaries, the efficiency of the Labour vote, the massive increase in the UKIP vote and the flat consistency of the tory vote that you pointed out earlier all make a Labour victory more likely than not. And yet the markets say the opposite.
    The Tories have some things in their favour too: They're the incumbent government, the public largely still blame Labour for the dire state of the economy, Cameron is an asset, there are enough fools in Labour ranks who believe the battle is lost that they are fighting the blame game already, etc.

    That's why it is so hard to call.
    I agree with all of that. It is indeed hard to say. Unlike the majority on here I think Cameron has been an excellent PM and is a far more formidable campaigner than he is given credit for. He is their best chance and Ed is Labour's biggest problem.
    The absurd right wing of the tory party are to blame for the boundaries. Its painful to see the way the right wing of the tory party have behaved. Labour must think the same about their CND wing. Its correct about the incumbent and the better the devil you know movement, there are a lot of headless chickens out there. True, there may be some drift from the UKIP vote and a defensive vote against UKIP in some seats. But the split caused by UKIP is what will let Labour in.

    UKIP and the SNP seem intent on trying to split the nation in different ways and never mind the election - the sores they are opening may take a long time to heal if ever.
    If the Conservatives lose, it's because they won't have won enough votes. That will be their fault; not the fault of UKIP, the SNP, or the boundaries.

    The Conservatives could have backed AV in 2011. They didn't, so they'll have to suck it up.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    AndyJS said:

    JackW said:

    AndyJS said:

    antifrank said:

    Another Scottish poll, another ginormous SNP lead. If Lord Ashcroft is finding something different at constituency level, it's going to need a lot of explaining. So I conclude that Lord Ashcroft will find results that are reasonably consistent with the SNP's large poll leads.

    Today may well be the last chance to get odds-against prices on the SNP in a dozen Scottish constituencies.

    Until the SNP actually select their candidates.

    They've selected 31 non-incumbents. 20 men and 11 women.
    One issue we need to factor into the Lord A constituency polling in the absence of named candidates. This is especially true of high profile incumbents and particularly the barnacle candidates of the yellow peril.

    Most of the SNP candidates have been selected in the last few days, so probably too late to have been included in the Ashcroft polling questions.
    Indeed.

    Perhaps we shall see named candidates a little closer to the election. To some degree the Ashcroft polls mitigate against a great variation with the named constituency question but named candidates should ensure an even more accurate reflection of opinion.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Todays BJESUS

    3.2.15 LAB 313 (310) CON 267(269) LD29(31) UKIP2(2) Others39(38) Ed is crap is PM

    Out of interest which is seat 313 on Baxter for Labour ?



  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    So - its being suggested down thread that Labour come second in seats having lost loads to the SNP whose party leader is not in the commons. The LDs lose over half their seats having been previously in government.
    And some are suggesting we have a Lab SNP LD coalition with both Lab and LD sacking their leaders and the SNP's leader sat in Edinburgh pulling the strings.
    Where is the word democracy in that?
  • Mr. Observer, disagree vehemently. FPTP tends to lead to strong governments.

    We speak of fragmentation under the current system, which is correct, but imagine if we had PR right now, and the polls equated to an electoral result.

    33% Lab, 32% Con, 13% UKIP, 8% Lib Dem, 8% Green, 6% Other.

    215 Labour MPs
    208 Con MPs
    85 UKIP MPs
    52 Lib Dem MPs
    52 Green MPs
    38 Other MPs

    For a stable coalition you're looking at a minimum of three parties. Manifesto pledges become entirely optional. The government would be determined more by the back-room political horse-trading of politicians than by the will of the people. It'd even be theoretically possible for UKIP to become the major party of government.

    FPTP is not a perfect system, but it's better than the nonsense of PR.

    So you are not concerned about England's voice being heard, you are concerned with strong government. I cannot see how a government that is elected by 35% of English people is any more legitimate than one which elected by 33% of English people. If you are concerned that the views of the English are heard properly, then surely you should accept that what they vote for is what they get.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Mr. Flag, a Labour victory would be sufficient for them to bugger up English devolution. The best we could hope for is for them to ignore it, though empty-headed meddling would seem more likely.

    It won't be empty-headed.

    It will be entirely self-interested, and probably counter to England's narrow interests
  • You Gov Scotland cross break getting closer,today 35 SNP/ 28 LAB,all to play for but in reality SNP will support Labour if Labour fails to get an overall majority.Good polls for Labour last night,feeling confident this morning.George Osbornes business chit chat strategy in tatters!

    The SNP will not support Labour, but Labour can be pretty sure that the SNP will not join with the Tories to vote a Labour government down. Of course, what the SNP desperately hopes for is a Tory government. A Labour one would probably set calls for independence back a fair few years.

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Mr. Observer, disagree vehemently. FPTP tends to lead to strong governments.

    Rather FPTP since WWII tends to majority government rather than "strong" government.

    One would hardly call the last Labour government a strong government whereas this coalition has been remarkably strong given the nature of the two parties involved and the problems they inherited.

  • Scott_P said:

    The absurd right wing of the tory party are to blame for the boundaries.

    First time I have heard the Lib Dems described as "The absurd right wing of the tory party"
    I guess your being disingenuous.
  • Scott_P said:

    The absurd right wing of the tory party are to blame for the boundaries.

    First time I have heard the Lib Dems described as "The absurd right wing of the tory party"
    I guess your being disingenuous.
    Not your, you're - Ooops
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,721
    JackW said:

    Mr. Observer, disagree vehemently. FPTP tends to lead to strong governments.

    Rather FPTP since WWII tends to majority government rather than "strong" government.

    One would hardly call the last Labour government a strong government whereas this coalition has been remarkably strong given the nature of the two parties involved and the problems they inherited.

    Wouldn’t call the 1992-7 (last) Tory government particularly strong, either.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546

    Mr. Observer, disagree vehemently. FPTP tends to lead to strong governments.

    We speak of fragmentation under the current system, which is correct, but imagine if we had PR right now, and the polls equated to an electoral result.

    33% Lab, 32% Con, 13% UKIP, 8% Lib Dem, 8% Green, 6% Other.

    215 Labour MPs
    208 Con MPs
    85 UKIP MPs
    52 Lib Dem MPs
    52 Green MPs
    38 Other MPs

    For a stable coalition you're looking at a minimum of three parties. Manifesto pledges become entirely optional. The government would be determined more by the back-room political horse-trading of politicians than by the will of the people. It'd even be theoretically possible for UKIP to become the major party of government.

    FPTP is not a perfect system, but it's better than the nonsense of PR.

    So you are not concerned about England's voice being heard, you are concerned with strong government. I cannot see how a government that is elected by 35% of English people is any more legitimate than one which elected by 33% of English people. If you are concerned that the views of the English are heard properly, then surely you should accept that what they vote for is what they get.
    FPTP is fine when you have two strong parties which always win 40%+ of the vote.

    Now, it's in danger of delivering capricious results, as it does in Canada.
  • Charles said:

    Mr. Flag, a Labour victory would be sufficient for them to bugger up English devolution. The best we could hope for is for them to ignore it, though empty-headed meddling would seem more likely.

    It won't be empty-headed.

    It will be entirely self-interested, and probably counter to England's narrow interests

    What are England's interests? Is it in England's interests for a party to impose policies that have not been endorsed by a majority of English voters, or at least approved by parties that represent the votes of a majority of English voters?

  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    edited February 2015
    DavidL said:


    As Mike repeatedly points out a narrow win on share of the vote is absolutely no use to the tories. They will lose at least 50 seats in England to Labour with a small lead. They need to be well ahead and only models based on different, inaccurate polling in very different circumstances give any credence to the idea that they will.

    As Mike also repeatedly points out,

    "We are in a first past the post system. Everything depends what happens in specific seats.

    National vote share is irrelevant in determining the outcome."

    Edit: though he probably only applies this reasoning when it helps the LD prospects look rosier.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    If nothing else this is shaping up to be a very interesting election.

    A weak government of whatever stripe is the last thing we need right now though and it really is hard to see us getting anything else.

  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795

    So - its being suggested down thread that Labour come second in seats having lost loads to the SNP whose party leader is not in the commons. The LDs lose over half their seats having been previously in government.
    And some are suggesting we have a Lab SNP LD coalition with both Lab and LD sacking their leaders and the SNP's leader sat in Edinburgh pulling the strings.
    Where is the word democracy in that?

    Add up the vote shares.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,223

    So you are not concerned about England's voice being heard, you are concerned with strong government. I cannot see how a government that is elected by 35% of English people is any more legitimate than one which elected by 33% of English people. If you are concerned that the views of the English are heard properly, then surely you should accept that what they vote for is what they get.

    It's not FPTP that has created the problem; it's devolution. Labour only ever gave devolution to places where they assumed (wrongly!) that they'd always vote Labour. If we had a First Minister for South East England with as much power as Sturgeon things might not be so bad.

    As it is, the Scots have worked out that the best way to get even more out of the system is to vote in the SNP.

    Personally I would love to see a Labour government propped up by the SNP. Whatever happens the perception in England will be that the Scots are getting a far better deal than they are and it could be what finishes off the Labour Party.

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    JackW said:

    Mr. Observer, disagree vehemently. FPTP tends to lead to strong governments.

    Rather FPTP since WWII tends to majority government rather than "strong" government.

    One would hardly call the last Labour government a strong government whereas this coalition has been remarkably strong given the nature of the two parties involved and the problems they inherited.

    Wouldn’t call the 1992-7 (last) Tory government particularly strong, either.
    Quite .... but I was wary of @JohnO accusing me of JohnMajorphobia. :smile:

  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Got to say I'm pretty upbeat right now. Might have something to do with my dream when I was chatting near Downing Street with David Cameron. 'We're winning' I said to him. He didn't actually reply but it felt good saying it.

    In the waking world, no reason for any despondency. Neck and neck at around 32-33 with just over three months to go against a Labour party led by EdM? I'll take that very happily thank you very much.

    Watch this space.

    I think it's a step forward in your relationship with reality to place the source of your confidence in a dream.

    I do agree with your second paragraph. There's everything to play for in the current situation. The election can be won by either side.
    Only a fool would not recognise that either side can win one of the most uncertain elections in our history. But the current polling, the boundaries, the efficiency of the Labour vote, the massive increase in the UKIP vote and the flat consistency of the tory vote that you pointed out earlier all make a Labour victory more likely than not. And yet the markets say the opposite.
    The Tories have some things in their favour too: They're the incumbent government, the public largely still blame Labour for the dire state of the economy, Cameron is an asset, there are enough fools in Labour ranks who believe the battle is lost that they are fighting the blame game already, etc.

    That's why it is so hard to call.
    I agree with all of that. It is indeed hard to say. Unlike the majority on here I think Cameron has been an excellent PM and is a far more formidable campaigner than he is given credit for. He is their best chance and Ed is Labour's biggest problem.
    ...

    UKIP and the SNP seem intent on trying to split the nation in different ways and never mind the election - the sores they are opening may take a long time to heal if ever.
    If the Conservatives lose, it's because they won't have won enough votes. That will be their fault; not the fault of UKIP, the SNP, or the boundaries.

    The Conservatives could have backed AV in 2011. They didn't, so they'll have to suck it up.
    Fighting FPTP elections on biased boundaries is absurd. It was absurd of the absurd tory right wing to block HoL reform and thus give away boundary reform.
    The HoL BTW should be abolished.

    The unresolved question is where all this leaves the LDs. If the tories hoover up their seats it might be some compensation, but Labour will probably pick up a chunk by default as well.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    FalseFlag said:

    DavidL said:

    FalseFlag said:

    DavidL said:

    I think it's a step forward in your relationship with reality to place the source of your confidence in a dream.

    I do agree with your second paragraph. There's everything to play for in the current situation. The election can be won by either side.
    Only a fool would not recognise that either side can win one of the most uncertain elections in our history. But the current polling, the boundaries, the efficiency of the Labour vote, the massive increase in the UKIP vote and the flat consistency of the tory vote that you pointed out earlier all make a Labour victory more likely than not. And yet the markets say the opposite.
    The polling makes clear Labour won't win the popular vote and are unlikely to win most seats, any victory would be a pyrrhic victory.
    With respect the polling shows the exact opposite on both counts. The expectation is that by polling day this will have developed into a tory most votes scenario. I still believe that although as Nick points out the evidence over the last 3 months is somewhat inconclusive.

    As Mike repeatedly points out a narrow win on share of the vote is absolutely no use to the tories. They will lose at least 50 seats in England to Labour with a small lead. They need to be well ahead and only models based on different, inaccurate polling in very different circumstances give any credence to the idea that they will.

    This is the election where anything is possible but not necessarily likely.
    I just think the clamp down on fraud, continuing anti tactical vote unwind and UKIP Con tactical voting means the Con vote will be more efficient. Could be nonsense.

    Is Cameron an asset? Yes and no, he lacks political and strategic nous, and fails to connect with ordinary voters. Better than most though.
    I have been making the argument that the tory vote will be more efficient on here for a couple of years now so you will get no disagreement from me about that. But it is a question of degree. There is no chance that a Labour party equal with the tories in England will get an extra 90 odd seats as per 2005 but they will still get more seats for their votes.

    In Scotland they run the risk of going from an extreme level of efficiency to the exact opposite running up a lot of substantial but pointless seconds. That will hurt their overall efficiency enormously.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207

    Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB - LAB desperately needs positive news from Scotland. Maybe the Good Lord will provide.

    Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcrof -@MSmithsonPB - mmmmm



    Arf - his lordship is such a tease…!

    Hard to tell from an "mmmmm" but not sure that sounds positive from Labours POV.

    SNP though might have reasons to be cheerful unlike their little ray of sunshine uncle Malc :-)

Sign In or Register to comment.