Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The 1992 experience would be a great precedent for the Tori
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The 1992 experience would be a great precedent for the Tories if polling methodologies had stayed the same
It’s being reported that the Tories are using John Major’s successful and surprise victory at GE1992 as a model for his party on May 7th. The result from April 1992 will give the blue team hopes of a majority right until the early hours of May 8th 2015.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
And Kinnock was head and shoulders better than Ed as a street-wise politician who could rally the mob to his (red) flag.
By comparison, Ed is a dork.
But the polling didn't pick this up until very late in 1992. The same weird dynamics are in play now. Give the guy a fair hearing. Then vote for the other underwhelming safe pair of hands.
Crikey.
Do you:
a) Get mud to stick to the Tories for economic mismanagement, not seeing the signs, happening on their watch. Labour stock rises.
b) Get mud to stick to Labour with guilt by association for being left wing and anti-austerity*, seen as economically incompetent, and no time for a newbie.
* whatever their current policy is, "too far, too fast" would haunt them.
"You don't think HSBC should have said
Dear Mr Ahmed, you're sending money to these countries, can you explain what this is for?
Rather than assume illegal intentionss."
Three points:-
1. There are limits to what you can ask if you have any sort of suspicion (I am talking in general terms here not about your friend's specific case, just to be clear) because otherwise you may commit the criminal offence of tipping off.
2. Even if the person with the account is pukka and has no unlawful intentions, the bank may not be able to verify this at the other end and does not want to run the risk of falling foul of existing laws/requirements including sanctions against individuals and groups in those countries.
3. It may have decided that it simply does not now want this sort of business because the costs of compliance and the potential reputational risks outweigh any commercial advantages. The balance has now shifted very firmly in favour of the former for most banks, largely as a result of enforcement, and HSBC will be - or ought to be - desperate not to repeat the mistakes which led to the recent fine.
1. Will the polls shift towards the Conservatives as the election comes into focus?
2. Will the polls in the few days before the election prove to be pretty accurate?
On the second point, there are some particular reasons to be cautious this time round. Firstly, we are increasingly reliant on internet-based polls. Secondly, it is at least possible that the adjustments made by the pollsters based on the 1992 experience are no longer a good guide given the large shifts we have seen in terms of the LibDems, UKIP and the SNP.
Not every poll by any means but a meta-analysis may show this ?
And Q3. Will UNS apply? is very definitely a No.
All 3 put together and you can see why the Tories are seemingly confident in spite of the current 1% deficit.
Still lots of "events" to go, though.
1) Late swing
2) Over sampling Labour supporters
3) Shy Tories
http://www.icmunlimited.com/white-papers/messages-from-sprial-of-silence.pdf
This isn't aimed at you, so please don't think that is, as your contributions, as ever very welcome and informative.
But the banks almost seem to presume guilt, and you aren't even allowed to clear your name, because they broke the law/rules in the past.
It is positively Orwellian.
Says it all.
Result Lab 43 Con 31 LD 17
Last polls:
1997/04/30 ICM/Guardian 33 43 18
1997/04/30 Gallup/Telegraph 33 46 16
1997/04/30 MORI/Evening Standard 29 47 19
1997/04/29 Gallup/Telegraph 31 51 13
1997/04/29 Harris/Independent 31 48 15
1997/04/29 MORI/Times 27 51 15
1997/04/29 NOP/Reuters 28 50 14
1997/04/28 Gallup/Channel 4 31 49 14
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft 18 hrs18 hours ago
My my....
http://tinyurl.com/noegw72
Neil Kinnock's net rating was minus 19.
Given Major a lead of 32.
David Cameron's net rating in January 2015 is minus 11, Ed's is minus 35.
So Dave's lead is 24 over Ed.
So Tories shouldn't be too enthusiastic about his ability to turn this round.
It was a bit of a long shot, but I knew someone called Flipper elsewhere. It would've been a little mind-blowing if you'd been her.
Never over-estimate the greed. Never under-estimate the stupidity.
That may just become my new motto.
Very tautly worded.
Conservative hopes really rest on two things happening between now and polling day:-
1. A swing from UKIP to Conservative. The Conservatives have to get the number of switchers to UKIP back down to about 10% of their 2010 total, rather than the current 20%.
2. A small recovery in the Lib Dem vote at the expense of Labour.
If the banks get it wrong, regardless of intent, then they are whacked around the head with a very big stick. In any massive organisation there are always gaps in paperwork, no matter how management may try to reduce them to zero. But a single gap is a failing in the eyes of the regulators.
The right policy for their shareholders is to close the accounts.
He'd be driving past a slightly larger house mind.
Quite. The best argument for reducing our dependance on oil is not so much the AGW argument (on which as I am not a scientist I will say nothing) but that it would reduce our dependance on these ghastly countries and their ability to fund terrorism and repellent ideologies around the globe.
The trouble is that a lot of the solutions (eg solar) depend on importing sunlight, in the form of PV electricity, rather than oil from the same ghastly countries.
Oil tends to be found in backward neofeudal kleptocracies - Iran; Saudi; Russia; Scotland - and as such all you do by reducing reliance on it is heighten reliance on something else.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/564397207026425856
Montana?
Virginia?
The unique aspect of 2015 is that the Tories are not defending a majority, let alone a 100 seat majority.
Somehow they have to do better than 2010 and win seats like Eastleigh (which they held in 1992).
http://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/green-party-in-your-seat/?
If I were to win my Greens to be third or higher in this month's Ipsos-Mori poll bet, half my winnings will be sent to the Greens.
(The other half goes to the cocktail fund)
What do you do?
You lose the client.
Also: as Cyclefree pointed out. If you ask questions of a customer, they are dodgy, and they then make a run for it because of your questions, then you are guilty of the crime of "tipping off".
So, it's simpler and more profitable to simply ditch customers where there is even the slightest possibility they might be involved in something bad.
There is a third hope for the tories. A labour no-show. Sure, people show for labour in the polls.
Actually voting for ed is another matter. And single voter registration could be a factor here tooo.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/rise-and-fall-parties_841053.html
They have a near monopoly, so fines - like any other cost - are just passed on to the consumer.
They should also be held personally accountable. Their money is on the line for fines, not that of the bank's customers.
There are many reasons to think Labour will underperform their voteshare when we get to the election, but the 1983/97 factor of complacent supporters thinking it's in the bag certainly won't be one of them.
Some banks never recover and disappear. A classic example is Salomon Brothers which was the star of the 1991 Treasury Bond scandal and which never really recovered, being taken over in the end by Citigroup.
I can assure you as someone who deals with this stuff day in day out that - and this is not before time (indeed long past the time) - some in some banks have finally realised that your reputation is the most important thing about you. It can take 20 years to earn and about 5 minutes to lose it. And once you've lost it it is one hell of a job to earn it back, as banks are now finding out. Without trust and without a good reputation you can never really have a worthwhile financial sector.
For GE2015 I think final polls should show average Con lead of 4% but of much more relevance are constituency polls.
JUST A THOUGHT ON POST ELECTION SITUATION IF I MAY PLEASE
Surely it must be possible for either Con or Lab to sign coalition deal (as of course for unofficial deal) with either LDs or SNP on a rolling basis say 12/18/24 months and after that time consider renewal. This would provide temporary stability without binding parties or their future leaders to full 5 years.
Major had a honeymoon in the polls that lasted for three or four months. Then from April 1991 [reality of budget?] onwards he was well behind [average Lab lead 7%], until September 1991 [conference season?]. From then onwards the Tories were within touching distance, recording one lead, and in February 1992 were at parity, exactly as they were in the final poll, indicating that the net effect of the campaign was nil.
The massive change in the polling around September 1991 is what is most at variance from the folk tale of the 1992 election. That appears to be when public opinion decisively moved in favour of the Tories. Anyone remember what happened at the party conferences?
There is still at least one event remaining that could provide a decisive shift, in either direction, before polling day. The Budget, and Miliband's response to it. One wonders whether he will mention the deficit...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/official-or-not-hillary-clintons-2016-campaign-is-already-well-underway/2015/02/06/a78fc358-ac8d-11e4-ad71-7b9eba0f87d6_story.html?wprss=rss_campaigns
I don't knock stupidity or greed. They've been the basis of my wonderful career. (Smiley face!).
If you bung directors in jail for things they haven't done and didn't know about, all that will happen is that honest, risk-averse people will refuse to become directors of banks, leaving just spivs, fools and outright crooks prepared to take the risk of being unfairly blamed. Is that really what we want to achieve?
In my view the mistake made by regulators around the world is actually much simpler: we need more prosecutions of those bank employees directly responsible for wrong-doing.
That's looking a done deal now. I'd even say 1.28 on Betfair is a bit of value, even for greedy sods like me who don't generally bet odds on.
And I would be doubtful if the stench would clear in less than a generation
His big chance to shine?
Happy to take off line if you prefer*
* or you can just tell me to sod off.
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to JNN that the latest ARSE 2015 General Election and "JackW Dozen" projection has been delayed until 11am tomorrow because of leaves on the line and the wrong type of snow.
ARSE apologies for any inconvenience caused by inclement weather in the electoral system.
Whatever you do for a living your reputation is the most important thing. It is an old-fashioned lesson we (or some of us) have forgotten and a lot of groups are now painfully relearning it.
If there were a greater willingness to prosecute, there would be at least two very high profile CEOs doing chokey right now. Directors are employees too, as you know.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/02/09/conservative-prime-minister-spent-the-weekend-kissing-drag-queens/#.VNjVEohBzc0.twitter
--------
It is now clear that all the pollsters, wether through altering their methodology, or otherwise , have decided together, that UKIP is now on 15 points, will remain on 15 points, and woe betide someone who says otherwise.
There is a big smell about these polls in the last 2-3 weeks, and their convergence on what the polls should say. I know that Mike S, thinks they are the beez kneez. But I wouldn't trust them with a bargepole, let alone a real poll.
@PopulusPolls: Latest Populus VI: Lab 34 (-), Con 33 (+2), LD 8 (-), UKIP 15 (-1), Others 10 (-1). Tables here: http://t.co/5SfSTX9zbX
It's time for those at the top to realise that they are paid so much more not because they are brighter than anyone else, not because they work harder but because they are there to take responsibility i.e. it's their body which gets hurled in front of the incoming train first.
One reason why banks - and other captains of industry and others at the top - have lost trust and respect is because they have, IMO, forgotten this basic point. They want all the rewards of being at the top without any of the responsibilities - or so it can appear to others.
There are too many people claiming to be indispensable. But as my mother said: "Ognuno e utile. Nessuno e indispensabile."
Or - to put it another way - the cemeteries of this world are full of people who thought themselves indispensable.
Worryingly.
That would seem to be fairly predictable in a race where there's a leader with positive ratings taking on someone with negative ones. However would the same thing be true when both are rated negatively, just one more so than the other? There's reason to think not - if you think both Dave and Miliband are rubbish, you may vote UKIP on the right, or vote Labour because in general you think they'll be fairer. It's not the same binary choice as good versus crap.
A popular PM beats an unpopular LOTO, but does an unpopular PM beat an even more unpopular LOTO, especially when there may be other things in the latter's party's favour?
January is the crossover month and February is the pulling away month.....March is the consistent leads showing a Tory Majority month*
*Copyright PB Hodges and some Tory Ratbag from The Scum, who said it was what Tory HQ had told him would happen.
So does he already have a Russian promissory note in his back pocket? Along with the Cypriots? Just how much mischief is Putin up to?
CON 34%, LAB 31%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 14%, GRN 6%.
Changes since last week Con +3, Lab (nc) LD +1, UKIP -1, Greens -3
Lord A = Harry Kane
Rofl?