The detail in the Ashcroft Poll isn't great for Labour.
Net 2010 Lib Dems -> Labour = +18 respondents. Net 2010 Lib Dems - > Conservatives = +16 respondents.
So almost zero Con-Lab swing as a result of 2010 Lib Dem voters. There is then a small net swing from Lab to Con in direct swing voters. Only the rise of UKIP creates a net Con to Lab swing.
Coalition Liberals save the day for Cameron.
The net Labour advantage over the Conservatives in 2010 Lib Dems in Ashcroft Polls (one each month):
There is a lot of noise due to the size of the subsample, but it doesn't paint a pretty picture for Labour. The other thing I notice is that the large excess in 2010 Lib Dems who said "don't know" when asked how they would vote has now disappeared. It looks like that's where the Lib Dem to Conservative voters have come from.
"When it comes to specific prime ministerial attributes, the gap has widened in recent months. I found Cameron 36 points ahead of Miliband on “representing Britain in international negotiations” and “being able to lead a team”, 29 points ahead on “making the right decisions even when they are unpopular”, 27 points ahead on “having a clear idea of what he wants to achieve”, and 31 points ahead on “doing the job of Prime Minister overall” – a bigger lead in every case than when I last asked this question in September. Miliband’s traditional advantage, on “understanding ordinary people”, has fallen from 16 to four points (41% said he would do a better job in this regard; 37% named Cameron).
In every case except “understanding ordinary people”, swing voters (who say they have not decided how to vote or may change their minds) gave a bigger advantage to Cameron than voters as a whole – and were more likely to prefer Cameron to Miliband as PM overall. UKIP voters were also much more favourable to Cameron than the country as a whole. One third of Labour voters said Cameron would do the better job of leading a team and making the right decisions even when they were unpopular; 37% of them said he would do the better job of representing Britain abroad."
If Ashcroft's polling is right this stuff's killer isn't it?
Think-back question please. Has any leader won an election from Miliband's current -ve rating? Those just look like 'loser' to me. Or am I missing something? Serious question any answers welcome please, there's money at stake
Think-back question please. Has any leader won an election from Miliband's current -ve rating? Those just look like 'loser' to me. Or am I missing something? Serious question any answers welcome please, there's money at stake
Think-back question please. Has any leader won an election from Miliband's current -ve rating? Those just look like 'loser' to me. Or am I missing something? Serious question any answers welcome please, there's money at stake
Thing is, when you're betting you're trying to see the whole picture aren't you, watching for the micros that signal the macro? How's Miliband going to become PM from this kind of negativity and pummelling?
'Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin'?
(Not sure about Cameron 2014: he's not been in opposition has he?)
Only when Murdoch had expelled him from his gang. Once the big boys had knocked him down, he ran in and slapped him, and later tried to be bestest mates with him again.
How about that big bully, McClusky? Or Rotherham council? No problem having a go at tax evaders - they're safely out the country.
We may be being unfair, but appearance is all in politics.
"Move over, Tristam, let me have a go at those nuns."
My reading of recent comedy is that the comedians are really turning on Miliband now. I think they sense they don't have long left for jokes at his expense.
It will always be that way until a few directors do some chokey.
They have a near monopoly, so fines - like any other cost - are just passed on to the consumer.
.
Your last paragraph rather undermines your well-argued case, Richard.
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.
Ah if you mean directors who have directly done somethign wrong, then yes I agree with you. I thought you meant they should be punished for the sins of their underlings, no matter how remote those underlings were and irrespective of whether they knew about the wrongdoing
The basic principle in my view should be that we should focus on punishing the specific individuals who do wrong. What we seem to have is a system which fines the bank's innocent shareholders.
Well, the shareholders are the owners. So the big ones should be doing something about getting some competent managers in.
Actually what happens is that the shareholders demand that the banks reduce their costs and increase the return on capital. The banks then cut back on the very areas which are needed to control the traders and others who do the misbehaving rather than investing in the systems/people needed to keep them under control and you get into a vicious spiral.
Banks never invest properly in what's needed when the money rolls in; the money rolling in attracts all sorts of undesirables; the money keeps rolling in; everyone thinks they've discovered a risk-free way of making money; this is the point when people start saying things like "It's a new paradigm." Or "This time it's different." (This is the point when you take your money out of the bank.) No-one wants to stop what they think is a virtuous cycle. No-one listens to those internally crying "Whoa". Then it all goes horribly wrong. Banks get fined. People leave. Banks are then left in a position where they need to earn money to pay fines and to remedy all the stuff that needs to be put right and to keep shareholders happy but they've pissed it all away on undeserving staff. They try and cut costs and, like most entities doing this under pressure, usually make a hash of it. But this is not uncovered until the next time the brown substance hits the proverbial fan. And so it goes......
Looking back at more old Ashcroft polls, the first Ashcroft of the year had Coalition Liberals level with Red Liberals - and hence a 6% Tory lead.
I think Miliband's sunk. He can't make it to Number Ten without an advantage from 2010 Liberal Democrat voters and he is losing that. He will lose seats and votes to the SNP, lots of votes to UKIP and Cameron is attracting about as many ex-Lib Dems.
If I were Ed's campaign manager, he'd be coming home late with his face rearranged. "Don't worry, Justine, I've just given that Eric Joyce a Glasgow kiss."
I'm enjoying catching up on some archive '92 election coverage on Youtube. Only an hour or so in, but so far have observed a couple of interesting points:
- Concerns amongst Labour party of the softness of the vote and final day's switchers in the more private sector employment dominated areas (Midlands, NW) - Turnout up everywhere vs '87, slowing down declarations
I can see both of these happening again, but more convinced of the first. What do others think of likely turnout in May?
Airdrie & Shotts and Motherwell and Wishaw not on the projected SNP gains from Labour in amongst that lot I got off electoral calculus...
Going to give the Lib Dems Cambridge too...
Con 277 Lab 274 Lib Dem 28 UKIP 3 SNP 48 Plaid 2 NI 18
As an aside, if you had a Labour/SNP coalition that would virtually make Scotland a one-party (or at least a government) state.
I can't help but think that's unhealthy - and probably a very good reason for the SNP preferring to stand on the sidelines with an S&C at best with Labour.
How would Holyrood 16 play if both were in government at the same time? S&C would mean they could get most of the concessions that they wanted plus *still* bitch and whine about the government.
In the last two hours the Green party crowdfunder has raised enough money to stand two more candidates in May. Thank you fellow PB Tories for your generosity.
Labour have a very good chance of winning this seat in my opinion. There's by-election unwind from last time and UKIP seem to have replaced the Tories as Labour's main challengers in Crewe. I'm not sure winning the outer wards will be enough for the Tories to hold the seat.
Survation had Labour 13% ahead in a December 2013 constituency poll.
It will always be that way until a few directors do some chokey.
They have a near monopoly, so fines - like any other cost - are just passed on to the consumer.
.
Your last paragraph rather undermines your well-argued case, Richard.
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.
Ah if you mean directors who have directly done somethign wrong, then yes I agree with you. I thought you meant they should be punished for the sins of their underlings, no matter how remote those underlings were and irrespective of whether they knew about the wrongdoing
The basic principle in my view should be that we should focus on punishing the specific individuals who do wrong. What we seem to have is a system which fines the bank's innocent shareholders.
Well, the shareholders are the owners. So the big ones should be doing something about getting some competent managers in.
Actually what happens is that the shareholders demand that the banks reduce their costs and increase the return on capital. The banks then cut back on the very areas which are needed to control the traders and others who do the misbehaving rather than investing in the systems/people needed to keep them under control and you get into a vicious spiral.
Banks never invest properly in what's needed when the money rolls in; the money rolling in attracts all sorts of undesirables; the money keeps rolling in; everyone thinks they've discovered a risk-free way of making money; this is the point when people start saying things like "It's a new paradigm." Or "This time it's different." (This is the point when you take your money out of the bank.) No-one wants to stop what they think is a virtuous cycle. No-one listens to those internally crying "Whoa". Then it all goes horribly wrong. Banks get fined. People leave. Banks are then left in a position where they need to earn money to pay fines and to remedy all the stuff that needs to be put right and to keep shareholders happy but they've pissed it all away on undeserving staff. They try and cut costs and, like most entities doing this under pressure, usually make a hash of it. But this is not uncovered until the next time the brown substance hits the proverbial fan. And so it goes......
*ahem*
*ahem* back. I know this doesn't apply to all banks......
The sharp swings in the subsidiary questions from Ed Miliband to David Cameron might be an indication that this poll is an outlier. Alternatively, the public might have recently taken a still more negative view of Ed Miliband. Take your pick.
I always thought Paisley was quite nice, having an Abbey and all that. Then I went there...
Much of Paisley's problems are to do with the most deprived community in Scotland - Ferguslie Park - being within 5 minutes walk of the town centre. This significantly effects the whole dynamic of the place.
In Glasgow or Edinburgh you need a bus far to get from the worst parts to the centre.
I'm enjoying catching up on some archive '92 election coverage on Youtube. Only an hour or so in, but so far have observed a couple of interesting points:
- Concerns amongst Labour party of the softness of the vote and final day's switchers in the more private sector employment dominated areas (Midlands, NW) - Turnout up everywhere vs '87, slowing down declarations
I can see both of these happening again, but more convinced of the first. What do others think of likely turnout in May?
Lots of people have fallen off the register. Given how easy it is to register to vote online I suspect that the people who have fallen off the register are mostly those who wouldn't turnout to vote anyway.
Thus I would expect that the percentage turnout will be up. The absolute numbers are harder to guess at, because of the confounding factor of continued population growth.
Interesting mixed findings from Ashcroft for the Conservatives.
The first part suggests their failure to meet their immigration pledge is hurting them. The second suggests that the relentless banging on about the long-term economic plan is starting to get through:
"For the Conservatives, it was the traditional fear that “they’re more interested in the shareholders than the workers”, and their inability to keep the promise on immigration, which cast doubt on future pledges.
What, then, did people make of the Tory mantra of “chaos versus competence”? Neither quite hit the mark, though the Conservatives had the better claim to competence than their rivals. But “chaos” was not quite the fear of Labour. Most struggled to come up with such a pithy description of their own, but for some a theme was beginning to emerge: “the entire battle is about long term solutions versus short term solutions and throwing money at things”."
I always thought Paisley was quite nice, having an Abbey and all that. Then I went there...
Much of Paisley's problems are to do with the most deprived community in Scotland - Ferguslie Park - being within 5 minutes walk of the town centre. This significantly effects the whole dynamic of the place.
In Glasgow or Edinburgh you need a bus far to get from the worst parts to the centre.
I'm enjoying catching up on some archive '92 election coverage on Youtube. Only an hour or so in, but so far have observed a couple of interesting points:
- Concerns amongst Labour party of the softness of the vote and final day's switchers in the more private sector employment dominated areas (Midlands, NW) - Turnout up everywhere vs '87, slowing down declarations
I can see both of these happening again, but more convinced of the first. What do others think of likely turnout in May?
Lots of people have fallen off the register. Given how easy it is to register to vote online I suspect that the people who have fallen off the register are mostly those who wouldn't turnout to vote anyway.
Thus I would expect that the percentage turnout will be up. The absolute numbers are harder to guess at, because of the confounding factor of continued population growth.
I think turnout will be down. There's no enthusiasm for any of the parties.
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.
Labour have a very good chance of winning this seat in my opinion. There's by-election unwind from last time and UKIP seem to have replaced the Tories as Labour's main challengers in Crewe. I'm not sure winning the outer wards will be enough for the Tories to hold the seat.
Survation had Labour 13% ahead in a December 2013 constituency poll.
Crewe and Nantwich is a traditional belwether seat, but the Conservatives do have a 12% majority. If Labour win this seat, they'll have won an overall majority.
I am sure if Ed is so serious about clamping down on these evil tax avoiders he will be instructing his party to repay that loan off in full immediately?
226-250 seats isn't a bad price at all at 10-1 actually, taken a tenner of that.
In fact if you think about it
276.5+ is the under/over at 5-6 and
251-275 is 5-2,
With 225-250 at 10-1
That's a 92% book
Odds of getting precisely 276 must be slim 1/50 and sub 224 looks unrealistic too, Labour aren't doing THAT badly in the polls.
Labour currently on 257
Lose 35 to SNP - possible = 222.
Win 20 from LDs = 242
Game on for sub 250...
Leaving aside Scottish Lib Dem seats as now likely to be won by the SNP, the 11th Lib Dem seat on Labour's target list is Bermondsey & Old Southwark, currently held by Simon Hughes with a majority of 19%. I don't think Labour have much chance of picking up 20 seats from the Lib Dems.
I always thought Paisley was quite nice, having an Abbey and all that. Then I went there...
Much of Paisley's problems are to do with the most deprived community in Scotland - Ferguslie Park - being within 5 minutes walk of the town centre. This significantly effects the whole dynamic of the place.
In Glasgow or Edinburgh you need a bus far to get from the worst parts to the centre.
I am sure if Ed is so serious about clamping down on these evil tax avoiders he will be instructing his party to repay that loan off in full immediately?
Somehow, I think he's only bothered about the Evil Tory ones. Labour tax avoidance is good.
And besides, this is all about making lots of noise, without really doing anything.
We can add Guernsey to the list of territories not impressed with Ed:
We will await Ed Miliband’s letter with interest. We have held a number of meetings with Labour’s shadow team over the past two years, and those meetings have indicated a greater level of understanding of Guernsey’s track record on tax transparency than is reflected in today’s media coverage,’
I always thought Paisley was quite nice, having an Abbey and all that. Then I went there...
Much of Paisley's problems are to do with the most deprived community in Scotland - Ferguslie Park - being within 5 minutes walk of the town centre. This significantly effects the whole dynamic of the place.
In Glasgow or Edinburgh you need a bus far to get from the worst parts to the centre.
I always thought Paisley was quite nice, having an Abbey and all that. Then I went there...
It once was a very very nice place but recent years it has got quite a reputation. Why they vote in such a loser as Alexander for so many years is hard to understand.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 13m13 minutes ago I'm hearing that there's another Scottish poll coming out overnight. Surprised I've not seen any Tweets yet about it.
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.
Texas? Montana? Virginia?
Your point?
We probably disagree, but I don't view any of those places as "backward neofeudal kleptocracies"
Comments
"Kinnockisation."
That's unfair... on Kinnock.
I quite liked Kinnock; he had the guts to take on Militant. I can't imagine Ed taking on anyone.
I have this awful vision of a high level International meeting where Ed runs out sobbing because the others are being mean to him.
Think-back question please. Has any leader won an election from Miliband's current -ve rating? Those just look like 'loser' to me. Or am I missing something? Serious question any answers welcome please, there's money at stake
You won't want to miss that.
Airdrie & Shotts and Motherwell and Wishaw not on the projected SNP gains from Labour in amongst that lot I got off electoral calculus...
Going to give the Lib Dems Cambridge too...
Con 277
Lab 274
Lib Dem 28
UKIP 3
SNP 48
Plaid 2
NI 18
Turned out to be as much a Pyrrhic victory as Hannibal's at Cannae.
twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/564039676294885376/photo/1
If the current polling is anything to go by, we could see
1) Some huge swings against Lab
2) Some big swings from Lab to Con, which will get UNS'd
I doubt whether his englishmen would let him, in fact.
Take a look at the Scottish supplementaries for Ed Miliband
Thing is, when you're betting you're trying to see the whole picture aren't you, watching for the micros that signal the macro? How's Miliband going to become PM from this kind of negativity and pummelling?
'Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin'?
(Not sure about Cameron 2014: he's not been in opposition has he?)
Gtg. Will try to be back later.
Note also how many 'English' Labour MPs are Scottish.
Con Gain Bootle 100-1
Worth £100 to win £10,000 ?!
Badly.
They're not going to happen are they ?
There's more chance of Dan Hodges saying something nice about Ed Miliband than the Tories gaining Bootle.
"Ed took on Murdoch."
Only when Murdoch had expelled him from his gang. Once the big boys had knocked him down, he ran in and slapped him, and later tried to be bestest mates with him again.
How about that big bully, McClusky? Or Rotherham council? No problem having a go at tax evaders - they're safely out the country.
We may be being unfair, but appearance is all in politics.
"Move over, Tristam, let me have a go at those nuns."
Watch him. Speaking. Walking
There's your answer.
*kiss*
121 Upvotes on my comment regarding Ed now
My reading of recent comedy is that the comedians are really turning on Miliband now. I think they sense they don't have long left for jokes at his expense.
To his friends ... tell them when they are wrong. To his enemies .. come and have a go if you think you're hard enough.
Cameron's not much better, but compared to Ed, he's a man of steel.
Crick's heading to Paisley !
Don't want to be a part pooper but this is just ONE poll. Let's wait till we have a raft of polls from diverse polling organisations.
Anyway, I'll just get my coat and leave for now to allow the rather bizarre group of PB Tories to continue their celebrations...
I wouldn't want to be him going all Jeremy Paxman on Mhairi Black.
I think Miliband's sunk. He can't make it to Number Ten without an advantage from 2010 Liberal Democrat voters and he is losing that. He will lose seats and votes to the SNP, lots of votes to UKIP and Cameron is attracting about as many ex-Lib Dems.
He won't win 250 seats.
If I were Ed's campaign manager, he'd be coming home late with his face rearranged. "Don't worry, Justine, I've just given that Eric Joyce a Glasgow kiss."
Other stereotypes are available.
I suspect he'd win a majority.
- Concerns amongst Labour party of the softness of the vote and final day's switchers in the more private sector employment dominated areas (Midlands, NW)
- Turnout up everywhere vs '87, slowing down declarations
I can see both of these happening again, but more convinced of the first. What do others think of likely turnout in May?
I can't help but think that's unhealthy - and probably a very good reason for the SNP preferring to stand on the sidelines with an S&C at best with Labour.
How would Holyrood 16 play if both were in government at the same time? S&C would mean they could get most of the concessions that they wanted plus *still* bitch and whine about the government.
Con 300
Lab 242
Lib Dem 38
UKIP 3
SNP 48
Plaid 2
NI 18
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/09/hsbc-files-richard-caring-2million-cash-withdrawal
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/11367303/Owner-of-ex-PMs-Blair-Force-One-jet-revealed-as-former-Labour-donor.html
Survation had Labour 13% ahead in a December 2013 constituency poll.
In fact if you think about it
276.5+ is the under/over at 5-6 and
251-275 is 5-2,
With 225-250 at 10-1
That's a 92% book
Odds of getting precisely 276 must be slim 1/50 and sub 224 looks unrealistic too, Labour aren't doing THAT badly in the polls.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/09/wiltshire-police-apologise-details-charlie-hebdo-readers
Glad that they have quickly admitted it was a mistake.
In Glasgow or Edinburgh you need a bus far to get from the worst parts to the centre.
Thus I would expect that the percentage turnout will be up. The absolute numbers are harder to guess at, because of the confounding factor of continued population growth.
The first part suggests their failure to meet their immigration pledge is hurting them. The second suggests that the relentless banging on about the long-term economic plan is starting to get through:
"For the Conservatives, it was the traditional fear that “they’re more interested in the shareholders than the workers”, and their inability to keep the promise on immigration, which cast doubt on future pledges.
What, then, did people make of the Tory mantra of “chaos versus competence”? Neither quite hit the mark, though the Conservatives had the better claim to competence than their rivals. But “chaos” was not quite the fear of Labour. Most struggled to come up with such a pithy description of their own, but for some a theme was beginning to emerge: “the entire battle is about long term solutions versus short term solutions and throwing money at things”."
Lose 35 to SNP - possible = 222.
Win 20 from LDs = 242
Game on for sub 250...
Both unprovoked.
Both in Paisley.
Farage: Pint of bitter
The PM: a good and full bodied red wine, a G&T or James Bond's Vesper martinii
Nick Clegg: a Babycham or a Woo-Woo (cocktail with vodka, peach schnapps and cranberry).
EdM: Creme de menthe (ugh!!) or a Bloody Mary or just a tomato juice.
And besides, this is all about making lots of noise, without really doing anything.
We will await Ed Miliband’s letter with interest. We have held a number of meetings with Labour’s shadow team over the past two years, and those meetings have indicated a greater level of understanding of Guernsey’s track record on tax transparency than is reflected in today’s media coverage,’
http://guernseypress.com/news/2015/02/09/guernsey-hits-back-over-labour-blacklist-threat/
Yeah that sweet sherry's a real bl**dy Miliband...
I'm hearing that there's another Scottish poll coming out overnight. Surprised I've not seen any Tweets yet about it.