politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why relatively small movements amongst just 1% of likely vo

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why relatively small movements amongst just 1% of likely voters on May 7th can mean so much in terms of the GE15 outcome

Looking at the GB electorate as a whole the total of voters who have moved from. LAB to the SNP in Scotland amount to fewer than 1% yet the impact in terms of seats can be enormous which is why Scottish polls are so significant.

Read the full story here

Indigo

First!

Indigo

The same would be true if you looked at any small selection of seats and spoke about it in terms of a national swing, I am not sure it really says a lot, because a swing of 1% nationally for a party that only competes in 59 seats in equivalent to a local swing of 1%/59x650= 11% in that small set of seats

A 1% National swing to Mebyon Kernow from any party would give them all the six seats they stand in (1%/6x650 = 108% swing)

Indigo

Seems the Greeks hold a rather different view of their virtues than the rest of the EU.

Greeks are the most hardworking & trustworthy in the EU, say Greeks. Others say they are lazy & untrustworthy.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-LnmsCCMAAQ2c0.png

Indigo

Usual doom and gloom in todays AEP article in the Telegraph, but this bit rather caught my eye, is it true ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/11421500/ECB-risks-crippling-political-damage-if-Greece-forced-to-default.html

The Target2 "debts" owed by Greece's central bank to the ECB jumped to €49bn in December as capital flight accelerated on fears of a Syriza victory. They may have reached €65bn or €70bn by now.

A Greek default - unavoidable in a Grexit scenario - would crystallize these losses. The German people would discover instantly that a large sum of money committed without their knowledge and without a vote in the Bundestag had vanished.

Mr Dor says a Greek default would reach €287bn if all forms of debt are included: Target2, ECB's holdings of Greek bonds, bilateral loans and loans from the bail-out fund (EFSF).

Purseybear

Statistical academic backing for Peter Oborne's claims -
http://blogs.kcl.ac.uk/policywonkers/was-peter-oborne-right-about-the-telegraphs-coverage-of-the-hsbc-scandal/

On Scotland given size of Labour majorities I'm punting a halfway house. SNP flatter to deceive and looks like SLAB are nudging back in so reckon they will lose some tho' not the wipeout some said a fortnight back.

Scotland cld be an intriguing sideshow & only Westminster main stage if we get to LAB-SNP coalition territory. I'm moving away from that & LAB MAJ at moment.

Purseybear

Someone said something y'day re votes not counting. I don't see it like that. The local constituency system means every vote does count. You get to elect your member of parliament & there's a face to a name with accountability. I cherish that.
Wider still there's always a feeling that you've added your vote to the national picture regardless of whether it 'decides' the actual outcome. Decry that & you've decried democracy.

Indigo

Purseybear said:

Someone said something y'day re votes not counting. I don't see it like that. The local constituency system means every vote does count. You get to elect your member of parliament & there's a face to a name with accountability. I cherish that.
Wider still there's always a feeling that you've added your vote to the national picture regardless of whether it 'decides' the actual outcome. Decry that & you've decried democracy.

I think its more "vote's not counting" in the Proportional Representation sense of the word, there are whole rafts of voters who if they stayed at home, or voted OMRLP wouldn't change the outcome of the election one jot. I grew up, and first voted in the Chichester Constituency, where Andrew Tyrie has been there for 20 years, and Anthony Nelson before him since Wilson's government, and its been a Conservative seat since before universal suffrage in 1918 (except of a year with the Liberals during the ill fated Baldwin government in 1923). I don't think there has been less than a 9,000 majority since the war. Most people there think their voters are wasted, but being good Tories go out and vote anyway!

OldKingCole

Indigo said:

Purseybear said:

Someone said something y'day re votes not counting. I don't see it like that. The local constituency system means every vote does count. You get to elect your member of parliament & there's a face to a name with accountability. I cherish that.
Wider still there's always a feeling that you've added your vote to the national picture regardless of whether it 'decides' the actual outcome. Decry that & you've decried democracy.

I think its more "vote's not counting" in the Proportional Representation sense of the word, there are whole rafts of voters who if they stayed at home, or voted OMRLP wouldn't change the outcome of the election one jot. I grew up, and first voted in the Chichester Constituency, where Andrew Tyrie has been there for 20 years, and Anthony Nelson before him since Wilson's government, and its been a Conservative seat since before universal suffrage in 1918 (except of a year with the Liberals during the ill fated Baldwin government in 1923). I don't think there has been less than a 9,000 majority since the war. Most people there think their voters are wasted, but being good Tories go out and vote anyway!

Since about the ’70’s the Lib/LD’s have usually been second, too. Result is that while “opposition” supporters are willing to ask help from “their” MP’s on specific questions they ternd to feel, I suspect, that they are not going to get the same degree of support they would if they were a known supporter.

Indigo

I'll just leave this here
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/11419428/Watch-Saudi-cleric-tells-students-Earth-does-not-rotate.html

GeoffM

Purseybear said:

Someone said something y'day re votes not counting. I don't see it like that. The local constituency system means every vote does count. You get to elect your member of parliament & there's a face to a name with accountability. I cherish that.
Wider still there's always a feeling that you've added your vote to the national picture regardless of whether it 'decides' the actual outcome. Decry that & you've decried democracy.

It's just a tedious phrase trotted out by one-eyed people who haven't got to the Acceptance stage of their loss in the referendum.

For me it's one of the useful trigger hints to just skim over the rest of that comment.

JohnLilburne

As Scotland and England & Wales are so different, wouldn't it be better if pollsters had bigger Scottish subsamples? Rather than 2,000 across E&W, YouGov should try to get 1,000 in Scotland and 1,000 in E&W. Surely this would give the GB polls greater validity?

chestnut

From Survation Data Tables;

SNP pick up more No voters than Labour pick up Yes.

The die is cast.

Casino_Royale

Why can't Labour just be a good boy and die?

Indigo

GeoffM said:

Purseybear said:

Someone said something y'day re votes not counting. I don't see it like that. The local constituency system means every vote does count. You get to elect your member of parliament & there's a face to a name with accountability. I cherish that.
Wider still there's always a feeling that you've added your vote to the national picture regardless of whether it 'decides' the actual outcome. Decry that & you've decried democracy.

It's just a tedious phrase trotted out by one-eyed people who haven't got to the Acceptance stage of their loss in the referendum.

For me it's one of the useful trigger hints to just skim over the rest of that comment.

AV wouldn't have made anything any better. The LD's like it because they thought they would be most people's second vote, or would have been before UKIP/Green came along.

OldKingCole

Indigo said:

GeoffM said:

Purseybear said:

Someone said something y'day re votes not counting. I don't see it like that. The local constituency system means every vote does count. You get to elect your member of parliament & there's a face to a name with accountability. I cherish that.
Wider still there's always a feeling that you've added your vote to the national picture regardless of whether it 'decides' the actual outcome. Decry that & you've decried democracy.

It's just a tedious phrase trotted out by one-eyed people who haven't got to the Acceptance stage of their loss in the referendum.

For me it's one of the useful trigger hints to just skim over the rest of that comment.

AV wouldn't have made anything any better. The LD's like it because they thought they would be most people's second vote, or would have been before UKIP/Green came along.

The LD’s don’t like AV. It was very much a second choice because it was all that the Tories, who have, especially since WWII, had disproportionate benefits from FPTP would concede. It may be that in May, when the Tories get fewer seats that would have been expected from their vote share that they’ll think again, although I’m not optimistic.

It would, IMHO and with the benefit of hindsight, to have gone for PR in local elections which would get rid of one-party local governments. The benefits would have rapidly become obvious and the demand for it at National level irresistable.

Indigo

OldKingCole said:

It would, IMHO and with the benefit of hindsight, to have gone for PR in local elections which would get rid of one-party local governments. The benefits would have rapidly become obvious and the demand for it at National level irresistable.

I would definitely go along with that, although I can imagine the drama it would cause right now. Most councils would suddenly have 3-4 Kippers on them and 1-2 Greens. There would be a whole raft of "no platform" crap, and different groups refusing to sit with or work with other groups. It would require an update of the rules and laws covering local government procedure to give a stiff kick up the backside to anyone that doesn't play nicely with the other kids, and to stop the dominant party moving all important decisions to committees they control, or a cabinet full of the supporters and useful idiots.

Charles

One thought just struck me (I know @SeanT has suggested it before).

If there is an inconclusive result in the GE with a 3 party coalition/C&S needed, I think everyone agrees it will be unstable.

However, if Labour loses Scotland (which would seem to be a precondition for the inconclusive election result) then I'd imagine they will be in complete turmoil - it would be the Tories losing Buckinghamshire. EdM is going to come under huge pressure. Money aside, are they actually going to be in a position to fight another election mentally?

If so, doesn't that increase the probability of the other parties trying a Wilson (Fixed Term Parliament aside)?

NickPalmer

Indigo said:

OldKingCole said:

It would, IMHO and with the benefit of hindsight, to have gone for PR in local elections which would get rid of one-party local governments. The benefits would have rapidly become obvious and the demand for it at National level irresistable.

I would definitely go along with that, although I can imagine the drama it would cause right now. Most councils would suddenly have 3-4 Kippers on them and 1-2 Greens. There would be a whole raft of "no platform" crap, and different groups refusing to sit with or work with other groups. It would require an update of the rules and laws covering local government procedure to give a stiff kick up the backside to anyone that doesn't play nicely with the other kids, and to stop the dominant party moving all important decisions to committees they control, or a cabinet full of the supporters and useful idiots.

I'd vote for PR locally (and nationally for that matter). We've been living with a hung council in Broxtowe for ages, and have the only one in Britain with all three main parties on the Cabinet. There is a certain amount of squabbling and credit-claiming, but on the whole they jointly chew over local issues with an eye on the results rather than party advantage, and when a councillor has personal difficulties the others generally don't take advantage of them - the general feeling is that they're in the same boat and most issues aren't really that party political. At election time the squabble level increases, but nobody burns any boats. We had a BNP councillor for a while, and lived with that too without any fireworks in council (she later fell out with her party big time).

malcolmg

Nice to see that Scottish subsamples are now being used as gospel on here , as long as they are anti SNP of course. It really is a joke on here now and we are back to the usual loons predicting a Tory surge etc. Previous thread with a few exceptions was just guff by people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about.

JohnO

NickPalmer said:

Indigo said:

OldKingCole said:

It would, IMHO and with the benefit of hindsight, to have gone for PR in local elections which would get rid of one-party local governments. The benefits would have rapidly become obvious and the demand for it at National level irresistable.

I would definitely go along with that, although I can imagine the drama it would cause right now. Most councils would suddenly have 3-4 Kippers on them and 1-2 Greens. There would be a whole raft of "no platform" crap, and different groups refusing to sit with or work with other groups. It would require an update of the rules and laws covering local government procedure to give a stiff kick up the backside to anyone that doesn't play nicely with the other kids, and to stop the dominant party moving all important decisions to committees they control, or a cabinet full of the supporters and useful idiots.

I'd vote for PR locally (and nationally for that matter). We've been living with a hung council in Broxtowe for ages, and have the only one in Britain with all three main parties on the Cabinet. There is a certain amount of squabbling and credit-claiming, but on the whole they jointly chew over local issues with an eye on the results rather than party advantage, and when a councillor has personal difficulties the others generally don't take advantage of them - the general feeling is that they're in the same boat and most issues aren't really that party political. At election time the squabble level increases, but nobody burns any boats. We had a BNP councillor for a while, and lived with that too without any fireworks in council (she later fell out with her party big time).

Just out of interest, when did the Conservatives join the Broxtowe Cabinet - I was under the impression from your previous posts that the Borough was adminstered by a Lab-Lib coaltion?

Roger

I don't want to sound like audreyanne with all those algorithms going on in her head but I'm confident Labour will be closer to the SNP by May if they aren't already. There's a lot of inconsistency between pollsters which there wasn't during the referendum and whereas then people were aware that it was close with NO just ahead those I speak to now seem less in agreement with the polls.

I dont understand the graph above. What do the figures at the bottom titled SNP lead over Labour (% vote) relate to?

malcolmg

Look at the difference when you read a real newspaper, even a unionist one.
SNP holds firm as Murphy struggles to make headway for Labour
A new poll suggests the SNP is still on course to make gains in the General Election as Jim Murphy's leadership of Scottish Labour appears to have so far failed to revive its popularity among voters.
Nicola Sturgeon's party continues to ride high, with 45 per cent of people polled by Survation backing the Nationalists, down one point on a similar survey it conducted last month.

Labour's support was up two points to 28 per cent despite high profile campaigns by Jim Murphy on oil, hospital waiting times and allowing alcohol at football matches.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/poll-snp-holds-firm-as-murphy-struggles-to-make-headway-for-labour.1424299044

Pulpstar

Roger said:

I don't want to sound like audreyanne with all those algorithms going on in her head but I'm confident Labour will be closer to the SNP by May if they aren't already. There's a lot of inconsistency between pollsters which there wasn't during the referendum which suggests things in flux.

I dont understand the graph above. What do the figures at the bottom titled SNP lead over Labour (% vote) relate to?

If you've placed Labour bets in Aberdeen and Edinburgh then you'll want both the "South" seats. Kincardine and Edi East are surely gonners.

You have half a chance with Edinburgh South and Aberdeen South...

SquareRoot

malcolmg said:

Nice to see that Scottish subsamples are now being used as gospel on here , as long as they are anti SNP of course. It really is a joke on here now and we are back to the usual loons predicting a Tory surge etc. Previous thread with a few exceptions was just guff by people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about.

More turniptalk from malcolmg.

Theuniondivvie

Roger said:

There's a lot of inconsistency between pollsters which there wasn't during the referendum and whereas then people were aware that it was close with NO just ahead those I speak to now seem less in agreement with the polls.

I dont understand the graph above. What do the figures at the bottom titled SNP lead over Labour (% vote) relate to?

There wasn't inconsistency in the Indy polling? Well I never.

The graph refers to the split of seats dependent on the size of the SNP's % lead.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. Indigo, cheers for that amusing table.

F1: test should be underway by now, no BBC livefeed as yet.

CarlottaVance

malcolmg said:

Previous thread with a few exceptions was just guff by people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about.

Oh omniscient one - why not share your prediction for number of SNP seats?

Will you be brave enough to make a prediction, after your catastrophic referendum campaign?

Will you be as 'brave' as "comical" James Kelly, late of this parish, on 53 for the SNP?

Will you be brave enough to post at all?

Or are you just all mouth and no trousers?

Roger

Union Divvie

Thanks


Pulpstar

"You have half a chance with Edinburgh South and Aberdeen South..."

I hope I have more than half a chance with Edinburgh South. They're odds on favourites.

Pulpstar

Cons (Avg) 284.34
Lab (Avg) 280.71
Lib Dem (Avg) 27.31
UKIP (Avg) 4.48
Green (Avg) 0.99
SNP (Avg) 32.86

CarlottaVance

Theuniondivvie said:

Roger said:

There's a lot of inconsistency between pollsters which there wasn't during the referendum and whereas then people were aware that it was close with NO just ahead those I speak to now seem less in agreement with the polls.

I dont understand the graph above. What do the figures at the bottom titled SNP lead over Labour (% vote) relate to?

There wasn't inconsistency in the Indy polling? Well I never.

Ask the Canadians.......

malcolmg

SquareRoot said:

malcolmg said:

Nice to see that Scottish subsamples are now being used as gospel on here , as long as they are anti SNP of course. It really is a joke on here now and we are back to the usual loons predicting a Tory surge etc. Previous thread with a few exceptions was just guff by people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about.

More turniptalk from malcolmg.

Always one in the swamp

CD13

Dr P,

I know it's a naive question but why are councillors politically active? You'll also remember when we had lots of independents (usually conservative with a small c). I can see why the Greens are there - they can ban meat and industry from the area - but most of council work is apolitical. I suppose the real question is why do people vote for political parties in council elections? I'd rather have an efficient councillor (even a Green) than a party animal.

It helps with the careerists; you can't become an MP unless you're a Spad or councillor now, but it's no use to the constituents. Here, we have a permanent Labour council and as always, it's the highly political sort who are put forward as candidates.

Do donkeys need a rosette?

CarlottaVance

Roger said:

I don't want to sound like audreyanne with all those algorithms going on in her head but I'm confident Labour will be closer to the SNP by May if they aren't already.

I don't think we're really seeing any movement yet - and unless they significantly raise their game from the absolutely dire PPB with Jim Murphy we won't either. Yes, there is often a reversion to 'the establishment' as polling day draws nearer - but in Scotland the SNP are 'the establishment'.....

malcolmg

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Previous thread with a few exceptions was just guff by people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about.

Oh omniscient one - why not share your prediction for number of SNP seats?

Will you be brave enough to make a prediction, after your catastrophic referendum campaign?

Will you be as 'brave' as "comical" James Kelly, late of this parish, on 53 for the SNP?

Will you be brave enough to post at all?

Or are you just all mouth and no trousers?

Unlike idiots such as yourself I do not claim to be an expert or have a crystal ball. What will be will be , I leave you to continue to make an absolute idiot of yourself , whinging and whining because you hate Scotland. Keep faking the info.

Morris_Dancer

F1: Sky's got a livefeed up, for those wanting to follow things.

Returning to Mr. Indigo's excellent comedy table, there are a few interesting bits. As well as the British wisely distrusting the French, Germany has a great reputation at the moment. Those distrusted seem to those at the worse end of the eurozone (lot sof negativity for Italy and Greece, mostly the later).

Greeks viewing themselves as most trustworthy and hardworking (everyone else of the 10 or so other countries pick Germany for both) could help result in a very ugly turn in the public mood if Tsipras doesn't effectively win the negotiations, as hard reality crashes into Greek, er, optimism.

Of course, Tsipras could yet win. We shall see.

CarlottaVance

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Previous thread with a few exceptions was just guff by people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about.

Oh omniscient one - why not share your prediction for number of SNP seats?

Will you be brave enough to make a prediction, after your catastrophic referendum campaign?

Will you be as 'brave' as "comical" James Kelly, late of this parish, on 53 for the SNP?

Will you be brave enough to post at all?

Or are you just all mouth and no trousers?

Unlike idiots such as yourself I do not claim to be an expert or have a crystal ball. What will be will be , I leave you to continue to make an absolute idiot of yourself , whinging and whining because you hate Scotland. Keep faking the info.

All mouth and no trousers - no 'Brave' heart you.....nor do you have the courage of your splenetic convictions.....

BenM

Another day, another clear Labour lead in YouGov. The tiniest of green shoots in Scotland.

And still the Tories slumber towards what for them would be a catastrophic defeat in May.

Who is asking the tough questions of the floundering Conservative Party? Too many pom poms there, not enough soul searching.

eek

Morris_Dancer said:

F1: Sky's got a livefeed up, for those wanting to follow things.

Returning to Mr. Indigo's excellent comedy table, there are a few interesting bits. As well as the British wisely distrusting the French, Germany has a great reputation at the moment. Those distrusted seem to those at the worse end of the eurozone (lot sof negativity for Italy and Greece, mostly the later).

Greeks viewing themselves as most trustworthy and hardworking (everyone else of the 10 or so other countries pick Germany for both) could help result in a very ugly turn in the public mood if Tsipras doesn't effectively win the negotiations, as hard reality crashes into Greek, er, optimism.

Of course, Tsipras could yet win. We shall see.

The question is does Germany want to enter the great unknown or kick the ball a bit further down the road. Greece seems quite happy to weather the consequences of either result (the public will just blame Germany if things go utterly disastrous...

malcolmg

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Previous thread with a few exceptions was just guff by people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about.

Oh omniscient one - why not share your prediction for number of SNP seats?

Will you be brave enough to make a prediction, after your catastrophic referendum campaign?

Will you be as 'brave' as "comical" James Kelly, late of this parish, on 53 for the SNP?

Will you be brave enough to post at all?

Or are you just all mouth and no trousers?

Unlike idiots such as yourself I do not claim to be an expert or have a crystal ball. What will be will be , I leave you to continue to make an absolute idiot of yourself , whinging and whining because you hate Scotland. Keep faking the info.

All mouth and no trousers - no 'Brave' heart you.....nor do you have the courage of your splenetic convictions.....

So put your money where your mouth is , frame a bet and let us see who is all mouth

RobD

BenM said:

Another day, another clear Labour lead in YouGov. The tiniest of green shoots in Scotland.

And still the Tories slumber towards what for them would be a catastrophic defeat in May.

Who is asking the tough questions of the floundering Conservative Party? Too many pom poms there, not enough soul searching.

1997 was a catastrophic defeat. I don't think the Tories are going to end up with ~150 seats.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Eek, but the Greek situation can't be considered by itself. If they got soft treatment (leaving aside the moral aspect of racking up huge debts and then not paying them back) then it'd encourage Spaniards to vote Podemas[sp] and perhaps Italians to vote for Grillo.

Indigo

This is starting to look very messy, no smoking gun yet, but the mood music doesn't sound good.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02/18/labour-baroness-repaid-125k-expenses-with-muslim-brotherhood-loan/
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02/11/labour-party-linked-with-european-branch-of-hamas/

philiph

On topic, I think there are two other groups of seats that have a similar impact on the election from a tiny percentage of the electorate. The difference is they are not so geographically homogeneous.

Group 1 60 odd LibDem seats
Group 2 60 odd Lab Con and Con Lab marginals

OldKingCole

Morris_Dancer said:

F1: Sky's got a livefeed up, for those wanting to follow things.

Returning to Mr. Indigo's excellent comedy table, there are a few interesting bits. As well as the British wisely distrusting the French, Germany has a great reputation at the moment. Those distrusted seem to those at the worse end of the eurozone (lot sof negativity for Italy and Greece, mostly the later).

Greeks viewing themselves as most trustworthy and hardworking (everyone else of the 10 or so other countries pick Germany for both) could help result in a very ugly turn in the public mood if Tsipras doesn't effectively win the negotiations, as hard reality crashes into Greek, er, optimism.

Of course, Tsipras could yet win. We shall see.

What also surprises me about that table is the high regard the Poles appear to have for the Germans.

Charles

I've just had a really depressing email.

A Jewish contact of mine has just emailed to say he is changing his surname to his wife's maiden name (which is Anglo-Saxon rather than Yiddish) because he's worried about his kids' safety.

Has it really come to this?

Theuniondivvie

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Previous thread with a few exceptions was just guff by people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about.

Oh omniscient one - why not share your prediction for number of SNP seats?

Will you be brave enough to make a prediction, after your catastrophic referendum campaign?

Will you be as 'brave' as "comical" James Kelly, late of this parish, on 53 for the SNP?

Will you be brave enough to post at all?

Or are you just all mouth and no trousers?

I'm sad to see you're unable to kick the habit of lurking shiftily around Nat websites.

What is your prediction as a matter of interest? Wouldn't want to think you're someone who (only) snipes impotently from the sidelines.

OblitusSumMe

BenM said:

Another day, another clear Labour lead in YouGov. The tiniest of green shoots in Scotland.

And still the Tories slumber towards what for them would be a catastrophic defeat in May.

Who is asking the tough questions of the floundering Conservative Party? Too many pom poms there, not enough soul searching.

The election is 11 weeks away. It is too late, and too early, for any soul-searching.

Both sides are committed to their course (whether they like it or not), and the Tories are holding tight to their established strategy, hoping for a Budget boost. At this stage of the battle "maintenance of aim" is an important principle and it is the time to hold one's nerve.

If the Tories do lose the election in May it will be because of mistakes made in earlier years, not for the lack of a sudden u-turn during the campaign.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Charles, that's very sad.

When we back down on matters like depicting Mohammed because that's what maniacs with guns want* we're also doing the bidding of the pathologically anti-Semitic [not that a second reason is needed to argue against letting murderers dictate freedom of the press/speech].

It'd be nice to have a party advocating a First Amendment style law, instead of the current trend across major parties to try and curb freedom of speech as much as possible.

*Easy for me to say, I know. I'm not a cartoonist.

Edited extra bit: King Cole, indeed. It seems citizens of various countries in Europe are generally better at getting along than in the past, with the notable exception of the extreme [including those who have extreme views but don't act on them] Muslim fringe.

Edited extra bit two: And the lunatic fringe's problem isn't with country X or country Y, it's against the West generally (and Jews in particular).

Roger

Carlotta

Do you know where I could get to see the Murphy PPB?

philiph

Charles said:

I've just had a really depressing email.

A Jewish contact of mine has just emailed to say he is changing his surname to his wife's maiden name (which is Anglo-Saxon rather than Yiddish) because he's worried about his kids' safety.

Has it really come to this?

That is a sad reflection of society

FalseFlag

Charles said:

I've just had a really depressing email.

A Jewish contact of mine has just emailed to say he is changing his surname to his wife's maiden name (which is Anglo-Saxon rather than Yiddish) because he's worried about his kids' safety.

Has it really come to this?

Would that work in Gaza?

RobD

Roger said:

Carlotta

Do you know where I could get to see the Murphy PPB?

I think there was a link to it on the previous comment thread.

SquareRoot

malcolmg said:

SquareRoot said:

malcolmg said:

Nice to see that Scottish subsamples are now being used as gospel on here , as long as they are anti SNP of course. It really is a joke on here now and we are back to the usual loons predicting a Tory surge etc. Previous thread with a few exceptions was just guff by people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about.

More turniptalk from malcolmg.

Always one in the swamp

never imagined you operating from a swamp, but so be it. Its your mouth that needs washing out with carbolic soap.

Charles

FalseFlag said:

Charles said:

I've just had a really depressing email.

A Jewish contact of mine has just emailed to say he is changing his surname to his wife's maiden name (which is Anglo-Saxon rather than Yiddish) because he's worried about his kids' safety.

Has it really come to this?

Would that work in Gaza?

whataboutery

Indigo

RobD said:

Roger said:

Carlotta

Do you know where I could get to see the Murphy PPB?

I think there was a link to it on the previous comment thread.

Mr Dair posted it on the Snotliw thread

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vy-zOmdTw0

CarlottaVance

Roger said:

Carlotta

Do you know where I could get to see the Murphy PPB?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b050gj07/party-political-broadcasts-scottish-labour-party-21012015

Compare & contrast with the Scottish Conservative & Unionist PPB:

http://www.scottishconservatives.com/2015/02/watch-new-peb/

FalseFlag

Charles said:

FalseFlag said:

Charles said:

I've just had a really depressing email.

A Jewish contact of mine has just emailed to say he is changing his surname to his wife's maiden name (which is Anglo-Saxon rather than Yiddish) because he's worried about his kids' safety.

Has it really come to this?

Would that work in Gaza?

whataboutery

Is he worried about Palestinian children and their future?

NickPalmer

CD13 said:

Dr P,

I know it's a naive question but why are councillors politically active? You'll also remember when we had lots of independents (usually conservative with a small c). I can see why the Greens are there - they can ban meat and industry from the area - but most of council work is apolitical. I suppose the real question is why do people vote for political parties in council elections? I'd rather have an efficient councillor (even a Green) than a party animal.

I agree, and would certainly consider voting for someone from another party or none at local level if they seemed good for the area. The problem is the arms race - if other parties are standing for election and will use it for nourishing support (the classic LibDem SOP) and bragging rights, it's difficult for the others not to join in. We even have party contests for some parish council seats, which in my opinion is completely ridiculous, especially when said council struggles to get enough people to fill the numbers.

JohnO said:

Just out of interest, when did the Conservatives join the Broxtowe Cabinet - I was under the impression from your previous posts that the Borough was adminstered by a Lab-Lib coaltion?

Yes, it's slightly complicated. There is an all-party Cabinet (can't remember when it started, but I think a decade ago) so each party gets to take part in the detailed discussions, avoiding the problem that full council meetings in some places to get a fait accompli. However, there is an effective Lab-Lib majority, so if there's a controversial issue then usually that coalition votes their view through. I suppose the most accurate description is that all parties are involved in all discussions but there's a final decision on party lines. Sometimes the LibDems vote with the Tories on something, and it doesn't break the deal.

Anna S has chosen to take on Lab/Lib councillors both collectively and individually, sometimes to the mild embarrassment of local Tories - "You know what she's like", they say, and shrug. A lot of my information on their campaign activities come from casual conversation with councillors, who joined up to do their bit for the community and are indeed vaguely Tory but aren't really on board for full-scale partisan warfare. Conversely, we find we can't keep secrets for long - the cross-party gossip networks are too strong.

I suppose this sort of amiable culture would be undesirable in a crisis, but for everyday discussion of whether building X should be refurbished or library Y should restrict opening hours, it works well and keeps stresses down - most councillors describe their work as interesting though difficult rather than wearying and horrible.

Sean_F

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Charles, that's very sad.

When we back down on matters like depicting Mohammed because that's what maniacs with guns want* we're also doing the bidding of the pathologically anti-Semitic [not that a second reason is needed to argue against letting murderers dictate freedom of the press/speech].

It'd be nice to have a party advocating a First Amendment style law, instead of the current trend across major parties to try and curb freedom of speech as much as possible.

*Easy for me to say, I know. I'm not a cartoonist.

Edited extra bit: King Cole, indeed. It seems citizens of various countries in Europe are generally better at getting along than in the past, with the notable exception of the extreme [including those who have extreme views but don't act on them] Muslim fringe.

Edited extra bit two: And the lunatic fringe's problem isn't with country X or country Y, it's against the West generally (and Jews in particular).

There were some charming comments from the Leader of Preston Council, reported in the Times, to the effect that anti-semitism is something the Jews bring on themselves. This council has taken to flying the Palestinian flag (obviously, every borough needs its own foreign policy).

Morris_Dancer

Mr. F, that's depressing. I hope that leader gets slammed by his/her own party. We'll see if it happens.

It's also very similar to those who blame the cartoonists for exercising their right to free speech/expression for getting murdered by maniacs with machine-guns.

eek

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eek, but the Greek situation can't be considered by itself. If they got soft treatment (leaving aside the moral aspect of racking up huge debts and then not paying them back) then it'd encourage Spaniards to vote Podemas[sp] and perhaps Italians to vote for Grillo.

But that is the game theory that Varoufakis is supposedly so good at. The question for Germany is:-

Extend the loan on Greece's terms (or at least some of them) and keep Greece in the Euro or enter the great unknown and see what happens. Today's escalation is the news that Germany will loss billions if Greece defaults. The problem is that continued austerity isn't going to fix anything and virtually everyone bar the Germans can see that...

chestnut

BenM said:

Another day, another clear Labour lead in YouGov.

The daily Yougov. The trees that hide the wood.

CarlottaVance

Sean_F said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Charles, that's very sad.

When we back down on matters like depicting Mohammed because that's what maniacs with guns want* we're also doing the bidding of the pathologically anti-Semitic [not that a second reason is needed to argue against letting murderers dictate freedom of the press/speech].

It'd be nice to have a party advocating a First Amendment style law, instead of the current trend across major parties to try and curb freedom of speech as much as possible.

*Easy for me to say, I know. I'm not a cartoonist.

Edited extra bit: King Cole, indeed. It seems citizens of various countries in Europe are generally better at getting along than in the past, with the notable exception of the extreme [including those who have extreme views but don't act on them] Muslim fringe.

Edited extra bit two: And the lunatic fringe's problem isn't with country X or country Y, it's against the West generally (and Jews in particular).

There were some charming comments from the Leader of Preston Council, reported in the Times, to the effect that anti-semitism is something the Jews bring on themselves. This council has taken to flying the Palestinian flag (obviously, every borough needs its own foreign policy).

His comments:

“You need to think why this antisemitism is getting worse. It’s because of the actions of the IDF shelling schools and hospitals and killing and maiming thousands of men, women and children.”

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/130128/council-leader-blames-israel-rising-antisemitism

While I doubt he is an anti-semite (his wife & children are Jewish), he's certainly one of their useful idiots.

If only restraint by the IDF would end anti-semitism.....

Pulpstar

Watched "Party Games" last night, all the MPs on there seemed like good eggs, though the game playing by the Gov't and opposition over the EAW was unedifying.

TheWatcher

Charles said:

I've just had a really depressing email.

A Jewish contact of mine has just emailed to say he is changing his surname to his wife's maiden name (which is Anglo-Saxon rather than Yiddish) because he's worried about his kids' safety.

Has it really come to this?

It has when people give in to the perceived threat.

Financier

FalseFlag said:

Charles said:

FalseFlag said:

Charles said:

I've just had a really depressing email.

A Jewish contact of mine has just emailed to say he is changing his surname to his wife's maiden name (which is Anglo-Saxon rather than Yiddish) because he's worried about his kids' safety.

Has it really come to this?

Would that work in Gaza?

whataboutery

Is he worried about Palestinian children and their future?

It is usually (excepting occasions like the Holocaust) children suffer from the sins and biases of the adults.

malcolmg

SquareRoot said:

malcolmg said:

SquareRoot said:

malcolmg said:

Nice to see that Scottish subsamples are now being used as gospel on here , as long as they are anti SNP of course. It really is a joke on here now and we are back to the usual loons predicting a Tory surge etc. Previous thread with a few exceptions was just guff by people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about.

More turniptalk from malcolmg.

Always one in the swamp

never imagined you operating from a swamp, but so be it. Its your mouth that needs washing out with carbolic soap.

LOL, the old ones are the best ones, go to the bottom of the class.

macisback

BenM said:

Another day, another clear Labour lead in YouGov. The tiniest of green shoots in Scotland.

And still the Tories slumber towards what for them would be a catastrophic defeat in May.

Who is asking the tough questions of the floundering Conservative Party? Too many pom poms there, not enough soul searching.

Big John will be happy with that, he will need something to keep his spirits up this weekend, his football team is in for a pasting. You can get 12-1 DCFC 3 Sheff Wed 0

SMICBIPL Stevie Mac is crap back in Premier League.

malcolmg

Theuniondivvie said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Previous thread with a few exceptions was just guff by people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about.

Oh omniscient one - why not share your prediction for number of SNP seats?

Will you be brave enough to make a prediction, after your catastrophic referendum campaign?

Will you be as 'brave' as "comical" James Kelly, late of this parish, on 53 for the SNP?

Will you be brave enough to post at all?

Or are you just all mouth and no trousers?

I'm sad to see you're unable to kick the habit of lurking shiftily around Nat websites.

What is your prediction as a matter of interest? Wouldn't want to think you're someone who (only) snipes impotently from the sidelines.

Should get some embarrassed silence for a time I reckon.

CarlottaVance

malcolmg said:

Theuniondivvie said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Previous thread with a few exceptions was just guff by people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about.

Oh omniscient one - why not share your prediction for number of SNP seats?

Will you be brave enough to make a prediction, after your catastrophic referendum campaign?

Will you be as 'brave' as "comical" James Kelly, late of this parish, on 53 for the SNP?

Will you be brave enough to post at all?

Or are you just all mouth and no trousers?

I'm sad to see you're unable to kick the habit of lurking shiftily around Nat websites.

What is your prediction as a matter of interest? Wouldn't want to think you're someone who (only) snipes impotently from the sidelines.

Should get some embarrassed silence for a time I reckon.

My prediction is there - and has been since yesterday - unlike either of yours!

Another Nat fail..

.....oh, and I found comical James prediction (at least he has the courage of his convictions) by searching for the most deluded optimistic SNP prediction - he's 3 short of the highest.....

Should get some embarrassed silence for a time I reckon.

FrancisUrquhart

CarlottaVance said:

His comments:

“You need to think why this antisemitism is getting worse. It’s because of the actions of the IDF shelling schools and hospitals and killing and maiming thousands of men, women and children.”

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/130128/council-leader-blames-israel-rising-antisemitism

While I doubt he is an anti-semite (his wife & children are Jewish), he's certainly one of their useful idiots.

If only restraint by the IDF would end anti-semitism.....

I thought it very interesting how two similar instances were reported upon. Yesterday, we had the abhorrent story of racist knuckle dragging Chelsea fans in Paris...wall to wall coverage. The day before, we had the Jewish guy in Paris who walked around for 10hrs and filmed himself being abused, some minor coverage, including useful idiot Adrian Chiles. He had the guy on his show and this is what he said,

"Well it was only a few minutes of abuse out of 10hrs, I think I would probably get that much abuse if I walked around Manchester for 10hrs"

"Would you be spat at? Would the abuse by anti-Semitic"

"Well probably not, but it was only a few minutes out of all that time"

"It was edited down, and we didn't capture all of it either because we were using a hidden camera and the microphone had a limited range"..

...then the coverage moved on to if the Jewish guy was "inciting" this reaction by the neighborhoods he visited while wearing the skull cap.

Could you imagine Adrian or another BBC bod saying to the guy on the Paris metro, well I mean it wasn't that bad, he only pushed you a couple of times...didn't you realise that going on the metro at that time would mean you might encounter football fans and you were inciting them...

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Urquhart, reminds me somewhat of the Newsnight disgrace covering the Jesus and Mo cartoons/cartoonist. There was one moment about free speech, the rest was about whether Nawaz (by tweeting a picture or suchlike) should be removed as a Lib Dem candidate, followed by an interrogation by ageing moron Paxman of the cartoonist, where he continually suggested that an atheist should follow the rules of Islam and never once uttered a word in favour of free speech.

Appalling way for a current affairs programme and journalists to view the subject.

Sean_F

On topic, I think there will be a slight shift back to Labour in Scottish polls, enough for a result of something like 33 SNP, 22 Labour, Lib Dem 3, Con 1

Financier

Yesterday, OGH said,"The LDs are on 36% - 9% ahead of the Tories - in the key battlegrounds that they will be defending."

As I am struggling to see how that would come about in relation to the mainly 6%-10% polling GB figures for the LDs, I have been looking back to the 2010 data for each of the GB countries.

Scotland: In 2010 LDs won 11 seats on 18.9% ( 465,471 votes) of the Scotland vote. In those 11seats they had 186,856 votes in total which is 40% of LD vote in Scotland. Of those seats only three: Gordon, Berwickshire and Dumbarton East had a lower constituency share of the vote than 36%.

However, presuming that the turnout in 2015 is the same as 2010, if the LD vote in Scotland is halved (9.5%) in 2015, then the available LD vote for all the Scottish constituencies would be ~233,000. Thus if they kept the same vote for the 11 seats they are defending, then for all the other seats in Scotland they would have just (233,000-186,856) = 46,144 votes.

Is this scenario realistic?

I will give the figures for England and Wales later.

MarqueeMark

Sean_F said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Charles, that's very sad.

When we back down on matters like depicting Mohammed because that's what maniacs with guns want* we're also doing the bidding of the pathologically anti-Semitic [not that a second reason is needed to argue against letting murderers dictate freedom of the press/speech].

It'd be nice to have a party advocating a First Amendment style law, instead of the current trend across major parties to try and curb freedom of speech as much as possible.

*Easy for me to say, I know. I'm not a cartoonist.

Edited extra bit: King Cole, indeed. It seems citizens of various countries in Europe are generally better at getting along than in the past, with the notable exception of the extreme [including those who have extreme views but don't act on them] Muslim fringe.

Edited extra bit two: And the lunatic fringe's problem isn't with country X or country Y, it's against the West generally (and Jews in particular).

There were some charming comments from the Leader of Preston Council, reported in the Times, to the effect that anti-semitism is something the Jews bring on themselves. This council has taken to flying the Palestinian flag (obviously, every borough needs its own foreign policy).

No doubt spurred on by the success of all those CND-inspired towns that declared themselves "Nuclear-free Zones" - and were consequently spared the Soviet bombs.

Although I've always wondered what laws of physics these towns decided to adopt as an alternative? And where did they put all the protons and neutrons?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Mark, more to the point, how did they survive without sunlight for all those years?

CarlottaVance

MarqueeMark said:

Sean_F said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Charles, that's very sad.

When we back down on matters like depicting Mohammed because that's what maniacs with guns want* we're also doing the bidding of the pathologically anti-Semitic [not that a second reason is needed to argue against letting murderers dictate freedom of the press/speech].

It'd be nice to have a party advocating a First Amendment style law, instead of the current trend across major parties to try and curb freedom of speech as much as possible.

*Easy for me to say, I know. I'm not a cartoonist.

Edited extra bit: King Cole, indeed. It seems citizens of various countries in Europe are generally better at getting along than in the past, with the notable exception of the extreme [including those who have extreme views but don't act on them] Muslim fringe.

Edited extra bit two: And the lunatic fringe's problem isn't with country X or country Y, it's against the West generally (and Jews in particular).

There were some charming comments from the Leader of Preston Council, reported in the Times, to the effect that anti-semitism is something the Jews bring on themselves. This council has taken to flying the Palestinian flag (obviously, every borough needs its own foreign policy).

Although I've always wondered what laws of physics these towns decided to adopt as an alternative? And where did they put all the protons and neutrons?

I expect they ban electrons because they are 'negative'.......but they're jolly keen on neutrons......

malcolmg

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Theuniondivvie said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Previous thread with a few exceptions was just guff by people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about.

Oh omniscient one - why not share your prediction for number of SNP seats?

Will you be brave enough to make a prediction, after your catastrophic referendum campaign?

Will you be as 'brave' as "comical" James Kelly, late of this parish, on 53 for the SNP?

Will you be brave enough to post at all?

Or are you just all mouth and no trousers?

I'm sad to see you're unable to kick the habit of lurking shiftily around Nat websites.

What is your prediction as a matter of interest? Wouldn't want to think you're someone who (only) snipes impotently from the sidelines.

Should get some embarrassed silence for a time I reckon.

My prediction is there - and has been since yesterday - unlike either of yours!

Another Nat fail..

.....oh, and I found comical James prediction (at least he has the courage of his convictions) by searching for the most deluded optimistic SNP prediction - he's 3 short of the highest.....

Should get some embarrassed silence for a time I reckon.

Scared to post it again then

Indigo

MarqueeMark said:

Sean_F said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Charles, that's very sad.

When we back down on matters like depicting Mohammed because that's what maniacs with guns want* we're also doing the bidding of the pathologically anti-Semitic [not that a second reason is needed to argue against letting murderers dictate freedom of the press/speech].

It'd be nice to have a party advocating a First Amendment style law, instead of the current trend across major parties to try and curb freedom of speech as much as possible.

*Easy for me to say, I know. I'm not a cartoonist.

Edited extra bit: King Cole, indeed. It seems citizens of various countries in Europe are generally better at getting along than in the past, with the notable exception of the extreme [including those who have extreme views but don't act on them] Muslim fringe.

Edited extra bit two: And the lunatic fringe's problem isn't with country X or country Y, it's against the West generally (and Jews in particular).

There were some charming comments from the Leader of Preston Council, reported in the Times, to the effect that anti-semitism is something the Jews bring on themselves. This council has taken to flying the Palestinian flag (obviously, every borough needs its own foreign policy).

No doubt spurred on by the success of all those CND-inspired towns that declared themselves "Nuclear-free Zones" - and were consequently spared the Soviet bombs.

Although I've always wondered what laws of physics these towns decided to adopt as an alternative? And where did they put all the protons and neutrons?

I have been putting down buckets of custard as Elephant Repellent outside my house, its worked remarkable well so far

Pulpstar

Financier said:

Yesterday, OGH said,"The LDs are on 36% - 9% ahead of the Tories - in the key battlegrounds that they will be defending."

As I am struggling to see how that would come about in relation to the mainly 6%-10% polling GB figures for the LDs, I have been looking back to the 2010 data for each of the GB countries.

Scotland: In 2010 LDs won 11 seats on 18.9% ( 465,471 votes) of the Scotland vote. In those 11seats they had 186,856 votes in total which is 40% of LD vote in Scotland. Of those seats only three: Gordon, Berwickshire and Dumbarton East had a lower constituency share of the vote than 36%.

However, presuming that the turnout in 2015 is the same as 2010, if the LD vote in Scotland is halved (9.5%) in 2015, then the available LD vote for all the Scottish constituencies would be ~233,000. Thus if they kept the same vote for the 11 seats they are defending, then for all the other seats in Scotland they would have just (233,000-186,856) = 46,144 votes.

Is this scenario realistic?

I will give the figures for England and Wales later.

In the 14 seats polled where the Lib Dems don't have current incumbency for Ashcroft they are on an average of 1.92%. That's in the "In your constituency" question. They go from 33% to 4% in Glasgow North.

So I think 2% is a realistic figure for all non incumbent seats to start from with the Lib Dems in Scotland to work from.

TheScreamingEagles

MarqueeMark said:

Sean_F said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Charles, that's very sad.

When we back down on matters like depicting Mohammed because that's what maniacs with guns want* we're also doing the bidding of the pathologically anti-Semitic [not that a second reason is needed to argue against letting murderers dictate freedom of the press/speech].

It'd be nice to have a party advocating a First Amendment style law, instead of the current trend across major parties to try and curb freedom of speech as much as possible.

*Easy for me to say, I know. I'm not a cartoonist.

Edited extra bit: King Cole, indeed. It seems citizens of various countries in Europe are generally better at getting along than in the past, with the notable exception of the extreme [including those who have extreme views but don't act on them] Muslim fringe.

Edited extra bit two: And the lunatic fringe's problem isn't with country X or country Y, it's against the West generally (and Jews in particular).

There were some charming comments from the Leader of Preston Council, reported in the Times, to the effect that anti-semitism is something the Jews bring on themselves. This council has taken to flying the Palestinian flag (obviously, every borough needs its own foreign policy).

No doubt spurred on by the success of all those CND-inspired towns that declared themselves "Nuclear-free Zones" - and were consequently spared the Soviet bombs.

Although I've always wondered what laws of physics these towns decided to adopt as an alternative? And where did they put all the protons and neutrons?

You should never trust atoms, they make everything up.

TheScreamingEagles

On topic, I see Mike has enraged some Nats on twitter.

These are the same Nats, who used to describe a 0.5% swing from no to Yes as significant, but dismiss a 3.5% swing in the last two months as margin of error.

OblitusSumMe

Financier said:

Is this scenario realistic?

You're missing the point of Ashcroft's marginal polling.

The second question shows that - in (non-Scottish) Lib Dem held constituencies - more people say they will vote Lib Dem than do so in response to the first, standard national opinion poll, question.

Thus attempting to reconcile the Ashcroft marginal polling to the national opinion poll numbers is bound to end in failure - because Ashcroft demonstrates the two methods give very different figures for Lib Dem votes in Lib Dem seats.

MarqueeMark

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Mark, more to the point, how did they survive without sunlight for all those years?

Glasgow manages....

Pulpstar

It does help the Lib Dems actually that their vote has collapsed COMPLETELY in some areas:

Motherwell & Wishaw

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Motherwell-Wishaw-Jan-2015-Full-tables.pdf

Literally one man will vote for the Lib Dems there, and his dog is not too sure.

CarlottaVance

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Theuniondivvie said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Previous thread with a few exceptions was just guff by people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about.

Oh omniscient one - why not share your prediction for number of SNP seats?

Will you be brave enough to make a prediction, after your catastrophic referendum campaign?

Will you be as 'brave' as "comical" James Kelly, late of this parish, on 53 for the SNP?

Will you be brave enough to post at all?

Or are you just all mouth and no trousers?

I'm sad to see you're unable to kick the habit of lurking shiftily around Nat websites.

What is your prediction as a matter of interest? Wouldn't want to think you're someone who (only) snipes impotently from the sidelines.

Should get some embarrassed silence for a time I reckon.

My prediction is there - and has been since yesterday - unlike either of yours!

Another Nat fail..

.....oh, and I found comical James prediction (at least he has the courage of his convictions) by searching for the most deluded optimistic SNP prediction - he's 3 short of the highest.....

Should get some embarrassed silence for a time I reckon.

Scared to post it again then

Why should I be scared - you're the one who won't post a prediction - if you had the technical competence you could search for yourself - but evidently its beyond you!

AlastairMeeks

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, I see Mike has enraged some Nats on twitter.

These are the same Nats, who used to describe a 0.5% swing from no to Yes as significant, but dismiss a 3.5% swing in the last two months as margin of error.

In fairness to the Nats, the significant Survation change seems to be a rise in Labour support, while the SNP are holding broadly steady. If the SNP stay at 45% or thereabouts (and there's something vaguely familiar about that percentage), Labour's further capacity for making inroads into the SNP lead is limited.

Pulpstar

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, I see Mike has enraged some Nats on twitter.

These are the same Nats, who used to describe a 0.5% swing from no to Yes as significant, but dismiss a 3.5% swing in the last two months as margin of error.

The most important subsample of the whole Survation was the "83.something or other %" Yes -> SNP correlation, utterly unchanged.

TheScreamingEagles

Pulpstar said:

Financier said:

Yesterday, OGH said,"The LDs are on 36% - 9% ahead of the Tories - in the key battlegrounds that they will be defending."

As I am struggling to see how that would come about in relation to the mainly 6%-10% polling GB figures for the LDs, I have been looking back to the 2010 data for each of the GB countries.

Scotland: In 2010 LDs won 11 seats on 18.9% ( 465,471 votes) of the Scotland vote. In those 11seats they had 186,856 votes in total which is 40% of LD vote in Scotland. Of those seats only three: Gordon, Berwickshire and Dumbarton East had a lower constituency share of the vote than 36%.

However, presuming that the turnout in 2015 is the same as 2010, if the LD vote in Scotland is halved (9.5%) in 2015, then the available LD vote for all the Scottish constituencies would be ~233,000. Thus if they kept the same vote for the 11 seats they are defending, then for all the other seats in Scotland they would have just (233,000-186,856) = 46,144 votes.

Is this scenario realistic?

I will give the figures for England and Wales later.

In the 14 seats polled where the Lib Dems don't have current incumbency for Ashcroft they are on an average of 1.92%. That's in the "In your constituency" question. They go from 33% to 4% in Glasgow North.

So I think 2% is a realistic figure for all non incumbent seats to start from with the Lib Dems in Scotland to work from.

I've been tabulating this, I've worked out, if we assume a 2010 type turnout, and the Lib Dems poll say 10%, that's about just under 3 million Lib Dem voters, that means they could poll around 28,000 in 45 seats, that leaves 1.7 million votes to be "wasted"

Alistair

Financier said:

Yesterday, OGH said,"The LDs are on 36% - 9% ahead of the Tories - in the key battlegrounds that they will be defending."

As I am struggling to see how that would come about in relation to the mainly 6%-10% polling GB figures for the LDs, I have been looking back to the 2010 data for each of the GB countries.

Scotland: In 2010 LDs won 11 seats on 18.9% ( 465,471 votes) of the Scotland vote. In those 11seats they had 186,856 votes in total which is 40% of LD vote in Scotland. Of those seats only three: Gordon, Berwickshire and Dumbarton East had a lower constituency share of the vote than 36%.

However, presuming that the turnout in 2015 is the same as 2010, if the LD vote in Scotland is halved (9.5%) in 2015, then the available LD vote for all the Scottish constituencies would be ~233,000. Thus if they kept the same vote for the 11 seats they are defending, then for all the other seats in Scotland they would have just (233,000-186,856) = 46,144 votes.

Is this scenario realistic?

I will give the figures for England and Wales later.

You can have a look at the LD performance on the constituencies at Holyrood between 2007 and 2011 for a rough guide. from 16.2 per cent of the vote and 11 seats to 7.9 percent and 2 seats

Roger

Carlotta

"If only restraint by the IDF would end anti-semitism....."

While so many believe being anti Israeli is in itself anti semitic there's a very good chance it would.

Pulpstar

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

Financier said:

Yesterday, OGH said,"The LDs are on 36% - 9% ahead of the Tories - in the key battlegrounds that they will be defending."

As I am struggling to see how that would come about in relation to the mainly 6%-10% polling GB figures for the LDs, I have been looking back to the 2010 data for each of the GB countries.

Scotland: In 2010 LDs won 11 seats on 18.9% ( 465,471 votes) of the Scotland vote. In those 11seats they had 186,856 votes in total which is 40% of LD vote in Scotland. Of those seats only three: Gordon, Berwickshire and Dumbarton East had a lower constituency share of the vote than 36%.

However, presuming that the turnout in 2015 is the same as 2010, if the LD vote in Scotland is halved (9.5%) in 2015, then the available LD vote for all the Scottish constituencies would be ~233,000. Thus if they kept the same vote for the 11 seats they are defending, then for all the other seats in Scotland they would have just (233,000-186,856) = 46,144 votes.

Is this scenario realistic?

I will give the figures for England and Wales later.

In the 14 seats polled where the Lib Dems don't have current incumbency for Ashcroft they are on an average of 1.92%. That's in the "In your constituency" question. They go from 33% to 4% in Glasgow North.

So I think 2% is a realistic figure for all non incumbent seats to start from with the Lib Dems in Scotland to work from.

I've been tabulating this, I've worked out, if we assume a 2010 type turnout, and the Lib Dems poll say 10%, that's about just under 3 million Lib Dem voters, that means they could poll around 28,000 in 45 seats, that leaves 1.7 million votes to be "wasted"

If you can do as badly as the LDs seem to be on course to in non target areas like Motherwell & Wishaw then you can achieve an almost SNP like efficiency with the UK wide picture.

TwistedFireStopper

MarqueeMark said:

Sean_F said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Charles, that's very sad.

When we back down on matters like depicting Mohammed because that's what maniacs with guns want* we're also doing the bidding of the pathologically anti-Semitic [not that a second reason is needed to argue against letting murderers dictate freedom of the press/speech].

It'd be nice to have a party advocating a First Amendment style law, instead of the current trend across major parties to try and curb freedom of speech as much as possible.

*Easy for me to say, I know. I'm not a cartoonist.

Edited extra bit: King Cole, indeed. It seems citizens of various countries in Europe are generally better at getting along than in the past, with the notable exception of the extreme [including those who have extreme views but don't act on them] Muslim fringe.

Edited extra bit two: And the lunatic fringe's problem isn't with country X or country Y, it's against the West generally (and Jews in particular).

There were some charming comments from the Leader of Preston Council, reported in the Times, to the effect that anti-semitism is something the Jews bring on themselves. This council has taken to flying the Palestinian flag (obviously, every borough needs its own foreign policy).

No doubt spurred on by the success of all those CND-inspired towns that declared themselves "Nuclear-free Zones" - and were consequently spared the Soviet bombs.

Although I've always wondered what laws of physics these towns decided to adopt as an alternative? And where did they put all the protons and neutrons?

It worked!
Leicester was a nuclear free zone. It never got nuked by the Sovs.

MarqueeMark

Pulpstar said:

It does help the Lib Dems actually that their vote has collapsed COMPLETELY in some areas:

Motherwell & Wishaw

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Motherwell-Wishaw-Jan-2015-Full-tables.pdf

Literally one man will vote for the Lib Dems there, and his dog is not too sure.

If dogs have got the vote in Scotland, that would explain much about the rise of the SNP....

TheScreamingEagles

antifrank said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, I see Mike has enraged some Nats on twitter.

These are the same Nats, who used to describe a 0.5% swing from no to Yes as significant, but dismiss a 3.5% swing in the last two months as margin of error.

In fairness to the Nats, the significant Survation change seems to be a rise in Labour support, while the SNP are holding broadly steady. If the SNP stay at 45% or thereabouts (and there's something vaguely familiar about that percentage), Labour's further capacity for making inroads into the SNP lead is limited.

Well I wonder if Lord Ashcroft's polling today will be Scottish, we might be able to make some more observations.

Theuniondivvie

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Theuniondivvie said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Previous thread with a few exceptions was just guff by people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about.

Oh omniscient one - why not share your prediction for number of SNP seats?

Will you be brave enough to make a prediction, after your catastrophic referendum campaign?

Will you be as 'brave' as "comical" James Kelly, late of this parish, on 53 for the SNP?

Will you be brave enough to post at all?

Or are you just all mouth and no trousers?

I'm sad to see you're unable to kick the habit of lurking shiftily around Nat websites.

What is your prediction as a matter of interest? Wouldn't want to think you're someone who (only) snipes impotently from the sidelines.

Should get some embarrassed silence for a time I reckon.

My prediction is there - and has been since yesterday - unlike either of yours!

Another Nat fail..

.....oh, and I found comical James prediction (at least he has the courage of his convictions) by searching for the most deluded optimistic SNP prediction - he's 3 short of the highest.....

Should get some embarrassed silence for a time I reckon.

Personally I'm here for the entertaining grotesqueness of views rather than their acuity (with some exceptions), so I'm not that interested in the comps e.g. I only looked at the figs for this one just now.

Care to frame a bet around your 35 SNP seats, or are you all mouth and no trousers?

MarqueeMark

TheScreamingEagles said:

antifrank said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, I see Mike has enraged some Nats on twitter.

These are the same Nats, who used to describe a 0.5% swing from no to Yes as significant, but dismiss a 3.5% swing in the last two months as margin of error.

In fairness to the Nats, the significant Survation change seems to be a rise in Labour support, while the SNP are holding broadly steady. If the SNP stay at 45% or thereabouts (and there's something vaguely familiar about that percentage), Labour's further capacity for making inroads into the SNP lead is limited.

Well I wonder if Lord Ashcroft's polling today will be Scottish, we might be able to make some more observations.

When is it expected? 4.00pm?

TheScreamingEagles

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

Financier said:

Yesterday, OGH said,"The LDs are on 36% - 9% ahead of the Tories - in the key battlegrounds that they will be defending."

As I am struggling to see how that would come about in relation to the mainly 6%-10% polling GB figures for the LDs, I have been looking back to the 2010 data for each of the GB countries.

Scotland: In 2010 LDs won 11 seats on 18.9% ( 465,471 votes) of the Scotland vote. In those 11seats they had 186,856 votes in total which is 40% of LD vote in Scotland. Of those seats only three: Gordon, Berwickshire and Dumbarton East had a lower constituency share of the vote than 36%.

However, presuming that the turnout in 2015 is the same as 2010, if the LD vote in Scotland is halved (9.5%) in 2015, then the available LD vote for all the Scottish constituencies would be ~233,000. Thus if they kept the same vote for the 11 seats they are defending, then for all the other seats in Scotland they would have just (233,000-186,856) = 46,144 votes.

Is this scenario realistic?

I will give the figures for England and Wales later.

In the 14 seats polled where the Lib Dems don't have current incumbency for Ashcroft they are on an average of 1.92%. That's in the "In your constituency" question. They go from 33% to 4% in Glasgow North.

So I think 2% is a realistic figure for all non incumbent seats to start from with the Lib Dems in Scotland to work from.

I've been tabulating this, I've worked out, if we assume a 2010 type turnout, and the Lib Dems poll say 10%, that's about just under 3 million Lib Dem voters, that means they could poll around 28,000 in 45 seats, that leaves 1.7 million votes to be "wasted"

If you can do as badly as the LDs seem to be on course to in non target areas like Motherwell & Wishaw then you can achieve an almost SNP like efficiency with the UK wide picture.

I've worked it out as 2,900 votes per constituency, and I used Loughborough as an example.

They'd go from 9,675 votes (18.3% of the vote) to 2,900 (5.5% of the vote)

So, yes, the Lib Dems could get some very impressive seat efficiency.

TheScreamingEagles

MarqueeMark said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

antifrank said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, I see Mike has enraged some Nats on twitter.

These are the same Nats, who used to describe a 0.5% swing from no to Yes as significant, but dismiss a 3.5% swing in the last two months as margin of error.

In fairness to the Nats, the significant Survation change seems to be a rise in Labour support, while the SNP are holding broadly steady. If the SNP stay at 45% or thereabouts (and there's something vaguely familiar about that percentage), Labour's further capacity for making inroads into the SNP lead is limited.

Well I wonder if Lord Ashcroft's polling today will be Scottish, we might be able to make some more observations.

When is it expected? 4.00pm?

11 am

malcolmg

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Theuniondivvie said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Previous thread with a few exceptions was just guff by people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about.

Oh omniscient one - why not share your prediction for number of SNP seats?

Will you be brave enough to make a prediction, after your catastrophic referendum campaign?

Will you be as 'brave' as "comical" James Kelly, late of this parish, on 53 for the SNP?

Will you be brave enough to post at all?

Or are you just all mouth and no trousers?

I'm sad to see you're unable to kick the habit of lurking shiftily around Nat websites.

What is your prediction as a matter of interest? Wouldn't want to think you're someone who (only) snipes impotently from the sidelines.

Should get some embarrassed silence for a time I reckon.

My prediction is there - and has been since yesterday - unlike either of yours!

Another Nat fail..

.....oh, and I found comical James prediction (at least he has the courage of his convictions) by searching for the most deluded optimistic SNP prediction - he's 3 short of the highest.....

Should get some embarrassed silence for a time I reckon.

Scared to post it again then

Why should I be scared - you're the one who won't post a prediction - if you had the technical competence you could search for yourself - but evidently its beyond you!

keep backsliding