The point is that they aren't shy people generally, far from it, but can't be arsed to get in to a row with a load of smart alecs who will try and make them out to be the devil for voting UKIP, or worry that someone will say "I've got a Bulgarian half sister that must mean you hate her" and they'll spend half the night arguing about something they don't care that much about (normal people don't care that much about politics)... so they say "don't know"
If UKIP spent more time trying to rationally make its case over the EU there might be no need to be shy. But it does not. In its chase for votes it has peddled the policies it has and attracted the activists and votes that it has. UKIP has become what it is.
Successful, agreed
We come full circle. It is a strange definition of 'successful' which makes its supporters shy.
Lord Ashcroft's polls are fine. They bounce around, as polls should do. Look at the trend, which has the big two tied, and UKIP on 14% or so.
Yep. The trend is your friend. I agree with Richard N that the UKIP drop seems extreme for one week and I assume that the poll was conducted before the UKIP programme last night so that cannot have been an influence. But the bottom line is that the UKIP share has been falling for a few weeks now now pretty much across the board so I don't see the Ashcroft score being that far out even if the week on week drop is large.
My guess is that viewing figures will show that very few folk indeed watched either the BBC or the C4 UKIP programmes.
Yes the BBC show did around 1.8 million, Channel 4 1.2 million. These will increase with catch up but I'd expect UKIP to gain a positive polling effect from Channel 4 and negative from BBC, with these evening each other out. Either way I don't think they're likely to poll lower than 11% or higher than 18% and the TV coverage won't have caused more than a minor change in my opinion.
The big difference between this week's Ashcroft poll and last week's is that I didn't form part of the sample. Maybe that partly explains the big drop in UKIP's share.
Last week the fieldwork was carried out by ICM - I wonder if ir was the same this week.
There is only one racist posting here at the moment - the one who voted for the racist party.
So this is just playground name-calling isn't it?
Nope, as I have said before, I judge someone by their actions and words. If you vote for a racist party and then brag about it, in my eyes that makes you a racist.
The big difference between this week's Ashcroft poll and last week's is that I didn't form part of the sample. Maybe that partly explains the big drop in UKIP's share.
Last week the fieldwork was carried out by ICM - I wonder if ir was the same this week.
I hadn't realised he was using different companies each week. Doesn't that kind of undermine the validity of the polls given we know there are differences between the pollsters?
I assume this accounts for the pogo effect in his polls.
Lord Ashcroft's polls are fine. They bounce around, as polls should do. Look at the trend, which has the big two tied, and UKIP on 14% or so.
Yep. The trend is your friend. I agree with Richard N that the UKIP drop seems extreme for one week and I assume that the poll was conducted before the UKIP programme last night so that cannot have been an influence. But the bottom line is that the UKIP share has been falling for a few weeks now now pretty much across the board so I don't see the Ashcroft score being that far out even if the week on week drop is large.
According to UKPR, UKIP has fallen from its peak month, November, when it averaged 16%, but only to 14-15%, on average.
But that average does reflect a big difference between telephone and online pollsters. The former have UKIP at an average 11%, the latter at an average 16%. I think 11% is closer to what UKIP will poll on May 7th.
I have to say so far they don't really seem to have anything on Rifkind, other than some boasting and talking himself up like you would for any job.....let see what else they have.
There is only one racist posting here at the moment - the one who voted for the racist party.
So this is just playground name-calling isn't it?
Nope, as I have said before, I judge someone by their actions and words. If you vote for a racist party and then brag about it, in my eyes that makes you a racist.
Yes but you're resorting to a pejorative label, and that's a poor argument.
Lord Ashcroft's polls are fine. They bounce around, as polls should do. Look at the trend, which has the big two tied, and UKIP on 14% or so.
Yep. The trend is your friend. I agree with Richard N that the UKIP drop seems extreme for one week and I assume that the poll was conducted before the UKIP programme last night so that cannot have been an influence. But the bottom line is that the UKIP share has been falling for a few weeks now now pretty much across the board so I don't see the Ashcroft score being that far out even if the week on week drop is large.
According to UKPR, UKIP has fallen from its peak month, November, when it averaged 16%, but only to 14-15%, on average.
But that average does reflect a big difference between telephone and online pollsters. The former have UKIP at an average 11%, the latter at an average 16%. I think 11% is closer to what UKIP will poll on May 7th.
Yep I would agree with that. I am on a 12-15% range for UKIP but they will struggle to get more than 5 seats (I have been foolishly optimistic and gone for 6 in the PB competition). I would not be surprised to see them get only 2 and would not expect Farage to be one of them.
Nadhim Zahawi's nightmare vision of an Ed Miliband led Labour government
'The Miliband Government gets off to a shaky start in May 2015. Ed Balls’s first Budget sees the top rate of income tax restored to 50p, the Coalition’s planned cut to Corporation Tax scrapped and the introduction of a Mansion Tax on homes valued at over £2 million. Yet when Balls outlines an extremely modest programme of spending cuts, a major backbench rebellion ensues. Commanding a majority in the House of just three, Miliband is forced to make concessions. By the time of the Autumn Statement, with the unions threatening to cut off funds and set up a new Syriza-style party, Labour has formally abandoned deficit reduction.
Facing annihilation at Holyrood elections, Miliband begins 2016 with a set-piece speech to the TUC in which he talks about being a ‘Thatcher of the Left’ and commits to a course of radical economic change.
In the 2016 Budget he introduces a ‘predator’s tax’, levied on the profits of all energy and financial services companies (an exception for mutuals is negotiated on behalf of the Co-Op Bank). The top rate of tax is increased to 55 per cent and the Mansion Tax is expanded to cover properties worth £1 million. The Budget also allocates funds for the creation of an Office of Responsible Capitalism, a vast quango employing 5000 staff and chaired by the newly ennobled Lord McCluskey.
The Office has the power to impose fines and sack the management of any business it judges to be ‘predatory’. It’s also tasked with setting what it regards as a ‘fair price’ for rents and energy bills each year. Business leaders who criticised Miliband during the 2015 election campaign are immediately put under investigation by the entirely independent ORC.
For a few months, Miliband is buoyed up on populist tide of banker-bashing and left-wing fervour. Emboldened, the Labour Government decides to settle some unfinished business. Their 2016 Education Act abolishes England’s 164 remaining grammar schools and also removes Shakespeare from the National Curriculum on the grounds that he is ‘elitist’. One town, Stratford-upon-Avon, heroically resists, staging sit-ins and protest readings of the Bard in Stratford’s three grammar schools.
Was that it on Rifkind? They hardly got him telling them he will change the law for filthy lucre.
By the scales of recent scandals, I have to say that was super disappointing. They have literally just got him saying well I will help advise you and I have a wealth of experience and so I charge an arm and a leg.
I presumed that is exactly what all MPs who got money from companies and unions did?
There is only one racist posting here at the moment - the one who voted for the racist party.
So this is just playground name-calling isn't it?
Nope, as I have said before, I judge someone by their actions and words. If you vote for a racist party and then brag about it, in my eyes that makes you a racist.
Yes but you're resorting to a pejorative label, and that's a poor argument.
No, it is a label based on observation and self incrimination. Should we refrain from calling BNP or EDL racists when that is clearly what they are? Moreover whilst most voters for AIFE probably didn't realise the background to their candidates, Bond can have no excuses since it was pointed out on here a number of times prior to the elections. His response was that he didn't care. I make my judgement based on that.
There is much comment about MPs having outside business interests in the light of todays events.
Personally, and I suspect most people would agree, that if you are a plumber or a lawyer, a journalist or a nurse, I don't see why you cannot continue to work part time. Indeed, in professions such as nurses you need to complete a number of shifts a year to keep your competency licence.
The problem comes when the work is related to or flows from the position as an MP, I think this is what sticks in the craw with the public. For example, if the plumber who became an MP got the contract to fix the house of commons drains or unduly influenced legislation on a plumbers licencing scheme, it would cause outrage. MPs don't seem to appreciate this distinction.
There's a lot in that, though people don't mind if you're gaining experience relevant to Parliament. I used to know a GP/MP (Howard Stoate) who carried on his GP practice at a low level and was on the Health Select Committee, where he felt it was useful that he was spending a few hours a week at the coalface. Obviously he wasn't gaining informaiton in Parliament useful to his practice, but the other way round worked quite well, and I never heard anyone criticise it.
I thought the pension raid was going to pay for the new tuition fees policy???
Iain Dale retweeted Matthew Harris@hattmarris84·6m6 minutes ago Rachel Reeves on LBC: "Labour's Jobs guarantee will be funded by bankers' bonus tax & restricting pensions tax relief for wealthy earners"
I thought the pension raid was going to pay for the new tuition fees policy???
Iain Dale retweeted Matthew Harris@hattmarris84·6m6 minutes ago Rachel Reeves on LBC: "Labour's Jobs guarantee will be funded by bankers' bonus tax & restricting pensions tax relief for wealthy earners"
No .... it was going to pay for social care in the community.... Or something like that
Well I think C4 and Telegraph spent a lot of money on this sting and were desperate for some big headline and what they showed doesn't stack up at all.
Compared to the last sting, where they had MPs on cameras claiming they would definitely do dodgy stuff for money, this time they had nothing to show for their efforts, other than some unsavory boasting and wanting big bucks for doing legitimate work.
That was more disappointing than the 5 years Panorama spent trying to get Ashcroft, only to find well he is a successful businessman and that is about it really.
My workplace focus group is very hostile to Rifkind.
Is that before they watched the program? I was angry about the reports of MPs on the take again, but having watched the program, I am angry I wasted 30 mins watching that drivel.
The big difference between this week's Ashcroft poll and last week's is that I didn't form part of the sample. Maybe that partly explains the big drop in UKIP's share.
Last week the fieldwork was carried out by ICM - I wonder if ir was the same this week.
**boggle**
Are you suggesting that you said UKIP when asked?
No doubt a cunning plan to inflate the UKIP score and then bet against them.
Just this second received a leaflet from UKIP, on what a UKIP government would do, and very text heavy. As this is a safe Tory seat, I appreciate their effort at least.
In our seat, we've had just two leaflets over the last few months, both from the Conservatives. One was introducing their new PPC, and the other was a more generic party-thing. This is a seat where the Conservative incumbent, the hopeless Lansley, is retiring but with a near-8000 majority over the LibDems.
Sadly the UKIP candidate, Lister Wilson, died this month, meaning that only three candidates are declared. A fairly certain Conservative hold, unfortunately. I like living in marginals. ;-)
Reading the comments concerning the SNP winning 37 to 50 odd seats is interesting and mildly amusing.
The view in Scotland is rather different. The wheels are coming off the SNP bandwagon slowly but surely.
Police Scotland's head honcho, Sir Stephen House has been caught out telling inaccuracies to Hollyrood committees, not just once but at least 3 times recently. Centralising Police and Fire services has been a central plank of SNP policies. The concensus is that Sir Stephen may be looking for a new job by the summer.
Children are to have a government appointed Named Person, from 7 months from conception to 18 years of age, who can supposedly act without the parents consent or knowledge (yes, I know, 30 seconds thought makes you realise how stupid that is, but will be in effect soon)
Salmond was all things to all, right wing to farmers and fishermen in the North East to left wing socialist in the central belt, just so long as he won. Sturgeon is a natural left winger and has built up support in Glasgow, but, she is not as popular elsewhere in Scotland as the SNP publicity machine would have people believe.
I thought the pension raid was going to pay for the new tuition fees policy???
Iain Dale retweeted Matthew Harris@hattmarris84·6m6 minutes ago Rachel Reeves on LBC: "Labour's Jobs guarantee will be funded by bankers' bonus tax & restricting pensions tax relief for wealthy earners"
No .... it was going to pay for social care in the community.... Or something like that
If Labour get in anyone earning more than the so called "lliving wage" might as well just hand their wages directly over to Miliband and Co to piss up the wall like they did last time.
I've had another look at Scotland, specifically the Lib-Dem-held seats. It looks like the others will show a similar picture the first two - only the Northern Isles seat looks safe.
Well I think C4 and Telegraph spent a lot of money on this sting and were desperate for some big headline and what they showed doesn't stack up at all.
Compared to the last sting, where they had MPs on cameras claiming they would definitely do dodgy stuff for money, this time they had nothing to show for their efforts, other than some unsavory boasting and wanting big bucks for doing legitimate work.
That was more disappointing than the 5 years Panorama spent trying to get Ashcroft, only to find well he is a successful businessman and that is about it really.
On the contrary they got what they needed - Rifkind saying he gets £5k to £8k for half a day of freelancing.
Nadhim Zahawi's nightmare vision of an Ed Miliband led Labour government
'The Miliband Government gets off to a shaky start in May 2015. Ed Balls’s first Budget sees the top rate of income tax restored to 50p, the Coalition’s planned cut to Corporation Tax scrapped and the introduction of a Mansion Tax on homes valued at over £2 million. Yet when Balls outlines an extremely modest programme of spending cuts, a major backbench rebellion ensues. Commanding a majority in the House of just three, Miliband is forced to make concessions. By the time of the Autumn Statement, with the unions threatening to cut off funds and set up a new Syriza-style party, Labour has formally abandoned deficit reduction.
Facing annihilation at Holyrood elections, Miliband begins 2016 with a set-piece speech to the TUC in which he talks about being a ‘Thatcher of the Left’ and commits to a course of radical economic change.
In the 2016 Budget he introduces a ‘predator’s tax’, levied on the profits of all energy and financial services companies (an exception for mutuals is negotiated on behalf of the Co-Op Bank). The top rate of tax is increased to 55 per cent and the Mansion Tax is expanded to cover properties worth £1 million. The Budget also allocates funds for the creation of an Office of Responsible Capitalism, a vast quango employing 5000 staff and chaired by the newly ennobled Lord McCluskey.
The Office has the power to impose fines and sack the management of any business it judges to be ‘predatory’. It’s also tasked with setting what it regards as a ‘fair price’ for rents and energy bills each year. Business leaders who criticised Miliband during the 2015 election campaign are immediately put under investigation by the entirely independent ORC.
For a few months, Miliband is buoyed up on populist tide of banker-bashing and left-wing fervour. Emboldened, the Labour Government decides to settle some unfinished business. Their 2016 Education Act abolishes England’s 164 remaining grammar schools and also removes Shakespeare from the National Curriculum on the grounds that he is ‘elitist’. One town, Stratford-upon-Avon, heroically resists, staging sit-ins and protest readings of the Bard in Stratford’s three grammar schools.
... and next Stratfordians rally for the right of their MP to heat his stables at taxpayers expense and yell their support that a millionaire still thinks he needs to claim 31p expenses on paper clips....
'No .... it was going to pay for social care in the community.... Or something like that'
Don't think anyone's got a clue.
'For Ed Balls, “a tax on banks” is a magical phrase. So magical that Labour have so far claimed it as the funding source for no less than eleven different policies:
1) Youth Jobs Guarantee – £1.04 billion (Ed Balls, 4th January 2013)
2) Reversing the VAT increase – £12.75 billion (Ed Miliband, 6th January 2011)
3) More capital spending – £5.8 billion (Alan Johnson, 18th October 2010)
4) Reversing the Child Benefit savings – £3.1 billion (Ed Miliband, 10th October 2010)
Well I think C4 and Telegraph spent a lot of money on this sting and were desperate for some big headline and what they showed doesn't stack up at all.
Compared to the last sting, where they had MPs on cameras claiming they would definitely do dodgy stuff for money, this time they had nothing to show for their efforts, other than some unsavory boasting and wanting big bucks for doing legitimate work.
That was more disappointing than the 5 years Panorama spent trying to get Ashcroft, only to find well he is a successful businessman and that is about it really.
On the contrary they got what they needed - Rifkind saying he gets £5k to £8k for half a day of freelancing.
It seems that we're not 'all in it together'.
And footballers get £300k a week....If people are willing to pay it, well so be it. Clearly other organisations are, just like they Gordon Brown to blather on for a couple of hours for some crazy amount of money, but there was no evidence that he was corrupt or was willing to do anything illegal for his money...nor Jack Straw.
It will cost you £2k for Jimmy Cricket to do a speech and £10k for David Baddiel....or how about ultra lefty Marcus Brigstocke, at a mere £5k.
I've had another look at Scotland, specifically the Lib-Dem-held seats. It looks like the others will show a similar picture the first two - only the Northern Isles seat looks safe.
Well I think C4 and Telegraph spent a lot of money on this sting and were desperate for some big headline and what they showed doesn't stack up at all.
Compared to the last sting, where they had MPs on cameras claiming they would definitely do dodgy stuff for money, this time they had nothing to show for their efforts, other than some unsavory boasting and wanting big bucks for doing legitimate work.
That was more disappointing than the 5 years Panorama spent trying to get Ashcroft, only to find well he is a successful businessman and that is about it really.
On the contrary they got what they needed - Rifkind saying he gets £5k to £8k for half a day of freelancing.
It seems that we're not 'all in it together'.
And footballers get £300k a week....If people are willing to pay it, well so be it. Clearly other organisations are, just like they Gordon Brown to blather on for a couple of hours for some crazy amount of money, but there was no evidence that he was corrupt or was willing to do anything illegal for his money...nor Jack Straw.
It will cost you £2k for Jimmy Cricket to do a speech and £10k for David Baddiel.
Well I think C4 and Telegraph spent a lot of money on this sting and were desperate for some big headline and what they showed doesn't stack up at all.
Compared to the last sting, where they had MPs on cameras claiming they would definitely do dodgy stuff for money, this time they had nothing to show for their efforts, other than some unsavory boasting and wanting big bucks for doing legitimate work.
That was more disappointing than the 5 years Panorama spent trying to get Ashcroft, only to find well he is a successful businessman and that is about it really.
On the contrary they got what they needed - Rifkind saying he gets £5k to £8k for half a day of freelancing.
It seems that we're not 'all in it together'.
Agree but why did you only mention Rifkind. Straw of the Labour Party did the same?
Labour 5k good Tory 5k bad..... Quite simply It's all bad .
to be honest my take was that they spent more time stating what they couldn't do because of Parliamentary rules rather than what they could. Perhaps the previous stings have had some desired effect
Well I think C4 and Telegraph spent a lot of money on this sting and were desperate for some big headline and what they showed doesn't stack up at all.
Compared to the last sting, where they had MPs on cameras claiming they would definitely do dodgy stuff for money, this time they had nothing to show for their efforts, other than some unsavory boasting and wanting big bucks for doing legitimate work.
That was more disappointing than the 5 years Panorama spent trying to get Ashcroft, only to find well he is a successful businessman and that is about it really.
On the contrary they got what they needed - Rifkind saying he gets £5k to £8k for half a day of freelancing.
It seems that we're not 'all in it together'.
And footballers get £300k a week....If people are willing to pay it, well so be it. Clearly other organisations are, just like they Gordon Brown to blather on for a couple of hours for some crazy amount of money, but there was no evidence that he was corrupt or was willing to do anything illegal for his money...nor Jack Straw.
It will cost you £2k for Jimmy Cricket to do a speech and £10k for David Baddiel.
The footballers get X argument.
It never works.
The public might be outraged, I am just telling it how I see it...and that is somebody who was outraged by MP expenses etc. I just know how much people charge for things, and Jack Straw saying £5k for a speech is kinda of in the ball park of exactly what most well known celebs and comedians charge for doing a turn. Now I wouldn't pay to listen to Jack Straw, but he is clearly just charging what people will pay.
Of course.....when he was railing against Labour and the Mansion Tax it was the poor old donkeys he was worried about........
From WIKI
"Zahawi claimed for 2012/13 a total of £170,234 in expenses, ranking him the 130th highest out of 650 MPs.[10] He explained in his local newspaper Stratford Herald that the "vast bulk" of his expenses was on staffing costs and horse feed.[11]
In November 2013 Zahawi "apologised unreservedly" after The Sunday Mirror reported that he claimed £5,822 expenses for electricity to heat his horse riding school stables and a yard manager's mobile home.[12] Zahawi said the mistake arose because he received a single bill covering both a meter in the stables and one in his house. He would repay the money though the actual overcharge was £4,000.[13] An article in The Independent also drew attention to the number of legitimate but "trivial" items on Zahawi’s expenses.[14]"
There is much comment about MPs having outside business interests in the light of todays events.
Personally, and I suspect most people would agree, that if you are a plumber or a lawyer, a journalist or a nurse, I don't see why you cannot continue to work part time. Indeed, in professions such as nurses you need to complete a number of shifts a year to keep your competency licence.
The problem comes when the work is related to or flows from the position as an MP, I think this is what sticks in the craw with the public. For example, if the plumber who became an MP got the contract to fix the house of commons drains or unduly influenced legislation on a plumbers licencing scheme, it would cause outrage. MPs don't seem to appreciate this distinction.
There's a lot in that, though people don't mind if you're gaining experience relevant to Parliament. I used to know a GP/MP (Howard Stoate) who carried on his GP practice at a low level and was on the Health Select Committee, where he felt it was useful that he was spending a few hours a week at the coalface. Obviously he wasn't gaining informaiton in Parliament useful to his practice, but the other way round worked quite well, and I never heard anyone criticise it.
As long as we let MPs be members of the Government, a clear conflict of interest, I can see no reason to stop them carrying on any other trade or profession.
Of course.....when he was railing against Labour and the Mansion Tax it was the poor old donkeys he was worried about........
From WIKI
"Zahawi claimed for 2012/13 a total of £170,234 in expenses, ranking him the 130th highest out of 650 MPs.[10] He explained in his local newspaper Stratford Herald that the "vast bulk" of his expenses was on staffing costs and horse feed.[11]
I
Well it looks like he's found a way of recycling his horseshit.
Rifkind and Straw remind us of the truth of Enrico Mattei's axiom, " Politicians are like taxis, you sit in them, you pay for the trip, you get out". They serve their paymasters.
Their overall forecast is 37 SNP wins, which is in line with the betting markets. However, the interesting thing about it is that they rank all the seats by probability of the SNP winning, and the detail of which seats they think are likely to go SNP is very different to Shadsy's. That could be an indicator of some value, especially for those of us wanting to finesse our pro-SNP betting positions.
The percentage chances are as interesting as the order.
If Orkney & Shetland really is a 50/50 bet, the 9/2 on the SNP with Betfair and Bet365 is amazing value. Some of the percentages for the odds-on bets would represent value too if they are correct.
I note that on their prediction, the Conservatives take Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk.
In most seats, the estimate of the Lib Dem share looks way too high. They are projected to lose their deposit in only 9 seats. That sounds... optimistic.
I'm coming round more and more to the idea that Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk is a nailed on Con gain.
Their overall forecast is 37 SNP wins, which is in line with the betting markets. However, the interesting thing about it is that they rank all the seats by probability of the SNP winning, and the detail of which seats they think are likely to go SNP is very different to Shadsy's. That could be an indicator of some value, especially for those of us wanting to finesse our pro-SNP betting positions.
The percentage chances are as interesting as the order.
If Orkney & Shetland really is a 50/50 bet, the 9/2 on the SNP with Betfair and Bet365 is amazing value. Some of the percentages for the odds-on bets would represent value too if they are correct.
I note that on their prediction, the Conservatives take Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk.
In most seats, the estimate of the Lib Dem share looks way too high. They are projected to lose their deposit in only 9 seats. That sounds... optimistic.
I'm coming round more and more to the idea that Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk is a nailed on Con gain.
Their overall forecast is 37 SNP wins, which is in line with the betting markets. However, the interesting thing about it is that they rank all the seats by probability of the SNP winning, and the detail of which seats they think are likely to go SNP is very different to Shadsy's. That could be an indicator of some value, especially for those of us wanting to finesse our pro-SNP betting positions.
The percentage chances are as interesting as the order.
If Orkney & Shetland really is a 50/50 bet, the 9/2 on the SNP with Betfair and Bet365 is amazing value. Some of the percentages for the odds-on bets would represent value too if they are correct.
I note that on their prediction, the Conservatives take Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk.
In most seats, the estimate of the Lib Dem share looks way too high. They are projected to lose their deposit in only 9 seats. That sounds... optimistic.
I'm coming round more and more to the idea that Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk is a nailed on Con gain.
Just as it was in 2010 then according to Easterross
Their overall forecast is 37 SNP wins, which is in line with the betting markets. However, the interesting thing about it is that they rank all the seats by probability of the SNP winning, and the detail of which seats they think are likely to go SNP is very different to Shadsy's. That could be an indicator of some value, especially for those of us wanting to finesse our pro-SNP betting positions.
The percentage chances are as interesting as the order.
If Orkney & Shetland really is a 50/50 bet, the 9/2 on the SNP with Betfair and Bet365 is amazing value. Some of the percentages for the odds-on bets would represent value too if they are correct.
I note that on their prediction, the Conservatives take Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk.
In most seats, the estimate of the Lib Dem share looks way too high. They are projected to lose their deposit in only 9 seats. That sounds... optimistic.
I'm coming round more and more to the idea that Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk is a nailed on Con gain.
Those Edinburgh zoo pandas better not start breeding.
I thought the pension raid was going to pay for the new tuition fees policy???
Iain Dale retweeted Matthew Harris@hattmarris84·6m6 minutes ago Rachel Reeves on LBC: "Labour's Jobs guarantee will be funded by bankers' bonus tax & restricting pensions tax relief for wealthy earners"
I thought Jim Murphy had a prior claim on funds for Scottish nurses, or was that the mansion tax?
Their overall forecast is 37 SNP wins, which is in line with the betting markets. However, the interesting thing about it is that they rank all the seats by probability of the SNP winning, and the detail of which seats they think are likely to go SNP is very different to Shadsy's. That could be an indicator of some value, especially for those of us wanting to finesse our pro-SNP betting positions.
The percentage chances are as interesting as the order.
If Orkney & Shetland really is a 50/50 bet, the 9/2 on the SNP with Betfair and Bet365 is amazing value. Some of the percentages for the odds-on bets would represent value too if they are correct.
I note that on their prediction, the Conservatives take Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk.
In most seats, the estimate of the Lib Dem share looks way too high. They are projected to lose their deposit in only 9 seats. That sounds... optimistic.
I'm coming round more and more to the idea that Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk is a nailed on Con gain.
Just as it was in 2010 then according to Easterross
The LD vote is destroyed in Scotland. I feel looking at what happened at the 2011 Holyrood election is instructive - they got 7.9% of the Constituency vote and 2 constituency seats - down from 16.2% and 11 seats.
The Con vote on the other hand is completely, unexcitedly steady.
2010 results were
Liberal Democrat Michael Moore 22,230 45.4 Conservative John Lamont 16,555 33.8 Labour Ian Miller 5,003 10.2 SNP Paul Wheelhouse 4,497 9.2
The SNP are going to do better, the Labour vote is probably hard core and not going to budge that much. The LD vote is going to go boom but over 50% of it has to go SNP for the SNP to win.
I thought the pension raid was going to pay for the new tuition fees policy???
Iain Dale retweeted Matthew Harris@hattmarris84·6m6 minutes ago Rachel Reeves on LBC: "Labour's Jobs guarantee will be funded by bankers' bonus tax & restricting pensions tax relief for wealthy earners"
I thought Jim Murphy had a prior claim on funds for Scottish nurses, or was that the mansion tax?
No that was to be paid for by the increase in top rate of tax I think. Well that's the amount they would get before all the top rate people either leg it or " make suitable arrangements". * touches side of nose*
I've had another look at Scotland, specifically the Lib-Dem-held seats. It looks like the others will show a similar picture the first two - only the Northern Isles seat looks safe.
Well I think C4 and Telegraph spent a lot of money on this sting and were desperate for some big headline and what they showed doesn't stack up at all.
Compared to the last sting, where they had MPs on cameras claiming they would definitely do dodgy stuff for money, this time they had nothing to show for their efforts, other than some unsavory boasting and wanting big bucks for doing legitimate work.
That was more disappointing than the 5 years Panorama spent trying to get Ashcroft, only to find well he is a successful businessman and that is about it really.
On the contrary they got what they needed - Rifkind saying he gets £5k to £8k for half a day of freelancing.
It seems that we're not 'all in it together'.
Agree but why did you only mention Rifkind. Straw of the Labour Party did the same?
Labour 5k good Tory 5k bad..... Quite simply It's all bad .
to be honest my take was that they spent more time stating what they couldn't do because of Parliamentary rules rather than what they could. Perhaps the previous stings have had some desired effect
Straw's no better and there's no shortage of sleeze merchants on the Labour side either - all the jailed MPs were Labour after all. I'm surprised the Conservatives haven't made more of that fact.
But Rifkind has received greater prominence today and Straw is on his way out in any case.
And the Rifkind story will continue with his ISC chairmanship and his disciplinary with Gove.
With what we've heard today from Rifkind's cocksure complacency that nobody will do anything against him we could having a running sore for the Conservatives during the election campaign.
Unless Cameron lays it down hard and gets shot of him.
After all what's the point in letting Rifkind remain as an MP ? He's clearly in it only for himself, is damaging the Conservative image and is wasting a safe constituency.
Their overall forecast is 37 SNP wins, which is in line with the betting markets. However, the interesting thing about it is that they rank all the seats by probability of the SNP winning, and the detail of which seats they think are likely to go SNP is very different to Shadsy's. That could be an indicator of some value, especially for those of us wanting to finesse our pro-SNP betting positions.
The percentage chances are as interesting as the order.
If Orkney & Shetland really is a 50/50 bet, the 9/2 on the SNP with Betfair and Bet365 is amazing value. Some of the percentages for the odds-on bets would represent value too if they are correct.
I note that on their prediction, the Conservatives take Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk.
In most seats, the estimate of the Lib Dem share looks way too high. They are projected to lose their deposit in only 9 seats. That sounds... optimistic.
I'm coming round more and more to the idea that Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk is a nailed on Con gain.
I haven't put any money on this yet though.
They've certainly got a chance but I would beware assuming that the Scottish Conservatives are 'nailed on' to win anywhere.
I've had another look at Scotland, specifically the Lib-Dem-held seats. It looks like the others will show a similar picture the first two - only the Northern Isles seat looks safe.
Their overall forecast is 37 SNP wins, which is in line with the betting markets. However, the interesting thing about it is that they rank all the seats by probability of the SNP winning, and the detail of which seats they think are likely to go SNP is very different to Shadsy's. That could be an indicator of some value, especially for those of us wanting to finesse our pro-SNP betting positions.
The percentage chances are as interesting as the order.
If Orkney & Shetland really is a 50/50 bet, the 9/2 on the SNP with Betfair and Bet365 is amazing value. Some of the percentages for the odds-on bets would represent value too if they are correct.
I note that on their prediction, the Conservatives take Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk.
In most seats, the estimate of the Lib Dem share looks way too high. They are projected to lose their deposit in only 9 seats. That sounds... optimistic.
I'm coming round more and more to the idea that Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk is a nailed on Con gain.
Just as it was in 2010 then according to Easterross
The LD vote is destroyed in Scotland. I feel looking at what happened at the 2011 Holyrood election is instructive - they got 7.9% of the Constituency vote and 2 constituency seats - down from 16.2% and 11 seats.
The Con vote on the other hand is completely, unexcitedly steady.
2010 results were
Liberal Democrat Michael Moore 22,230 45.4 Conservative John Lamont 16,555 33.8 Labour Ian Miller 5,003 10.2 SNP Paul Wheelhouse 4,497 9.2
The SNP are going to do better, the Labour vote is probably hard core and not going to budge that much. The LD vote is going to go boom but over 50% of it has to go SNP for the SNP to win.
33.8% feels like a winning vote share.
Those cannot be the real 2010 GE results , Easterross assured us it was going to be a nailed on Conservative gain along with 6 other Scottish seats to take them to a conservative figure of 8 ..
Well I think C4 and Telegraph spent a lot of money on this sting and were desperate for some big headline and what they showed doesn't stack up at all.
Compared to the last sting, where they had MPs on cameras claiming they would definitely do dodgy stuff for money, this time they had nothing to show for their efforts, other than some unsavory boasting and wanting big bucks for doing legitimate work.
That was more disappointing than the 5 years Panorama spent trying to get Ashcroft, only to find well he is a successful businessman and that is about it really.
On the contrary they got what they needed - Rifkind saying he gets £5k to £8k for half a day of freelancing.
It seems that we're not 'all in it together'.
Agree but why did you only mention Rifkind. Straw of the Labour Party did the same?
Labour 5k good Tory 5k bad..... Quite simply It's all bad .
to be honest my take was that they spent more time stating what they couldn't do because of Parliamentary rules rather than what they could. Perhaps the previous stings have had some desired effect
Straw's no better and there's no shortage of sleeze merchants on the Labour side either - all the jailed MPs were Labour after all. I'm surprised the Conservatives haven't made more of that fact.
But Rifkind has received greater prominence today and Straw is on his way out in any case.
And the Rifkind story will continue with his ISC chairmanship and his disciplinary with Gove.
With what we've heard today from Rifkind's cocksure complacency that nobody will do anything against him we could having a running sore for the Conservatives during the election campaign.
Unless Cameron lays it down hard and gets shot of him.
After all what's the point in letting Rifkind remain as an MP ? He's clearly in it only for himself, is damaging the Conservative image and is wasting a safe constituency.
So Rifkind should resign or be got shot off and Straw? Remains in place because it's "just Jack being Jack" don't you know? Anyway he's. retiring the seat so what's the point and will be going to the House of Lords so it really doesn't matter .
Their overall forecast is 37 SNP wins, which is in line with the betting markets. However, the interesting thing about it is that they rank all the seats by probability of the SNP winning, and the detail of which seats they think are likely to go SNP is very different to Shadsy's. That could be an indicator of some value, especially for those of us wanting to finesse our pro-SNP betting positions.
The percentage chances are as interesting as the order.
If Orkney & Shetland really is a 50/50 bet, the 9/2 on the SNP with Betfair and Bet365 is amazing value. Some of the percentages for the odds-on bets would represent value too if they are correct.
I note that on their prediction, the Conservatives take Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk.
In most seats, the estimate of the Lib Dem share looks way too high. They are projected to lose their deposit in only 9 seats. That sounds... optimistic.
I'm coming round more and more to the idea that Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk is a nailed on Con gain.
Just as it was in 2010 then according to Easterross
The LD vote is destroyed in Scotland. I feel looking at what happened at the 2011 Holyrood election is instructive - they got 7.9% of the Constituency vote and 2 constituency seats - down from 16.2% and 11 seats.
The Con vote on the other hand is completely, unexcitedly steady.
2010 results were
Liberal Democrat Michael Moore 22,230 45.4 Conservative John Lamont 16,555 33.8 Labour Ian Miller 5,003 10.2 SNP Paul Wheelhouse 4,497 9.2
The SNP are going to do better, the Labour vote is probably hard core and not going to budge that much. The LD vote is going to go boom but over 50% of it has to go SNP for the SNP to win.
33.8% feels like a winning vote share.
Looks like a Conservative gain to me too this one. It's very hard to justify Lib Dems at Evens in any case.
I've had another look at Scotland, specifically the Lib-Dem-held seats. It looks like the others will show a similar picture the first two - only the Northern Isles seat looks safe.
In my Scotland Model small changes make big differences.
If the SNP get 80% of the Yes vote and 10% of the No vote then I call 25 seats for them with confidence. If they get 15% of the No vote I call 47 seats for them. At 20% I call 56 seats with only Orkney & Shetland being a definite No Gain.
Isn't this basically because they're applying a national swing within Scotland? Whereas the shrewdies know to expect bigger swings in Glasgow and smaller ones in Edinburgh. Which, given where those seats start from, means increased volatility in their result.
Basically the bookies (helped by Ashcroft) are probably a lot closer to the truth than Electoral Forecast..
They claim to take account of the Ashcroft polls. It's very hard to know where the truth lies with this, but at the very least it might prove a prompt for where to look for value.
SNP being ahead in Paisley and Renfrewshire South, difficult to believe a poll conducted at the same point would have found Labour ahead in P&RN, especially as @Antifrank's model identified the extraordinary value in Cumbernauld.
I think the problem with the various analyses of Scottish seats is that the premise for the analysis is the wrong way round. You would get a better picture if you take the starting assumption that "the SNP are the incumbent" and then work out reasons why they might be defeated. That would reflect better the scale of both SNP support and the massive shift in the electorate.
Once you do that, you can get a better picture of the likely outcome and it does become quite a compelling argument that the seat predictions are underestimating the SNP. Their support *looks* solid. Secondary polling questions like "who is best placed to stand up for Scotland", the strength of VI and the softness of support, everything points to the SNP vote being more robust than anyone except the Tories,
Once you do that it becomes pretty clear that there are only a handful of seats that the SNP can realistically be beaten in and, for example, Glasgow NE is not one of them.
Well I think C4 and Telegraph spent a lot of money on this sting and were desperate for some big headline and what they showed doesn't stack up at all.
Compared to the last sting, where they had MPs on cameras claiming they would definitely do dodgy stuff for money, this time they had nothing to show for their efforts, other than some unsavory boasting and wanting big bucks for doing legitimate work.
That was more disappointing than the 5 years Panorama spent trying to get Ashcroft, only to find well he is a successful businessman and that is about it really.
On the contrary they got what they needed - Rifkind saying he gets £5k to £8k for half a day of freelancing.
It seems that we're not 'all in it together'.
Agree but why did you only mention Rifkind. Straw of the Labour Party did the same?
Labour 5k good Tory 5k bad..... Quite simply It's all bad .
to be honest my take was that they spent more time stating what they couldn't do because of Parliamentary rules rather than what they could. Perhaps the previous stings have had some desired effect
Straw's no better and there's no shortage of sleeze merchants on the Labour side either - all the jailed MPs were Labour after all. I'm surprised the Conservatives haven't made more of that fact.
But Rifkind has received greater prominence today and Straw is on his way out in any case.
And the Rifkind story will continue with his ISC chairmanship and his disciplinary with Gove.
With what we've heard today from Rifkind's cocksure complacency that nobody will do anything against him we could having a running sore for the Conservatives during the election campaign.
Unless Cameron lays it down hard and gets shot of him.
After all what's the point in letting Rifkind remain as an MP ? He's clearly in it only for himself, is damaging the Conservative image and is wasting a safe constituency.
So Rifkind should resign or be got shot off and Straw? Remains in place because it's "just Jack being Jack" don't you know? Anyway he's. retiring the seat so what's the point and will be going to the House of Lords so it really doesn't matter .
M'Kay.... It's a view I supoose.
Yes, that my view, would you care to enlighten us with your view ?
Of course Cameron could do nothing and repeat the Maria Miller triumph.
Well I think C4 and Telegraph spent a lot of money on this sting and were desperate for some big headline and what they showed doesn't stack up at all.
Compared to the last sting, where they had MPs on cameras claiming they would definitely do dodgy stuff for money, this time they had nothing to show for their efforts, other than some unsavory boasting and wanting big bucks for doing legitimate work.
That was more disappointing than the 5 years Panorama spent trying to get Ashcroft, only to find well he is a successful businessman and that is about it really.
Not only a successful businessman but a genuine bona fide philanthropist. He actually set up a nationwide charity that really does valuable work, and is roundly respected.
Their overall forecast is 37 SNP wins, which is in line with the betting markets. However, the interesting thing about it is that they rank all the seats by probability of the SNP winning, and the detail of which seats they think are likely to go SNP is very different to Shadsy's. That could be an indicator of some value, especially for those of us wanting to finesse our pro-SNP betting positions.
The percentage chances are as interesting as the order.
If Orkney & Shetland really is a 50/50 bet, the 9/2 on the SNP with Betfair and Bet365 is amazing value. Some of the percentages for the odds-on bets would represent value too if they are correct.
I note that on their prediction, the Conservatives take Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk.
In most seats, the estimate of the Lib Dem share looks way too high. They are projected to lose their deposit in only 9 seats. That sounds... optimistic.
I'm coming round more and more to the idea that Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk is a nailed on Con gain.
I haven't put any money on this yet though.
They've certainly got a chance but I would beware assuming that the Scottish Conservatives are 'nailed on' to win anywhere.
The Scottish Conservative vote is like a noble gas, inert and unchanging at 16%. 1 in 6 of the population but you wouldn't know it - they have no real affect on political discourse and are unaffected by what happens.
As other parties do things and change their vote share the Tory vote will sail serenly through the iceberg filled waters.
A possibly smash straight into an iceberg and not register or end up nicking a couple of constituencies this election without doing 'anything' only to lose them in 2020 once people have worked out who the anti-Tory vote is.
There won't be no 'surge' but there could be a couple of gains.
The point is that they aren't shy people generally, far from it, but can't be arsed to get in to a row with a load of smart alecs who will try and make them out to be the devil for voting UKIP, or worry that someone will say "I've got a Bulgarian half sister that must mean you hate her" and they'll spend half the night arguing about something they don't care that much about (normal people don't care that much about politics)... so they say "don't know"
If UKIP spent more time trying to rationally make its case over the EU there might be no need to be shy. But it does not. In its chase for votes it has peddled the policies it has and attracted the activists and votes that it has. UKIP has become what it is.
Successful, agreed
We come full circle. It is a strange definition of 'successful' which makes its supporters shy.
Their overall forecast is 37 SNP wins, which is in line with the betting markets. However, the interesting thing about it is that they rank all the seats by probability of the SNP winning, and the detail of which seats they think are likely to go SNP is very different to Shadsy's. That could be an indicator of some value, especially for those of us wanting to finesse our pro-SNP betting positions.
The percentage chances are as interesting as the order.
If Orkney & Shetland really is a 50/50 bet, the 9/2 on the SNP with Betfair and Bet365 is amazing value. Some of the percentages for the odds-on bets would represent value too if they are correct.
I note that on their prediction, the Conservatives take Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk.
In most seats, the estimate of the Lib Dem share looks way too high. They are projected to lose their deposit in only 9 seats. That sounds... optimistic.
I'm coming round more and more to the idea that Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk is a nailed on Con gain.
I haven't put any money on this yet though.
They've certainly got a chance but I would beware assuming that the Scottish Conservatives are 'nailed on' to win anywhere.
The Scottish Conservative vote is like a noble gas, inert and unchanging at 16%. 1 in 6 of the population but you wouldn't know it - they have no real affect on political discourse and are unaffected by what happens.
As other parties do things and change their vote share the Tory vote will sail serenly through the iceberg filled waters.
A possibly smash straight into an iceberg and not register or end up nicking a couple of constituencies this election without doing 'anything' only to lose them in 2020 once people have worked out who the anti-Tory vote is.
There won't be no 'surge' but there could be a couple of gains.
That's a very good summary.
But even so there seems to be changes within the Scottish Conservative vote.
Declining in urban areas (as in England) and the north-east but increasing in the borders (perhaps because of increasing English influence?).
Their overall forecast is 37 SNP wins, which is in line with the betting markets. However, the interesting thing about it is that they rank all the seats by probability of the SNP winning, and the detail of which seats they think are likely to go SNP is very different to Shadsy's. That could be an indicator of some value, especially for those of us wanting to finesse our pro-SNP betting positions.
The percentage chances are as interesting as the order.
If Orkney & Shetland really is a 50/50 bet, the 9/2 on the SNP with Betfair and Bet365 is amazing value. Some of the percentages for the odds-on bets would represent value too if they are correct.
I note that on their prediction, the Conservatives take Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk.
In most seats, the estimate of the Lib Dem share looks way too high. They are projected to lose their deposit in only 9 seats. That sounds... optimistic.
I'm coming round more and more to the idea that Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk is a nailed on Con gain.
I haven't put any money on this yet though.
They've certainly got a chance but I would beware assuming that the Scottish Conservatives are 'nailed on' to win anywhere.
The Scottish Conservative vote is like a noble gas, inert and unchanging at 16%. 1 in 6 of the population but you wouldn't know it - they have no real affect on political discourse and are unaffected by what happens.
As other parties do things and change their vote share the Tory vote will sail serenly through the iceberg filled waters.
A possibly smash straight into an iceberg and not register or end up nicking a couple of constituencies this election without doing 'anything' only to lose them in 2020 once people have worked out who the anti-Tory vote is.
There won't be no 'surge' but there could be a couple of gains.
Berwickshire Roxburgh, Selkirk CON gain 2015, SNP gain 2020 whilst some others are lost ?
Their overall forecast is 37 SNP wins, which is in line with the betting markets. However, the interesting thing about it is that they rank all the seats by probability of the SNP winning, and the detail of which seats they think are likely to go SNP is very different to Shadsy's. That could be an indicator of some value, especially for those of us wanting to finesse our pro-SNP betting positions.
The percentage chances are as interesting as the order.
If Orkney & Shetland really is a 50/50 bet, the 9/2 on the SNP with Betfair and Bet365 is amazing value. Some of the percentages for the odds-on bets would represent value too if they are correct.
I note that on their prediction, the Conservatives take Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk.
In most seats, the estimate of the Lib Dem share looks way too high. They are projected to lose their deposit in only 9 seats. That sounds... optimistic.
I'm coming round more and more to the idea that Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk is a nailed on Con gain.
I haven't put any money on this yet though.
They've certainly got a chance but I would beware assuming that the Scottish Conservatives are 'nailed on' to win anywhere.
The Scottish Conservative vote is like a noble gas, inert and unchanging at 16%. 1 in 6 of the population but you wouldn't know it - they have no real affect on political discourse and are unaffected by what happens.
As other parties do things and change their vote share the Tory vote will sail serenly through the iceberg filled waters.
A possibly smash straight into an iceberg and not register or end up nicking a couple of constituencies this election without doing 'anything' only to lose them in 2020 once people have worked out who the anti-Tory vote is.
There won't be no 'surge' but there could be a couple of gains.
That's a very good summary.
But even so there seems to be changes within the Scottish Conservative vote.
Declining in urban areas (as in England) and the north-east but increasing in the borders (perhaps because of increasing English influence?).
The Scottish Conservatives need to concentrate their vote to win seats.
Re MPs and outside work - what to do about MPs who are entrepreneurs, or who inherited a family firm, or simply have substantial investments in various businesses? It seems to me they are just as, if not more so, "conflicted" in their interests as an MP who takes work with an outside agency. But it hardly seems desirable to ban them from parliament, or the front bench, unless they agree to sell off the family firm.
Perhaps MPs should all sell their house(s) and land upon reaching high office, so that they are not artificially incentivised to pursue policies that raise house prices...
Yawn....Jack Straw is going to take a job with a company who previously employed him...scandal...outrage...
I bet there is or has been some real corruption going on with politicians over the years and we are all being pointed towards well people taking jobs for companies who they have declared interests with etc. I don't get it.
Their overall forecast is 37 SNP wins, which is in line with the betting markets. However, the interesting thing about it is that they rank all the seats by probability of the SNP winning, and the detail of which seats they think are likely to go SNP is very different to Shadsy's. That could be an indicator of some value, especially for those of us wanting to finesse our pro-SNP betting positions.
The percentage chances are as interesting as the order.
If Orkney & Shetland really is a 50/50 bet, the 9/2 on the SNP with Betfair and Bet365 is amazing value. Some of the percentages for the odds-on bets would represent value too if they are correct.
I note that on their prediction, the Conservatives take Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk.
In most seats, the estimate of the Lib Dem share looks way too high. They are projected to lose their deposit in only 9 seats. That sounds... optimistic.
I'm coming round more and more to the idea that Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk is a nailed on Con gain.
I haven't put any money on this yet though.
They've certainly got a chance but I would beware assuming that the Scottish Conservatives are 'nailed on' to win anywhere.
The Scottish Conservative vote is like a noble gas, inert and unchanging at 16%. 1 in 6 of the population but you wouldn't know it - they have no real affect on political discourse and are unaffected by what happens.
As other parties do things and change their vote share the Tory vote will sail serenly through the iceberg filled waters.
A possibly smash straight into an iceberg and not register or end up nicking a couple of constituencies this election without doing 'anything' only to lose them in 2020 once people have worked out who the anti-Tory vote is.
There won't be no 'surge' but there could be a couple of gains.
That's a very good summary.
But even so there seems to be changes within the Scottish Conservative vote.
Declining in urban areas (as in England) and the north-east but increasing in the borders (perhaps because of increasing English influence?).
The Scottish Conservatives need to concentrate their vote to win seats.
Nope, if they hold onto 33% they gain Berwickshire.
Isn't this basically because they're applying a national swing within Scotland? Whereas the shrewdies know to expect bigger swings in Glasgow and smaller ones in Edinburgh. Which, given where those seats start from, means increased volatility in their result.
Basically the bookies (helped by Ashcroft) are probably a lot closer to the truth than Electoral Forecast..
They claim to take account of the Ashcroft polls. It's very hard to know where the truth lies with this, but at the very least it might prove a prompt for where to look for value.
SNP being ahead in Paisley and Renfrewshire South, difficult to believe a poll conducted at the same point would have found Labour ahead in P&RN, especially as @Antifrank's model identified the extraordinary value in Cumbernauld.
I think the problem with the various analyses of Scottish seats is that the premise for the analysis is the wrong way round. You would get a better picture if you take the starting assumption that "the SNP are the incumbent" and then work out reasons why they might be defeated. That would reflect better the scale of both SNP support and the massive shift in the electorate.
Once you do that, you can get a better picture of the likely outcome and it does become quite a compelling argument that the seat predictions are underestimating the SNP. Their support *looks* solid. Secondary polling questions like "who is best placed to stand up for Scotland", the strength of VI and the softness of support, everything points to the SNP vote being more robust than anyone except the Tories,
Once you do that it becomes pretty clear that there are only a handful of seats that the SNP can realistically be beaten in and, for example, Glasgow NE is not one of them.
I stopped believing anything from the SNP in May 2012 when they announced they were going to take full control of Glasgow in that year's locals and LAB return to full power.
Remember the SNP's "missing million" for thr IndyRef. What happened to them?
Perhaps MPs should all sell their house(s) and land upon reaching high office, so that they are not artificially incentivised to pursue policies that raise house prices...
This is a serious thing, there are a large number of MPs who went into parliament with not much and have come out millionaires several times over, purely through property speculation with the assistance of a parliamentary expenses which facilitated enrichment.
Re MPs and outside work - what to do about MPs who are entrepreneurs, or who inherited a family firm, or simply have substantial investments in various businesses? It seems to me they are just as, if not more so, "conflicted" in their interests as an MP who takes work with an outside agency. But it hardly seems desirable to ban them from parliament, or the front bench, unless they agree to sell off the family firm.
I notice that one of the highest earning MPs is a lawyer. Now much that I don't really like lawyers, I am not sure we should make this guy resign from the chambers he co-founded in order to become an MP. These things just aren't black and white.
Their overall forecast is 37 SNP wins, which is in line with the betting markets. However, the interesting thing about it is that they rank all the seats by probability of the SNP winning, and the detail of which seats they think are likely to go SNP is very different to Shadsy's. That could be an indicator of some value, especially for those of us wanting to finesse our pro-SNP betting positions.
The percentage chances are as interesting as the order.
If Orkney & Shetland really is a 50/50 bet, the 9/2 on the SNP with Betfair and Bet365 is amazing value. Some of the percentages for the odds-on bets would represent value too if they are correct.
I note that on their prediction, the Conservatives take Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk.
In most seats, the estimate of the Lib Dem share looks way too high. They are projected to lose their deposit in only 9 seats. That sounds... optimistic.
I'm coming round more and more to the idea that Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk is a nailed on Con gain.
The only possible source of Conservative votes would be from the Lib Dems. Yet after the complete and total collapse of the Lib Dem vote the Tories are.... still on 15% just as they have been for the last 20 years.
Their overall forecast is 37 SNP wins, which is in line with the betting markets. However, the interesting thing about it is that they rank all the seats by probability of the SNP winning, and the detail of which seats they think are likely to go SNP is very different to Shadsy's. That could be an indicator of some value, especially for those of us wanting to finesse our pro-SNP betting positions.
The percentage chances are as interesting as the order.
If Orkney & Shetland really is a 50/50 bet, the 9/2 on the SNP with Betfair and Bet365 is amazing value. Some of the percentages for the odds-on bets would represent value too if they are correct.
I note that on their prediction, the Conservatives take Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk.
In most seats, the estimate of the Lib Dem share looks way too high. They are projected to lose their deposit in only 9 seats. That sounds... optimistic.
I'm coming round more and more to the idea that Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk is a nailed on Con gain.
I haven't put any money on this yet though.
They've certainly got a chance but I would beware assuming that the Scottish Conservatives are 'nailed on' to win anywhere.
The Scottish Conservative vote is like a noble gas, inert and unchanging at 16%. 1 in 6 of the population but you wouldn't know it - they have no real affect on political discourse and are unaffected by what happens.
As other parties do things and change their vote share the Tory vote will sail serenly through the iceberg filled waters.
A possibly smash straight into an iceberg and not register or end up nicking a couple of constituencies this election without doing 'anything' only to lose them in 2020 once people have worked out who the anti-Tory vote is.
There won't be no 'surge' but there could be a couple of gains.
I guess my brother counts as a Scottish Tory since he lives up there now and voted Tory in 2010. I'm not sure he'll vote for them this time. Not convinced by Osborne's burger eating man of the people act and like a lot of people found Gove rather off-putting. I think he has a sneaky admiration for the SNP and might have considered voting for them when they were the Tartan Tories.
Their overall forecast is 37 SNP wins, which is in line with the betting markets. However, the interesting thing about it is that they rank all the seats by probability of the SNP winning, and the detail of which seats they think are likely to go SNP is very different to Shadsy's. That could be an indicator of some value, especially for those of us wanting to finesse our pro-SNP betting positions.
The percentage chances are as interesting as the order.
If Orkney & Shetland really is a 50/50 bet, the 9/2 on the SNP with Betfair and Bet365 is amazing value. Some of the percentages for the odds-on bets would represent value too if they are correct.
I note that on their prediction, the Conservatives take Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk.
In most seats, the estimate of the Lib Dem share looks way too high. They are projected to lose their deposit in only 9 seats. That sounds... optimistic.
I'm coming round more and more to the idea that Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk is a nailed on Con gain.
The only possible source of Conservative votes would be from the Lib Dems. Yet after the complete and total collapse of the Lib Dem vote the Tories are.... still on 15% just as they have been for the last 20 years.
Ignoring the possibility of lower urban Con vote and increased rural Con vote they just need to hold steady to have a better than evens shot at the seat.
I think it's starting to look now as if UKIP is falling.
I know we can't read too much into any one or two polls but it's now looking like an established trend.
Not just the number of polls with UKIP down but the large magnitude in more than one poll.
I think that's right, though not dramatically. At present, it's apparently mainly the less firmly attached Labour voters drifting back. Will the former Tories follow?
I stopped believing anything from yourself when you speculated that the nationality of a phone opinion poll canvasser was enlarging the SNP vote! The there was Ashcroft when you must have realised you were mistaken but of course didn't mention that again!
Comments
Either way I don't think they're likely to poll lower than 11% or higher than 18% and the TV coverage won't have caused more than a minor change in my opinion.
Are you suggesting that you said UKIP when asked?
I assume this accounts for the pogo effect in his polls.
But that average does reflect a big difference between telephone and online pollsters. The former have UKIP at an average 11%, the latter at an average 16%. I think 11% is closer to what UKIP will poll on May 7th.
'The Miliband Government gets off to a shaky start in May 2015. Ed Balls’s first Budget sees the top rate of income tax restored to 50p, the Coalition’s planned cut to Corporation Tax scrapped and the introduction of a Mansion Tax on homes valued at over £2 million. Yet when Balls outlines an extremely modest programme of spending cuts, a major backbench rebellion ensues. Commanding a majority in the House of just three, Miliband is forced to make concessions. By the time of the Autumn Statement, with the unions threatening to cut off funds and set up a new Syriza-style party, Labour has formally abandoned deficit reduction.
Facing annihilation at Holyrood elections, Miliband begins 2016 with a set-piece speech to the TUC in which he talks about being a ‘Thatcher of the Left’ and commits to a course of radical economic change.
In the 2016 Budget he introduces a ‘predator’s tax’, levied on the profits of all energy and financial services companies (an exception for mutuals is negotiated on behalf of the Co-Op Bank). The top rate of tax is increased to 55 per cent and the Mansion Tax is expanded to cover properties worth £1 million. The Budget also allocates funds for the creation of an Office of Responsible Capitalism, a vast quango employing 5000 staff and chaired by the newly ennobled Lord McCluskey.
The Office has the power to impose fines and sack the management of any business it judges to be ‘predatory’. It’s also tasked with setting what it regards as a ‘fair price’ for rents and energy bills each year. Business leaders who criticised Miliband during the 2015 election campaign are immediately put under investigation by the entirely independent ORC.
For a few months, Miliband is buoyed up on populist tide of banker-bashing and left-wing fervour. Emboldened, the Labour Government decides to settle some unfinished business. Their 2016 Education Act abolishes England’s 164 remaining grammar schools and also removes Shakespeare from the National Curriculum on the grounds that he is ‘elitist’. One town, Stratford-upon-Avon, heroically resists, staging sit-ins and protest readings of the Bard in Stratford’s three grammar schools.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/02/nadhim-zahawi-mp-the-pound-scrapped-grammar-schools-too-lord-mccluskey-in-charge-the-nightmare-of-a-miliband-government.html
By the scales of recent scandals, I have to say that was super disappointing. They have literally just got him saying well I will help advise you and I have a wealth of experience and so I charge an arm and a leg.
I presumed that is exactly what all MPs who got money from companies and unions did?
Iain Dale retweeted
Matthew Harris@hattmarris84·6m6 minutes ago
Rachel Reeves on LBC: "Labour's Jobs guarantee will be funded by bankers' bonus tax & restricting pensions tax relief for wealthy earners"
Compared to the last sting, where they had MPs on cameras claiming they would definitely do dodgy stuff for money, this time they had nothing to show for their efforts, other than some unsavory boasting and wanting big bucks for doing legitimate work.
That was more disappointing than the 5 years Panorama spent trying to get Ashcroft, only to find well he is a successful businessman and that is about it really.
My workplace focus group is very hostile to Rifkind.
Sadly the UKIP candidate, Lister Wilson, died this month, meaning that only three candidates are declared. A fairly certain Conservative hold, unfortunately. I like living in marginals. ;-)
The view in Scotland is rather different. The wheels are coming off the SNP bandwagon slowly but surely.
Police Scotland's head honcho, Sir Stephen House has been caught out telling inaccuracies to Hollyrood committees, not just once but at least 3 times recently. Centralising Police and Fire services has been a central plank of SNP policies. The concensus is that Sir Stephen may be looking for a new job by the summer.
Children are to have a government appointed Named Person, from 7 months from conception to 18 years of age, who can supposedly act without the parents consent or knowledge (yes, I know, 30 seconds thought makes you realise how stupid that is, but will be in effect soon)
Salmond was all things to all, right wing to farmers and fishermen in the North East to left wing socialist in the central belt, just so long as he won. Sturgeon is a natural left winger and has built up support in Glasgow, but, she is not as popular elsewhere in Scotland as the SNP publicity machine would have people believe.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31592283
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/569947988774289408
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/569800889625485313
It seems that we're not 'all in it together'.
"Nadhim Zahawi's nightmare vision of an Ed Miliband led Labour government.............."
You'd expect something a bit more adult from a senior politician. He's not doubling as Bond-James-Bond is he?
'No .... it was going to pay for social care in the community.... Or something like that'
Don't think anyone's got a clue.
'For Ed Balls, “a tax on banks” is a magical phrase. So magical that Labour have so far claimed it as the funding source for no less than eleven different policies:
1) Youth Jobs Guarantee – £1.04 billion (Ed Balls, 4th January 2013)
2) Reversing the VAT increase – £12.75 billion (Ed Miliband, 6th January 2011)
3) More capital spending – £5.8 billion (Alan Johnson, 18th October 2010)
4) Reversing the Child Benefit savings – £3.1 billion (Ed Miliband, 10th October 2010)
5) Reversing Tax Credit savings – £5.8 billion (Ed Miliband, 6th January 2011)
6) More money for the Regional Growth Fund – £200 million (Labour Party Press Release, 14th March 2011)
7) Cutting the deficit – no specified cost (Ed Miliband, 25th March 2011)
8) Turning empty shops into community centres – £5 million (Chuka Umunna, July 2011)
9) Spending more on public services – no specified cost (Ed Miliband, 10th October 2010)
10) Build 25,000 new houses – £1.2 billion (Labour Party Press Release, 14th March 2011)
11) Free childcare – £800 million (Ed Balls, 23rd September 2013)
It will cost you £2k for Jimmy Cricket to do a speech and £10k for David Baddiel....or how about ultra lefty Marcus Brigstocke, at a mere £5k.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/investigations/11428075/The-MPs-who-topped-up-their-salaries-with-1600-an-hour-second-jobs.html
And who's paying Brown all that much money ???
I'm sure Viv Nicholson would give the same financial advice for a fraction of the price.
34% in Edinburgh West.
It never works.
Labour 5k good Tory 5k bad..... Quite simply It's all bad .
to be honest my take was that they spent more time stating what they couldn't do because of Parliamentary rules rather than what they could. Perhaps the previous stings have had some desired effect
Surely he donates that amount back to the government to help pay for all that 'investment' he so supports.
Please tell me that Gordon isn't yet another "Do as I say not as I do" socialist ?
Of course.....when he was railing against Labour and the Mansion Tax it was the poor old donkeys he was worried about........
From WIKI
"Zahawi claimed for 2012/13 a total of £170,234 in expenses, ranking him the 130th highest out of 650 MPs.[10] He explained in his local newspaper Stratford Herald that the "vast bulk" of his expenses was on staffing costs and horse feed.[11]
In November 2013 Zahawi "apologised unreservedly" after The Sunday Mirror reported that he claimed £5,822 expenses for electricity to heat his horse riding school stables and a yard manager's mobile home.[12] Zahawi said the mistake arose because he received a single bill covering both a meter in the stables and one in his house. He would repay the money though the actual overcharge was £4,000.[13] An article in The Independent also drew attention to the number of legitimate but "trivial" items on Zahawi’s expenses.[14]"
They serve their paymasters.
http://www.comedians.co.uk/speakers/political-speakers/
http://www.comedians.co.uk/speakers/media-speakers/
Getting Baldrick to rock up with cost you 10 large and words of wisdom from Peston a mere £12k.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-is-getting-its-first-ever-owl-bar-in-latest-popup-in-trend-for-animalthemed-venues-10065372.html
Will @Roger report back, it is in Soho.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/06/20/article-2662719-1EEE326200000578-499_634x359.jpg
Ed's vision of free owls for all takes a closer step to reality.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-is-getting-its-first-ever-owl-bar-in-latest-popup-in-trend-for-animalthemed-venues-10065372.html
Will @Roger report back, it is in Soho."
Head covering strongly advised
The Con vote on the other hand is completely, unexcitedly steady.
2010 results were The SNP are going to do better, the Labour vote is probably hard core and not going to budge that much. The LD vote is going to go boom but over 50% of it has to go SNP for the SNP to win.
33.8% feels like a winning vote share.
* touches side of nose*
But Rifkind has received greater prominence today and Straw is on his way out in any case.
And the Rifkind story will continue with his ISC chairmanship and his disciplinary with Gove.
With what we've heard today from Rifkind's cocksure complacency that nobody will do anything against him we could having a running sore for the Conservatives during the election campaign.
Unless Cameron lays it down hard and gets shot of him.
After all what's the point in letting Rifkind remain as an MP ? He's clearly in it only for himself, is damaging the Conservative image and is wasting a safe constituency.
M'Kay.... It's a view I supoose.
And some surprise wins because of it.
If the SNP get 80% of the Yes vote and 10% of the No vote then I call 25 seats for them with confidence. If they get 15% of the No vote I call 47 seats for them. At 20% I call 56 seats with only Orkney & Shetland being a definite No Gain.
Once you do that, you can get a better picture of the likely outcome and it does become quite a compelling argument that the seat predictions are underestimating the SNP. Their support *looks* solid. Secondary polling questions like "who is best placed to stand up for Scotland", the strength of VI and the softness of support, everything points to the SNP vote being more robust than anyone except the Tories,
Once you do that it becomes pretty clear that there are only a handful of seats that the SNP can realistically be beaten in and, for example, Glasgow NE is not one of them.
Of course Cameron could do nothing and repeat the Maria Miller triumph.
As other parties do things and change their vote share the Tory vote will sail serenly through the iceberg filled waters.
A possibly smash straight into an iceberg and not register or end up nicking a couple of constituencies this election without doing 'anything' only to lose them in 2020 once people have worked out who the anti-Tory vote is.
There won't be no 'surge' but there could be a couple of gains.
I refer you to my posts I made Previously.
But even so there seems to be changes within the Scottish Conservative vote.
Declining in urban areas (as in England) and the north-east but increasing in the borders (perhaps because of increasing English influence?).
I've been too busy today to look in and the site was so bad tempered when I did look at 8.30 that I didn't read any farther back.
Anyway evening all.
Yawn....Jack Straw is going to take a job with a company who previously employed him...scandal...outrage...
I bet there is or has been some real corruption going on with politicians over the years and we are all being pointed towards well people taking jobs for companies who they have declared interests with etc. I don't get it.
Remember the SNP's "missing million" for thr IndyRef. What happened to them?
https://twitter.com/Andrew_ComRes/status/569980268016209921
I know we can't read too much into any one or two polls but it's now looking like an established trend.
Not just the number of polls with UKIP down but the large magnitude in more than one poll.
I stopped believing anything from yourself when you speculated that the nationality of a phone opinion poll canvasser was enlarging the SNP vote! The there was Ashcroft when you must have realised you were mistaken but of course didn't mention that again!