It appears that the tide may at last be turning in favour of the Tories but it's probably too little, too late. They're now where they needed to be about 2-3 months ago. We'll be postal voting in little more than 8 weeks' time.
It appears that the tide may at last be turning in favour of the Tories but it's probably too little, too late. They're now where they needed to be about 2-3 months ago. We'll be postal voting in little more than 8 weeks' time.
When TNS shows a CON lead then celebrate
Why would he be celebrating, he's on Con seats sub 284.5 at 10-11 !
It appears that the tide may at last be turning in favour of the Tories but it's probably too little, too late. They're now where they needed to be about 2-3 months ago. We'll be postal voting in little more than 8 weeks' time.
When TNS shows a CON lead then celebrate
Why would he be celebrating, he's on Con seats sub 284.5 at 10-11 !
Believe me, I'd rather lose this bet (and others) in the cause!
"Jihadi John's mother screamed 'that's my son' when she saw first beheading video - but did not report him
Ghania Emwazi realised that the the knife-wielding executioner who appeared in video showing murder of US journalist James Foley was her son Mohammed "
I hope that the father is stripped of his British citizenship along with his mother if she has it as well. I am sure Guardianistas will argue that they will enrich our society so should be allowed in.
Did she not wonder where he was and what he was doing?
Still the whole family seems to have lived here just long enought to get a British passport - at t a time when we appear to have been handing out British nationality to all and sundry like sweeties - and then pushed off back home. The father seems not to have been around much for his son's teenage years either.
A lax immigration/integration policy coming home to roost. And - no - this isn't a dig at Labour since the family were let in during the dog days of the Major years.
Incidentally, Ed Davey was quoted on the radio this morning saying that hate preachers shouldn't be stopped from preaching at so-called universities because the best way of countering bad ideas was by challenging them. A sentiment I entirely agree with save for the fact that the one thing people like him and the universities and the press and other others have NOT done is to challenge such bad ideas. They have run away as fast as they could from any challenge, intellectual or otherwise. They have ceded the ground to such people, which is why we have the problem we now have and why places such as UCL - were prepared to have talks by speakers on a segregated basis - until they were rightly derided.
Miss Cyclefree, "Incidentally, Ed Davey was quoted on the radio this morning saying that hate preachers shouldn't be stopped from preaching at so-called universities because the best way of countering bad ideas was by challenging them. A sentiment I entirely agree with save for the fact that the one thing people like him and the universities and the press and other others have NOT done is to challenge such bad ideas. They have run away as fast as they could from any challenge, intellectual or otherwise. They have ceded the ground to such people, which is why we have the problem we now have and why places such as UCL - were prepared to have talks by speakers on a segregated basis - until they were rightly derided. "
Incidentally, Ed Davey was quoted on the radio this morning saying that hate preachers shouldn't be stopped from preaching at so-called universities because the best way of countering bad ideas was by challenging them. A sentiment I entirely agree with save for the fact that the one thing people like him and the universities and the press and other others have NOT done is to challenge such bad ideas. They have run away as fast as they could from any challenge, intellectual or otherwise. They have ceded the ground to such people, which is why we have the problem we now have and why places such as UCL - were prepared to have talks by speakers on a segregated basis - until they were rightly derided.
If only there were challenge. If only.
Society doesn't think in shades of grey. The ideal - that of challenge and robust discussion does not exist. You know why he (and others) don't challenge the ideology of Islam, because they will be met with the call of Racist catcalls and even if there is some support for the challenge, it is easy for the noisy few, easier than ever with social media and rollingg news, to destroy that challenge.
I spent half an hour churning the figures earlier, nothing obvious tbh.
The calculation is slightly different if you have a credit account though.
I could have naused this but isn't it value to sell both
Con LD UKIP and Con LD Green at 23?
I think those are effectively the same bet, since neither UKIP nor the Greens are at all likely to be part of any coalition. So the bonus won't kick in, and your plausible outcomes are (on either bet):
+23 if neither Con nor LD are in govenment -2 if one is but the other isn't -27 if it's a Con/LD coalition
Can anyone provide an objective explanation of why Con may do better with phone and Lab may do better with online.
What factors could be at play?
eg It might make sense if phones skewed more upmarket and online less upmarket. But I wouldn't have thought that was the case. Surely there are far more people without computers than phones - and the people without computers would mainly be poorer people (plus obviously some elderly people). But wouldn't all of that be handled by past vote weighting etc anyway?
I think several of us have our own models. Mine is by constituency with Scotland separately treated. Some of you might be interested.
I have made four simple basic assumptions:
1. Core Tory and Labour vote is unchanged from 2010. 2. LibDems in marginal LibDem seats will continue to vote LibDem. In all other seats, a sizeable proportion will defect to Labour. 3. UKIP will take from Tory and Labour and inherit most of the BNP vote (no offence intended). 4. In Scotland, SNP will take lumps out of both Labour and LibDem
To quantify:
I assume that in LibDem marginals (within 25% of winner) 10% will defect to Labour and 10% will defect to Green. In all other cases, 40% will defect to Labour (and 10% to Green).
I assume UKIP will take 10% of Tory votes and 10% of Labour votes (and 80% of BNP votes).
I assume SNP in Scotland will take 33% of Labour votes and 33% of LibDem votes.
The resulting share of the vote and seat result is:
Con 33.9% of vote 268 seats Lab 33.5% of vote 274 seats LibD 13.5% of vote 33 seats (none in Scotland) UKIP 11.6% of vote 0 seats Green 3.4% of vote 1 seat SNP 3.4% of vote 53 seats
My assumptions are just possible scenarios. Some changes make little difference. For instance if SNP take 50% of Labour and LibDem votes, they take an extra 5 seats, 4 from Labour and one from Tory. They already have all the LibDem seats.
The Tories need to slap down some big chunks of blue meat on the table to seal the deal. My suggestions:
> Commit to NATO 2% spending target on Defence for next parliament > Further announcements on extra non-EU immigration control (including a reaffirmation that they will aim to reduce overall numbers) > Declaration of an EU renegotiation concession pre-election (I.e more where that came from if you reelect) > An IHT cut and/or minor rise in 40p tax threshold
That could swing enough centre-right voters over in the final month to see them home.
I think the SNP won't do quite that well, UKIP will get a couple of seats, and the Conservatives will do a little better, with Labour and the Lib Dems a few seats worse, but broadly speaking it's pretty similar to my own view [although that's just gut instinct rather than mathematically modelled].
This election is in many ways quite boring. People are going round in circles about dead heat opinion polls here and the general public is uninterested and even unaware.
I wonder if it is because so many people no longer watch the TV news or read a paper, instead getting their news online from sources of their choice, perhaps reading a story or two in each and if it is interesting looking on more than one site for the story for balance.
I now find it hard to believe that as little as a decade ago, I spent half an hour of the few precious hours after work watching the drivel on BBC or ITV news hearing how the Prime Minister did this or the leader of the opposition did that and then hearing guest shills with vested interests maundering on about whatever the news Editor decided was important.
I spent half an hour churning the figures earlier, nothing obvious tbh.
The calculation is slightly different if you have a credit account though.
I could have naused this but isn't it value to sell both
Con LD UKIP and Con LD Green at 23?
I think those are effectively the same bet, since neither UKIP nor the Greens are at all likely to be part of any coalition. So the bonus won't kick in, and your plausible outcomes are (on either bet):
+23 if neither Con nor LD are in govenment -2 if one is but the other isn't -27 if it's a Con/LD coalition
which does indeed look value.
Yeah I dismissed the maximum MU at first which is why I said "probably not value" in reply to myself...but it probably is!!
Just knocking up the numbers quickly, I made each market as below, but prob a rick in there somewhere
Con 21.5 Con LD 25.1 CO KIP 14.0 Con LD KIP 22.2 Con Gr 13.0 Con UK Gr 13.5 Con LD Gr 21.2 La 14.1 La Li 20.9 La SNP 17.3 La LD SNP 27.8
I spent half an hour churning the figures earlier, nothing obvious tbh.
The calculation is slightly different if you have a credit account though.
I could have naused this but isn't it value to sell both
Con LD UKIP and Con LD Green at 23?
I think those are effectively the same bet, since neither UKIP nor the Greens are at all likely to be part of any coalition. So the bonus won't kick in, and your plausible outcomes are (on either bet):
+23 if neither Con nor LD are in govenment -2 if one is but the other isn't -27 if it's a Con/LD coalition
which does indeed look value.
Yeah I dismissd the maximum MU at first which is why I said "probably not value" in reply to myself
Just knocking up the numbers quickly, I made each market as below, but prob a rick in there somewhere
Con 21.5 Con LD 25.1 CO KIP 14.0 Con LD KIP 22.2 Con Gr 13.0 Con UK Gr 13.5 Con LD Gr 21.2 La 14.1 La Li 20.9 La SNP 17.3 La LD SNP 27.8
I've sold both Con Green and Lab Green for a whole £
I think several of us have our own models. Mine is by constituency with Scotland separately treated. Some of you might be interested.
I have made four simple basic assumptions:
1. Core Tory and Labour vote is unchanged from 2010. 2. LibDems in marginal LibDem seats will continue to vote LibDem. In all other seats, a sizeable proportion will defect to Labour. 3. UKIP will take from Tory and Labour and inherit most of the BNP vote (no offence intended). 4. In Scotland, SNP will take lumps out of both Labour and LibDem
To quantify:
I assume that in LibDem marginals (within 25% of winner) 10% will defect to Labour and 10% will defect to Green. In all other cases, 40% will defect to Labour (and 10% to Green).
I assume UKIP will take 10% of Tory votes and 10% of Labour votes (and 80% of BNP votes).
I assume SNP in Scotland will take 33% of Labour votes and 33% of LibDem votes.
The resulting share of the vote and seat result is:
Con 33.9% of vote 268 seats Lab 33.5% of vote 274 seats LibD 13.5% of vote 33 seats (none in Scotland) UKIP 11.6% of vote 0 seats Green 3.4% of vote 1 seat SNP 3.4% of vote 53 seats
My assumptions are just possible scenarios. Some changes make little difference. For instance if SNP take 50% of Labour and LibDem votes, they take an extra 5 seats, 4 from Labour and one from Tory. They already have all the LibDem seats.
I can't see the Lib Dems getting over 30 seats and losing Orkney. If they lose Orkney, sub 25 beckons imo.
I spent half an hour churning the figures earlier, nothing obvious tbh.
The calculation is slightly different if you have a credit account though.
I could have naused this but isn't it value to sell both
Con LD UKIP and Con LD Green at 23?
I think those are effectively the same bet, since neither UKIP nor the Greens are at all likely to be part of any coalition. So the bonus won't kick in, and your plausible outcomes are (on either bet):
+23 if neither Con nor LD are in govenment -2 if one is but the other isn't -27 if it's a Con/LD coalition
which does indeed look value.
Yeah I dismissd the maximum MU at first which is why I said "probably not value" in reply to myself
Just knocking up the numbers quickly, I made each market as below, but prob a rick in there somewhere
Con 21.5 Con LD 25.1 CO KIP 14.0 Con LD KIP 22.2 Con Gr 13.0 Con UK Gr 13.5 Con LD Gr 21.2 La 14.1 La Li 20.9 La SNP 17.3 La LD SNP 27.8
I've sold both Con Green and Lab Green for a whole £
@isam - Also buying both Con at 21 and Lab at 17 looks fairly sound, depending on what view you take - if I've done my sums correctly, it works out at a roughly evens bet that there won't be any kind of coalition.
The Tories need to slap down some big chunks of blue meat on the table to seal the deal. My suggestions:
> Commit to NATO 2% spending target on Defence for next parliament > Further announcements on extra non-EU immigration control (including a reaffirmation that they will aim to reduce overall numbers) > Declaration of an EU renegotiation concession pre-election (I.e more where that came from if you reelect) > An IHT cut and/or minor rise in 40p tax threshold
That could swing enough centre-right voters over in the final month to see them home.
They've already announced that the 40p tax threshold will rise to £50,000 over the next Parliament.
(Though I don't think they've announced the timing of increases over the 5 years - other than April 2015).
I think the SNP won't do quite that well, UKIP will get a couple of seats, and the Conservatives will do a little better, with Labour and the Lib Dems a few seats worse, but broadly speaking it's pretty similar to my own view [although that's just gut instinct rather than mathematically modelled].
If the SNP don't do quite so well, then Labour (and possibly LibDem) do better, all other things being equal.
For Conservatives to do better at the expense of SNP and Labour and LibDems, I have to drop my assumption that the core votes remain unchanged and assume that there is a movement of Labour voters to Tory. Perhaps there is such a movement. I can't tell because of all the polling noise and the impact of the LibDem, UKIP and SNP movements. The other possibility is that UKIP will take more from Labour than Tory (In my model I assume UKIP takes equally from both).
Incidentally, Ed Davey was quoted on the radio this morning saying that hate preachers shouldn't be stopped from preaching at so-called universities because the best way of countering bad ideas was by challenging them. A sentiment I entirely agree with save for the fact that the one thing people like him and the universities and the press and other others have NOT done is to challenge such bad ideas. They have run away as fast as they could from any challenge, intellectual or otherwise. They have ceded the ground to such people, which is why we have the problem we now have and why places such as UCL - were prepared to have talks by speakers on a segregated basis - until they were rightly derided.
If only there were challenge. If only.
Society doesn't think in shades of grey. The ideal - that of challenge and robust discussion does not exist. You know why he (and others) don't challenge the ideology of Islam, because they will be met with the call of Racist catcalls and even if there is some support for the challenge, it is easy for the noisy few, easier than ever with social media and rollingg news, to destroy that challenge.
It was not so very long ago that we did have such challenge and robust discussion. Think of the Anti-Nazi league and similar outfits who made sure that the BNP and people like them did not get the oxygen they needed. We failed to do the same re Islam/Islamism/Jihadism for all sorts of reasons - and it has been disastrous. This Cohen article sums it up very well. http://www.standpointmag.com/features-january-february-2015-great-betrayal-liberals-appease-islam-nick-cohen-the-left
It is not robust discussion which is missing. It is courage.
But we just need to do it - and be prepared to ignore the noises off. If Ed Davey were serious, he would have stood up for my Lib Dem candidate when he was being attacked by fellow Lib Dem members over the Jesus and Mo cartoons. All it takes is for some politicians to show a bit of bravery.
At the moment we are outsourcing our moral compass and courage to the likes of Marf. It is pathetic that the nation of Orwell and Wilkes and the Tolpuddle Martyrs and the Chartists and Paine and Burke and Wilberforce is reduced to quivering jelly in the face of narcissistic liars and psychos whose whole moral and factual edifice can be pulled apart in minutes, if only those questioning them spent more than a few minutes doing the basic research. Pretty much everything Cage says is a lie and a demonstrable one. But no journalist ever says that to them.
"Do not be afraid" as a middle-aged man once said to the unarmed masses in the face of what we thought was the invincible Communist state.
The Tories need to slap down some big chunks of blue meat on the table to seal the deal. My suggestions:
> Commit to NATO 2% spending target on Defence for next parliament > Further announcements on extra non-EU immigration control (including a reaffirmation that they will aim to reduce overall numbers) > Declaration of an EU renegotiation concession pre-election (I.e more where that came from if you reelect) > An IHT cut and/or minor rise in 40p tax threshold
That could swing enough centre-right voters over in the final month to see them home.
They've already announced that the 40p tax threshold will rise to £50,000 over the next Parliament.
(Though I don't think they've announced the timing of increases over the 5 years - other than April 2015).
Given the lack of trust defectors have in the Conservatives, they need a downpayment.
Can anyone provide an objective explanation of why Con may do better with phone and Lab may do better with online.
What factors could be at play?
eg It might make sense if phones skewed more upmarket and online less upmarket. But I wouldn't have thought that was the case. Surely there are far more people without computers than phones - and the people without computers would mainly be poorer people (plus obviously some elderly people). But wouldn't all of that be handled by past vote weighting etc anyway?
Yougov panel might be on the small side to sample it thousands of time.
The Tories need to slap down some big chunks of blue meat on the table to seal the deal. My suggestions:
> Commit to NATO 2% spending target on Defence for next parliament > Further announcements on extra non-EU immigration control (including a reaffirmation that they will aim to reduce overall numbers) > Declaration of an EU renegotiation concession pre-election (I.e more where that came from if you reelect) > An IHT cut and/or minor rise in 40p tax threshold
That could swing enough centre-right voters over in the final month to see them home.
The Tories are running out of time and options but there is still the Budget where Osborne has several good stories to tell about jobs, the deficit (below target), growth and inflation.
I remember in the 90s and early 2000s the media were very fond of the misery index which you got by adding the unemployment rate and the inflation rate together. This government must have one of the lowest scores on that index on record. Seems to have gone out of fashion strangely enough.
What Osborne needs to do though is not just boast about past achievements but set targets and ambitions for a future Tory government. An increase in the NWM would be pretty crass but quite beneficial. Something for the family too to help with the social conservatives. Maybe allowing the transfer of PAs between spouses spread over a few years? And a renewal of the pledge on health spending?
He does not have a lot of money to play with but he does have a little bit more than looked likely at Christmas.
I think several of us have our own models. Mine is by constituency with Scotland separately treated. Some of you might be interested.
I have made four simple basic assumptions:
1. Core Tory and Labour vote is unchanged from 2010. 2. LibDems in marginal LibDem seats will continue to vote LibDem. In all other seats, a sizeable proportion will defect to Labour. 3. UKIP will take from Tory and Labour and inherit most of the BNP vote (no offence intended). 4. In Scotland, SNP will take lumps out of both Labour and LibDem
To quantify:
I assume that in LibDem marginals (within 25% of winner) 10% will defect to Labour and 10% will defect to Green. In all other cases, 40% will defect to Labour (and 10% to Green).
I assume UKIP will take 10% of Tory votes and 10% of Labour votes (and 80% of BNP votes).
I assume SNP in Scotland will take 33% of Labour votes and 33% of LibDem votes.
The resulting share of the vote and seat result is:
Con 33.9% of vote 268 seats Lab 33.5% of vote 274 seats LibD 13.5% of vote 33 seats (none in Scotland) UKIP 11.6% of vote 0 seats Green 3.4% of vote 1 seat SNP 3.4% of vote 53 seats
My assumptions are just possible scenarios. Some changes make little difference. For instance if SNP take 50% of Labour and LibDem votes, they take an extra 5 seats, 4 from Labour and one from Tory. They already have all the LibDem seats.
Considering the number of wildcards in this election, forecasts are boringly consistent.
Mine too, based on a marginal seat analysis looking for betting opportunities, came to broadly similar figures.
This may be the most boring election in a long time! Though if we are right the post election period will be very interesting indeed.
There's no way that the SNP will go into coalition with Labour (or anyone else, for that matter) at Westminster. The SNP's two overriding objectives are another referendum on independence, as and when it's winnable, and power at Holyrood in the interim. They can get much more by voting on a case-by-case basis in Westminster, while lumbering Labour with unpopular ministerial decisions in advance of the 2016 poll. They won't need to even vote Labour into office on C&S if the Lib Dems do that for them; an abstention would suffice.
An increase in the NWM would be pretty crass but quite beneficial. Something for the family too to help with the social conservatives. Maybe allowing the transfer of PAs between spouses spread over a few years?.
Both of those are likely IMO.
Also I think the 2% defence spending commitment is likely in some form. I can't say I'm terribly thrilled at it; I really don't like arbitrary spending targets for anything.
An increase in the NWM would be pretty crass but quite beneficial. Something for the family too to help with the social conservatives. Maybe allowing the transfer of PAs between spouses spread over a few years?.
Both of those are likely IMO.
Also I think the 2% defence spending commitment is likely in some form. I can't say I'm terribly thrilled at it; I really don't like arbitrary spending targets for anything.
Likewise. The 0.7% for foreign aid in particular is a bizarre relic of a different world where our governments never actually lived up to the promise anyway.
I don't think there is any serious doubt (bar an Ed calamity) that we have already hit the bottom of the cycle on defence spending. The world is just too unstable for us to be effectively disarmed as we are at the moment.
An increase in the NWM would be pretty crass but quite beneficial. Something for the family too to help with the social conservatives. Maybe allowing the transfer of PAs between spouses spread over a few years?.
Both of those are likely IMO.
Also I think the 2% defence spending commitment is likely in some form. I can't say I'm terribly thrilled at it; I really don't like arbitrary spending targets for anything.
A few bob on conventional forces would be good, particularly highly mobile expeditionary forces.
Rebuild airpower and have a much improved electronic detection system.
Can anyone provide an objective explanation of why Con may do better with phone and Lab may do better with online.
Pollster/sponsor bias. If a pollster is commonly reported in one media outlet, it raises the profile of that pollster with the media outlet's readers, who then sign up and disproportionately skew the sample.
Look at the online poll sponsors - the Sunday Mirror, the Sunday Guardian, the Sunday Independent. Do we then end up with a self perpetuating bias to the left, because those papers' readerships are most likely to register?
Differential on-line usage between the young and old is also another possibility.
I also think Shy Tory may have spread to Shy Kipper and Shy Labour.
Nasty, heartless baby eaters........racists, fruitcakes, loonies.........you actually think Ed Miliband should be PM???
The Tories need to slap down some big chunks of blue meat on the table to seal the deal. My suggestions:
> Commit to NATO 2% spending target on Defence for next parliament > Further announcements on extra non-EU immigration control (including a reaffirmation that they will aim to reduce overall numbers) > Declaration of an EU renegotiation concession pre-election (I.e more where that came from if you reelect) > An IHT cut and/or minor rise in 40p tax threshold
That could swing enough centre-right voters over in the final month to see them home.
The Tories are running out of time and options but there is still the Budget where Osborne has several good stories to tell about jobs, the deficit (below target), growth and inflation.
I remember in the 90s and early 2000s the media were very fond of the misery index which you got by adding the unemployment rate and the inflation rate together. This government must have one of the lowest scores on that index on record. Seems to have gone out of fashion strangely enough.
What Osborne needs to do though is not just boast about past achievements but set targets and ambitions for a future Tory government. An increase in the NWM would be pretty crass but quite beneficial. Something for the family too to help with the social conservatives. Maybe allowing the transfer of PAs between spouses spread over a few years? And a renewal of the pledge on health spending?
He does not have a lot of money to play with but he does have a little bit more than looked likely at Christmas.
I agree that the economic conditions are almost as good as Osborne could have dreamed of. Renewal of the pledge on health spending wouldn't appeal to me (the oldies have enough goodies if you ask me) and the Tory party needs to look like it's about more than just the old and wealthy to win. They need to spread the benefits and show the results their strategy has yielded to working people.
My suggestions are aimed at recovering a further 2-3% of polling points from UKIP defectors. They are also nothing that any true Conservative should have a problem with.
Renewal of the pledge on health spending wouldn't appeal to me .
It's a meaningless pledge, given that the only realistic question is how much health spending will have to increase, just to keep up. There is zero chance of spending being reduced in real terms. So Cameron might as well make the pledge to help dampen Labour's attacks on that point.
The Tories need to slap down some big chunks of blue meat on the table to seal the deal. My suggestions:
> Commit to NATO 2% spending target on Defence for next parliament > Further announcements on extra non-EU immigration control (including a reaffirmation that they will aim to reduce overall numbers) > Declaration of an EU renegotiation concession pre-election (I.e more where that came from if you reelect) > An IHT cut and/or minor rise in 40p tax threshold
That could swing enough centre-right voters over in the final month to see them home.
The Tories are running out of time and options but there is still the Budget where Osborne has several good stories to tell about jobs, the deficit (below target), growth and inflation.
I remember in the 90s and early 2000s the media were very fond of the misery index which you got by adding the unemployment rate and the inflation rate together. This government must have one of the lowest scores on that index on record. Seems to have gone out of fashion strangely enough.
What Osborne needs to do though is not just boast about past achievements but set targets and ambitions for a future Tory government. An increase in the NWM would be pretty crass but quite beneficial. Something for the family too to help with the social conservatives. Maybe allowing the transfer of PAs between spouses spread over a few years? And a renewal of the pledge on health spending?
He does not have a lot of money to play with but he does have a little bit more than looked likely at Christmas.
I agree that the economic conditions are almost as good as Osborne could have dreamed of. Renewal of the pledge on health spending wouldn't appeal to me (the oldies have enough goodies if you ask me) and the Tory party needs to look like it's about more than just the old and wealthy to win. They need to spread the benefits and show the results their strategy has yielded to working people.
My suggestions are aimed at recovering a further 2-3% of polling points from UKIP defectors. They are also nothing that any true Conservative should have a problem with.
I don't know if I still count as a "true conservative" these days but I did not have any problem with them.
But if Kippers are in the main grumpy crotchety old men is health spending not pretty close to their hearts and livers and prostrates and....
The Tories need to slap down some big chunks of blue meat on the table to seal the deal. My suggestions:
> Commit to NATO 2% spending target on Defence for next parliament > Further announcements on extra non-EU immigration control (including a reaffirmation that they will aim to reduce overall numbers) > Declaration of an EU renegotiation concession pre-election (I.e more where that came from if you reelect) > An IHT cut and/or minor rise in 40p tax threshold
That could swing enough centre-right voters over in the final month to see them home.
The Tories are running out of time and options but there is still the Budget where Osborne has several good stories to tell about jobs, the deficit (below target), growth and inflation.
I remember in the 90s and early 2000s the media were very fond of the misery index which you got by adding the unemployment rate and the inflation rate together. This government must have one of the lowest scores on that index on record. Seems to have gone out of fashion strangely enough.
What Osborne needs to do though is not just boast about past achievements but set targets and ambitions for a future Tory government. An increase in the NWM would be pretty crass but quite beneficial. Something for the family too to help with the social conservatives. Maybe allowing the transfer of PAs between spouses spread over a few years? And a renewal of the pledge on health spending?
He does not have a lot of money to play with but he does have a little bit more than looked likely at Christmas.
Renewal of the pledge on health spending wouldn't appeal to me .
It's a meaningless pledge, given that the only realistic question is how much health spending will have to increase, just to keep up. There is zero chance of spending being reduced in real terms. So Cameron might as well make the pledge to help dampen Labour's attacks on that point.
I agree its a cheap shield and its all the better for being able to point out that this government has delivered on that pledge despite the worst peacetime deficit in history etc.
@isam - Also buying both Con at 21 and Lab at 17 looks fairly sound, depending on what view you take - if I've done my sums correctly, it works out at a roughly evens bet that there won't be any kind of coalition.
Yes I agree I make Conservatives 21.5 and Labour 18.8
I think I had a lower score for Lab earlier as hadn't included SNP coalitions
The Tories need to slap down some big chunks of blue meat on the table to seal the deal. My suggestions:
> Commit to NATO 2% spending target on Defence for next parliament > Further announcements on extra non-EU immigration control (including a reaffirmation that they will aim to reduce overall numbers) > Declaration of an EU renegotiation concession pre-election (I.e more where that came from if you reelect) > An IHT cut and/or minor rise in 40p tax threshold
That could swing enough centre-right voters over in the final month to see them home.
The Tories are running out of time and options but there is still the Budget where Osborne has several good stories to tell about jobs, the deficit (below target), growth and inflation.
I remember in the 90s and early 2000s the media were very fond of the misery index which you got by adding the unemployment rate and the inflation rate together. This government must have one of the lowest scores on that index on record. Seems to have gone out of fashion strangely enough.
What Osborne needs to do though is not just boast about past achievements but set targets and ambitions for a future Tory government. An increase in the NWM would be pretty crass but quite beneficial. Something for the family too to help with the social conservatives. Maybe allowing the transfer of PAs between spouses spread over a few years? And a renewal of the pledge on health spending?
He does not have a lot of money to play with but he does have a little bit more than looked likely at Christmas.
NWM? do you mean NMW?
Yes, but since I am a heartless tory who doesn't really care about the poor I am bound to make mistakes like that.
Incidentally, Ed Davey was quoted on the radio this morning saying that hate preachers shouldn't be stopped from preaching at so-called universities because the best way of countering bad ideas was by challenging them. A sentiment I entirely agree with save for the fact that the one thing people like him and the universities and the press and other others have NOT done is to challenge such bad ideas. They have run away as fast as they could from any challenge, intellectual or otherwise. They have ceded the ground to such people, which is why we have the problem we now have and why places such as UCL - were prepared to have talks by speakers on a segregated basis - until they were rightly derided.
If only there were challenge. If only.
Society doesn't think in shades of grey. The ideal - that of challenge and robust discussion does not exist. You know why he (and others) don't challenge the ideology of Islam, because they will be met with the call of Racist catcalls and even if there is some support for the challenge, it is easy for the noisy few, easier than ever with social media and rollingg news, to destroy that challenge.
It is not robust discussion which is missing. It is courage.
But we just need to do it - and be prepared to ignore the noises off. If Ed Davey were serious, he would have stood up for my Lib Dem candidate when he was being attacked by fellow Lib Dem members over the Jesus and Mo cartoons. All it takes is for some politicians to show a bit of bravery.
At the moment we are outsourcing our moral compass and courage to the likes of Marf. It is pathetic that the nation of Orwell and Wilkes and the Tolpuddle Martyrs and the Chartists and Paine and Burke and Wilberforce is reduced to quivering jelly in the face of narcissistic liars and psychos whose whole moral and factual edifice can be pulled apart in minutes, if only those questioning them spent more than a few minutes doing the basic research. Pretty much everything Cage says is a lie and a demonstrable one. But no journalist ever says that to them.
"Do not be afraid" as a middle-aged man once said to the unarmed masses in the face of what we thought was the invincible Communist state.
Andrew Neil seems quite het up over our wimpy response to Muslims over their extremism and murder... probably why CAGE refused an interview with him on Daily Politics last week and Sunday Politics yesterday
The Tories need to slap down some big chunks of blue meat on the table to seal the deal. My suggestions:
> Commit to NATO 2% spending target on Defence for next parliament > Further announcements on extra non-EU immigration control (including a reaffirmation that they will aim to reduce overall numbers) > Declaration of an EU renegotiation concession pre-election (I.e more where that came from if you reelect) > An IHT cut and/or minor rise in 40p tax threshold
That could swing enough centre-right voters over in the final month to see them home.
1 - definitely agree, defence spending needs to rise both for political and practical reasons. Our military has become a well equipped joke. 2 - better not to bother, no one would believe the Cameroons anyway and it will just help UKIP by bringing immigration back into the foreground. 3 - they won't be able to talk about anything people really care about such as CAP/CFP opt outs and freedom of movement so it's better not to bother. 4 - they have already made the £50k pledge which is good enough.
The Tories need to slap down some big chunks of blue meat on the table to seal the deal. My suggestions:
> Commit to NATO 2% spending target on Defence for next parliament > Further announcements on extra non-EU immigration control (including a reaffirmation that they will aim to reduce overall numbers) > Declaration of an EU renegotiation concession pre-election (I.e more where that came from if you reelect) > An IHT cut and/or minor rise in 40p tax threshold
That could swing enough centre-right voters over in the final month to see them home.
The Tories are running out of time and options but there is still the Budget where Osborne has several good stories to tell about jobs, the deficit (below target), growth and inflation.
I remember in the 90s and early 2000s the media were very fond of the misery index which you got by adding the unemployment rate and the inflation rate together. This government must have one of the lowest scores on that index on record. Seems to have gone out of fashion strangely enough.
What Osborne needs to do though is not just boast about past achievements but set targets and ambitions for a future Tory government. An increase in the NWM would be pretty crass but quite beneficial. Something for the family too to help with the social conservatives. Maybe allowing the transfer of PAs between spouses spread over a few years? And a renewal of the pledge on health spending?
He does not have a lot of money to play with but he does have a little bit more than looked likely at Christmas.
NWM? do you mean NMW?
Yes, but since I am a heartless tory who doesn't really care about the poor I am bound to make mistakes like that.
Far from it David you are not heartless and only just a Tory IMO!!
I think you were distracted by the 91/2 weeks references
The Tories need to slap down some big chunks of blue meat on the table to seal the deal. My suggestions:
> Commit to NATO 2% spending target on Defence for next parliament > Further announcements on extra non-EU immigration control (including a reaffirmation that they will aim to reduce overall numbers) > Declaration of an EU renegotiation concession pre-election (I.e more where that came from if you reelect) > An IHT cut and/or minor rise in 40p tax threshold
That could swing enough centre-right voters over in the final month to see them home.
Too little too late ?
Cameron needed to put some meat on the table two years ago for it to have credibility. Now it goes in the category of "election promise". May swing some voters but probably nowhere near enough.
The Tories need to slap down some big chunks of blue meat on the table to seal the deal. My suggestions:
> Commit to NATO 2% spending target on Defence for next parliament > Further announcements on extra non-EU immigration control (including a reaffirmation that they will aim to reduce overall numbers) > Declaration of an EU renegotiation concession pre-election (I.e more where that came from if you reelect) > An IHT cut and/or minor rise in 40p tax threshold
That could swing enough centre-right voters over in the final month to see them home.
The Tories are running out of time and options but there is still the Budget where Osborne has several good stories to tell about jobs, the deficit (below target), growth and inflation.
I remember in the 90s and early 2000s the media were very fond of the misery index which you got by adding the unemployment rate and the inflation rate together. This government must have one of the lowest scores on that index on record. Seems to have gone out of fashion strangely enough.
What Osborne needs to do though is not just boast about past achievements but set targets and ambitions for a future Tory government. An increase in the NWM would be pretty crass but quite beneficial. Something for the family too to help with the social conservatives. Maybe allowing the transfer of PAs between spouses spread over a few years? And a renewal of the pledge on health spending?
He does not have a lot of money to play with but he does have a little bit more than looked likely at Christmas.
NWM? do you mean NMW?
Yes, but since I am a heartless tory who doesn't really care about the poor I am bound to make mistakes like that.
Far from it David you are not heartless and only just a Tory IMO!!
I think you were distracted by the 91/2 weeks references
Or the video of Kim that I was not nearly brave enough to click on at work!
The Tories need to slap down some big chunks of blue meat on the table to seal the deal. My suggestions:
> Commit to NATO 2% spending target on Defence for next parliament > Further announcements on extra non-EU immigration control (including a reaffirmation that they will aim to reduce overall numbers) > Declaration of an EU renegotiation concession pre-election (I.e more where that came from if you reelect) > An IHT cut and/or minor rise in 40p tax threshold
That could swing enough centre-right voters over in the final month to see them home.
1 - definitely agree, defence spending needs to rise both for political and practical reasons. Our military has become a well equipped joke. 2 - better not to bother, no one would believe the Cameroons anyway and it will just help UKIP by bringing immigration back into the foreground. 3 - they won't be able to talk about anything people really care about such as CAP/CFP opt outs and freedom of movement so it's better not to bother. 4 - they have already made the £50k pledge which is good enough.
Our leaders seem to have forgotten that Special Forces are there to supplement, assist and guide conventional forces not replace them. Our army has become boutique and in the current world that is not wise.
Evening all and the thing I have noticed is how the Tory scores are notching upwards. ICM 36
ComRes 34 Opinium 34 YouGov 34 (average of last 5 polls as well as yesterday's score) Ashcroft 34 Ipsos Mori 34
Populus 32 Survation 28 TNS 28
For long enough the Tories were struggling to get above 32 in any polls.
They need to find another 4-5% at least and that would be more than 2010 GE...Given it isn't vs Gordon Brown and the rise of UKIP, I can't see where that will come from. Also no evidence (or money) for some sort of radical changes that would alter peoples view. I think steady as she goes only gets you so far.
It is impressive how weak minded people are so easily persuaded by a little simplistic propaganda by our military industrial complex.
Germany is cutting defence spending this year as are Italy, Russia, Hungary, Bulgaria and of course ourselves. To what purpose do people propose we rearm?
Anyway foreign policy is not the Conservatives strength, and is particularly off putting for younger voters who tend to be a little more savvy.
Lord Ashcroft@LordAshcroft·7 secs7 seconds ago I shall be releasing another batch of marginal seats polling at the @ConHome conference at around 5pm tomorrow
I'm impressed with how resultant the Labour vote is. Holding up much better than I expected. From here I wouldn't be surprised if Ed polls more than Gordon. That would be a success for Ed.
He may exceed the 31% max I thought was his top score for the last couple of years.
It is impressive how weak minded people are so easily persuaded by a little simplistic propaganda by our military industrial complex.
Germany is cutting defence spending this year as are Italy, Russia, Hungary, Bulgaria and of course ourselves. To what purpose do people propose we rearm?
Anyway foreign policy is not the Conservatives strength, and is particularly off putting for younger voters who tend to be a little more savvy.
If they were savvy wouldn't they actually bother voting ?
It is impressive how weak minded people are so easily persuaded by a little simplistic propaganda by our military industrial complex.
Germany is cutting defence spending this year as are Italy, Russia, Hungary, Bulgaria and of course ourselves. To what purpose do people propose we rearm?
Anyway foreign policy is not the Conservatives strength, and is particularly off putting for younger voters who tend to be a little more savvy.
If they were savvy wouldn't they actually bother voting ?
I think several of us have our own models. Mine is by constituency with Scotland separately treated. Some of you might be interested.
I have made four simple basic assumptions:
1. Core Tory and Labour vote is unchanged from 2010. 2. LibDems in marginal LibDem seats will continue to vote LibDem. In all other seats, a sizeable proportion will defect to Labour. 3. UKIP will take from Tory and Labour and inherit most of the BNP vote (no offence intended). 4. In Scotland, SNP will take lumps out of both Labour and LibDem
To quantify:
I assume that in LibDem marginals (within 25% of winner) 10% will defect to Labour and 10% will defect to Green. In all other cases, 40% will defect to Labour (and 10% to Green).
I assume UKIP will take 10% of Tory votes and 10% of Labour votes (and 80% of BNP votes).
I assume SNP in Scotland will take 33% of Labour votes and 33% of LibDem votes.
The resulting share of the vote and seat result is:
Con 33.9% of vote 268 seats Lab 33.5% of vote 274 seats LibD 13.5% of vote 33 seats (none in Scotland) UKIP 11.6% of vote 0 seats Green 3.4% of vote 1 seat SNP 3.4% of vote 53 seats
My assumptions are just possible scenarios. Some changes make little difference. For instance if SNP take 50% of Labour and LibDem votes, they take an extra 5 seats, 4 from Labour and one from Tory. They already have all the LibDem seats.
I can't see the Lib Dems getting over 30 seats and losing Orkney. If they lose Orkney, sub 25 beckons imo.
The most sensitive assumption in my model is what percentage of previous LibDem voters defect to Labour in marginal LibDem seats.
I assumed 10% would move to Labour and that produced 33 LibDem, 268 Con and 274 Lab.
If I change that to 20% defection, then the numbers become 18 LibDem, 276 Con and 281 Lab.
If I change it to 40% defection (i.e. no effect of being a marginal) the numbers become 0 LibDem, 284 Con and 294 Lab.
This assumption of how previous LibDem voters will behave in marginals is critical for estimating the number of LibDem seats but it hardly affects the Lab lead in terms of seats.
An increase in the NWM would be pretty crass but quite beneficial. Something for the family too to help with the social conservatives. Maybe allowing the transfer of PAs between spouses spread over a few years?.
Both of those are likely IMO.
Also I think the 2% defence spending commitment is likely in some form. I can't say I'm terribly thrilled at it; I really don't like arbitrary spending targets for anything.
A few bob on conventional forces would be good, particularly highly mobile expeditionary forces.
Rebuild airpower and have a much improved electronic detection system.
It all sounds like 1938 doesn't it?
You are not a complete idiot, not everything you say is uninteresting, so please try and educate yourself.
Lord Ashcroft@LordAshcroft·7 secs7 seconds ago I shall be releasing another batch of marginal seats polling at the @ConHome conference at around 5pm tomorrow
It is impressive how weak minded people are so easily persuaded by a little simplistic propaganda by our military industrial complex.
Germany is cutting defence spending this year as are Italy, Russia, Hungary, Bulgaria and of course ourselves. To what purpose do people propose we rearm?
Anyway foreign policy is not the Conservatives strength, and is particularly off putting for younger voters who tend to be a little more savvy.
If they were savvy wouldn't they actually bother voting ?
Indeed registering.
Savvy enough to know it makes no difference?
Right so it's OK for all those oldies just to go off and vote for people to do all that non-savvy stuff. Seems a bit daft to me.
It is impressive how weak minded people are so easily persuaded by a little simplistic propaganda by our military industrial complex.
Germany is cutting defence spending this year as are Italy, Russia, Hungary, Bulgaria and of course ourselves. To what purpose do people propose we rearm?
Anyway foreign policy is not the Conservatives strength, and is particularly off putting for younger voters who tend to be a little more savvy.
I'd have thought that we need spending on the intelligence and police services, given that one of the threats we face, both internally and externally is from terrorism.
I'm not any sort of expert on military matters but the fact that Italy is cutting defence spending is a pretty weak argument. Given the presence of IS in Libya they need to be thinking about naval patrols, surely?
The Tories need to slap down some big chunks of blue meat on the table to seal the deal. My suggestions:
> Commit to NATO 2% spending target on Defence for next parliament > Further announcements on extra non-EU immigration control (including a reaffirmation that they will aim to reduce overall numbers) > Declaration of an EU renegotiation concession pre-election (I.e more where that came from if you reelect) > An IHT cut and/or minor rise in 40p tax threshold
That could swing enough centre-right voters over in the final month to see them home.
1 - definitely agree, defence spending needs to rise both for political and practical reasons. Our military has become a well equipped joke. 2 - better not to bother, no one would believe the Cameroons anyway and it will just help UKIP by bringing immigration back into the foreground. 3 - they won't be able to talk about anything people really care about such as CAP/CFP opt outs and freedom of movement so it's better not to bother. 4 - they have already made the £50k pledge which is good enough.
He will never get UKIP back down to 3-4%. However, there is a constituency of UKIP defectors who are horrified by the prospect of a Miliband-led Labour government and are looking for an excuse to vote Conservative.
However, they also greatly distrust Cameron's Conservatives so they need something deliverable and concrete from him to show he still understands and sympathises with them. Ignoring Europe (apart from the EU vote) and Immigration in the manifesto gives them nothing to grab onto.
The problem with leaving it all to an extra time penalty by Osborne is 1. He misses the target as often as he hits it. 2. If Jihad John happens to turn up at Paddington on the day of the budget no one will notice. I'm all for brinkmanship but not in the shaky hands of Osborne.
It is impressive how weak minded people are so easily persuaded by a little simplistic propaganda by our military industrial complex.
Germany is cutting defence spending this year as are Italy, Russia, Hungary, Bulgaria and of course ourselves. To what purpose do people propose we rearm?
Anyway foreign policy is not the Conservatives strength, and is particularly off putting for younger voters who tend to be a little more savvy.
I'd have thought that we need spending on the intelligence and police services, given that one of the threats we face, both internally and externally is from terrorism.
I'm not any sort of expert on military matters but the fact that Italy is cutting defence spending is a pretty weak argument. Given the presence of IS in Libya they need to be thinking about naval patrols, surely?
Surely that is really a case of border security. Israel, ironically, has no worries as they have the good sense to have stringent controls.
I agree that the last thing we should be over investing in is weapons for a war we will never fight.
Renewal of the pledge on health spending wouldn't appeal to me .
It's a meaningless pledge, given that the only realistic question is how much health spending will have to increase, just to keep up. There is zero chance of spending being reduced in real terms. So Cameron might as well make the pledge to help dampen Labour's attacks on that point.
A solution for funding healthcare in the long-term would be nice, before it starts to soak up all the money available for everything else.
I agree with others who suggest phone polls more like to get response from Tory minded voters and online polls from Labour minded voters.
Older voters register to vote and exercise their vote. Far fewer of them live on their iphones or other devices, if they have them to begin with.
Young voters don't register to vote and rarely bother to go out to vote. They live on their iphones exchanging trivia with their virtual friends.
The latest number I heard was the some 7.5 million eligible voters have not bothered to register. Although some of them will be in the ethnic minority communities where mass registration has been outlawed to reduce fraud, the vast majority will be younger voters and migrant workers who are either not remotely interested in politics or can't be bothered to vote. It is from this group a great many would be Labour and Green "voters" come. We also saw in the Survation poll in Thanet South potentially a great many Farage voters also come from this group of unregistered non-voters.
I still expect the GE numbers to be nearer Tory 34-36 Labour 25-28 LibDem 10-12 UKIP 10-12
Even in Scotland the SNP cannot rely on the huge turnout from IndyRef because the registers have been scrapped and reconstituted since September and a great many of those who registered to vote in September have not bothered to re-register to vote in May. We have seen the likes of SKY News promote young voter participation with their Stand UP Be Counted promotion. On the occasions I could be bothered watching, those involved are already members of the Youth Parliament or activists in political youth wings.
Osborne's budget cont....I did read a while back that Maurice Saatchi and a team were working on something that he thought would be an election winning policy. As it hasn't been unveiled yet the budget seems the likely moment.
If there is a Tory to be afraid of it's him. He's smarter than the lot of them put together.
I think several of us have our own models. Mine is by constituency with Scotland separately treated. Some of you might be interested.
I have made four simple basic assumptions:
1. Core Tory and Labour vote is unchanged from 2010. 2. LibDems in marginal LibDem seats will continue to vote LibDem. In all other seats, a sizeable proportion will defect to Labour. 3. UKIP will take from Tory and Labour and inherit most of the BNP vote (no offence intended). 4. In Scotland, SNP will take lumps out of both Labour and LibDem
To quantify:
I assume that in LibDem marginals (within 25% of winner) 10% will defect to Labour and 10% will defect to Green. In all other cases, 40% will defect to Labour (and 10% to Green).
I assume UKIP will take 10% of Tory votes and 10% of Labour votes (and 80% of BNP votes).
I assume SNP in Scotland will take 33% of Labour votes and 33% of LibDem votes.
The resulting share of the vote and seat result is:
Con 33.9% of vote 268 seats Lab 33.5% of vote 274 seats LibD 13.5% of vote 33 seats (none in Scotland) UKIP 11.6% of vote 0 seats Green 3.4% of vote 1 seat SNP 3.4% of vote 53 seats
My assumptions are just possible scenarios. Some changes make little difference. For instance if SNP take 50% of Labour and LibDem votes, they take an extra 5 seats, 4 from Labour and one from Tory. They already have all the LibDem seats.
I can't see the Lib Dems getting over 30 seats and losing Orkney. If they lose Orkney, sub 25 beckons imo.
The most sensitive assumption in my model is what percentage of previous LibDem voters defect to Labour in marginal LibDem seats.
I assumed 10% would move to Labour and that produced 33 LibDem, 268 Con and 274 Lab.
If I change that to 20% defection, then the numbers become 18 LibDem, 276 Con and 281 Lab.
If I change it to 40% defection (i.e. no effect of being a marginal) the numbers become 0 LibDem, 284 Con and 294 Lab.
This assumption of how previous LibDem voters will behave in marginals is critical for estimating the number of LibDem seats but it hardly affects the Lab lead in terms of seats.
The LibDems will not lose either Orkney and Shetland or Charles Kennedy's seat.
Osborne's budget cont....I did read a while back that Maurice Saatchi and a team were working on something that he thought would be an election winning policy. As it hasn't been unveiled yet the budget seems the likely moment.
If there is a Tory to be afraid of it's him. He's smarter than the lot of them put together.
Yes but it's merely turd spangling.
Advertising can never make up for a weak product in the long term and Osborne's the product.
I think several of us have our own models. Mine is by constituency with Scotland separately treated. Some of you might be interested.
I have made four simple basic assumptions:
1. Core Tory and Labour vote is unchanged from 2010. 2. LibDems in marginal LibDem seats will continue to vote LibDem. In all other seats, a sizeable proportion will defect to Labour. 3. UKIP will take from Tory and Labour and inherit most of the BNP vote (no offence intended). 4. In Scotland, SNP will take lumps out of both Labour and LibDem
To quantify:
I assume that in LibDem marginals (within 25% of winner) 10% will defect to Labour and 10% will defect to Green. In all other cases, 40% will defect to Labour (and 10% to Green).
I assume UKIP will take 10% of Tory votes and 10% of Labour votes (and 80% of BNP votes).
I assume SNP in Scotland will take 33% of Labour votes and 33% of LibDem votes.
The resulting share of the vote and seat result is:
Con 33.9% of vote 268 seats Lab 33.5% of vote 274 seats LibD 13.5% of vote 33 seats (none in Scotland) UKIP 11.6% of vote 0 seats Green 3.4% of vote 1 seat SNP 3.4% of vote 53 seats
My assumptions are just possible scenarios. Some changes make little difference. For instance if SNP take 50% of Labour and LibDem votes, they take an extra 5 seats, 4 from Labour and one from Tory. They already have all the LibDem seats.
I can't see the Lib Dems getting over 30 seats and losing Orkney. If they lose Orkney, sub 25 beckons imo.
The most sensitive assumption in my model is what percentage of previous LibDem voters defect to Labour in marginal LibDem seats.
I assumed 10% would move to Labour and that produced 33 LibDem, 268 Con and 274 Lab.
If I change that to 20% defection, then the numbers become 18 LibDem, 276 Con and 281 Lab.
If I change it to 40% defection (i.e. no effect of being a marginal) the numbers become 0 LibDem, 284 Con and 294 Lab.
This assumption of how previous LibDem voters will behave in marginals is critical for estimating the number of LibDem seats but it hardly affects the Lab lead in terms of seats.
The LibDems will not lose either Orkney and Shetland or Charles Kennedy's seat.
I agree. And UKIP will win at least one seat. These are special circumstances that my gross assumptions don't allow for. The purpose of my model, based on constituencies, is to give me a broad feel of what the drivers are and how sensitive they are.
I can't see the Lib Dems getting over 30 seats and losing Orkney. If they lose Orkney, sub 25 beckons imo.
I've just had a look at the Orkney and Zetland seat over the last 3 elections. Now this is going to depend on whether you think Carmichael has a personal vote or not.
But. In 2001, the Libs won the seat with less than 7000 total votes. The SNP were on 2400 and the Lab and Cons on about 3500 each, since then, the SNP vote dipped in 2005 and rose a little to 2010. So let's imagine what has happened to the Lab and Tory votes.
I see a scenario where the Libs swept up both Labour and Tory votes not on personal vote but on national swing to the Liberals. A swing that has now reversed significantly. I suggest that it is not personal vote but lending of Tory and Labour votes that gave an abnormally high Liberal vote in 2005 and 2010 while Wallace built a personal vote, Carmichael was lent votes due to Liberal overall performance.
As such I can see almost the entire Labour vote going to the SNP, while the Tories get a still "lend" votes to the Liberals (who return to historic norms + Tory lend) and the SNP clean up with the Labour vote and significant Liberal share.
That could mean a result of SNP 9000, Liberal 7500, Tory 2000, Labour 1500. This is not outwith the historic shares and the apparent 2015 movement. The 11k in 2010 was a historical aberration. It was "lent" votes from the SNP and Labour and Tories.
"Advertising can never make up for a weak product in the long term and Osborne's the product."
I doubt MS would waste one minute of his time selling George! Like outdoor pools in Sunderland some things are unsellable.
Anyway he wasn't talking about promoting a product but working on a new popular policy. It can't be too much of a secret because I either read it or heard it on a radio programme several months ago. I seem to think it had something to do with housing but I can't imagine the half baked announcement today was what he was talking about
Look at the online poll sponsors - the Sunday Mirror, the Sunday Guardian, the Sunday Independent. Do we then end up with a self perpetuating bias to the left, because those papers' readerships are most likely to register?
Comments
14.5% for February 2015
16.6% November (Peak?)
15.5% December
Did she not wonder where he was and what he was doing?
Still the whole family seems to have lived here just long enought to get a British passport - at t a time when we appear to have been handing out British nationality to all and sundry like sweeties - and then pushed off back home. The father seems not to have been around much for his son's teenage years either.
A lax immigration/integration policy coming home to roost. And - no - this isn't a dig at Labour since the family were let in during the dog days of the Major years.
Incidentally, Ed Davey was quoted on the radio this morning saying that hate preachers shouldn't be stopped from preaching at so-called universities because the best way of countering bad ideas was by challenging them. A sentiment I entirely agree with save for the fact that the one thing people like him and the universities and the press and other others have NOT done is to challenge such bad ideas. They have run away as fast as they could from any challenge, intellectual or otherwise. They have ceded the ground to such people, which is why we have the problem we now have and why places such as UCL - were prepared to have talks by speakers on a segregated basis - until they were rightly derided.
If only there were challenge. If only.
Took me 85 mins to respond as i have been too busy ditching all my EICIPM bets on the basis of that amazing revelation!!
That is nearly as earth shattering as Audreys amazing revelations cut short by Mr Smithson.
I agree entirely.
Why Jack's ARSE isn't included in Sunil's elbow is a mystery. I know it's not to everyone's taste but at least it has heft
But regardless...Squirrel down, I repeat squirrel down.
http://slummysinglemummy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/crying-squirrel1.jpg
[Interesting url google found when i typed "sad squirrel" into google images, but picture is safe for work]
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/572032477293891585
Perhaps we could have one that if we take into account all pollsters beginning with T a LAB maj is nailed on!!!
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/testing-thoughts.html
[I wouldn't be plugging this quite so often, but testing ended less than a fortnight before the first race begins].
During the F1 season, obviously.
Con LD UKIP and Con LD Green at 23?
EDIT Also Con UKIP Green at 16
In this day and age do they actually have any effect?
+23 if neither Con nor LD are in govenment
-2 if one is but the other isn't
-27 if it's a Con/LD coalition
which does indeed look value.
What factors could be at play?
eg It might make sense if phones skewed more upmarket and online less upmarket. But I wouldn't have thought that was the case. Surely there are far more people without computers than phones - and the people without computers would mainly be poorer people (plus obviously some elderly people). But wouldn't all of that be handled by past vote weighting etc anyway?
With 9 1/2 weeks to go a thread with references to the film with that title and its famous food scene would be fun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5zWBtWnbKE
I have made four simple basic assumptions:
1. Core Tory and Labour vote is unchanged from 2010.
2. LibDems in marginal LibDem seats will continue to vote LibDem. In all other seats, a sizeable proportion will defect to Labour.
3. UKIP will take from Tory and Labour and inherit most of the BNP vote (no offence intended).
4. In Scotland, SNP will take lumps out of both Labour and LibDem
To quantify:
I assume that in LibDem marginals (within 25% of winner) 10% will defect to Labour and 10% will defect to Green. In all other cases, 40% will defect to Labour (and 10% to Green).
I assume UKIP will take 10% of Tory votes and 10% of Labour votes (and 80% of BNP votes).
I assume SNP in Scotland will take 33% of Labour votes and 33% of LibDem votes.
The resulting share of the vote and seat result is:
Con 33.9% of vote 268 seats
Lab 33.5% of vote 274 seats
LibD 13.5% of vote 33 seats (none in Scotland)
UKIP 11.6% of vote 0 seats
Green 3.4% of vote 1 seat
SNP 3.4% of vote 53 seats
My assumptions are just possible scenarios. Some changes make little difference. For instance if SNP take 50% of Labour and LibDem votes, they take an extra 5 seats, 4 from Labour and one from Tory. They already have all the LibDem seats.
> Commit to NATO 2% spending target on Defence for next parliament
> Further announcements on extra non-EU immigration control (including a reaffirmation that they will aim to reduce overall numbers)
> Declaration of an EU renegotiation concession pre-election (I.e more where that came from if you reelect)
> An IHT cut and/or minor rise in 40p tax threshold
That could swing enough centre-right voters over in the final month to see them home.
I think the SNP won't do quite that well, UKIP will get a couple of seats, and the Conservatives will do a little better, with Labour and the Lib Dems a few seats worse, but broadly speaking it's pretty similar to my own view [although that's just gut instinct rather than mathematically modelled].
I wonder if it is because so many people no longer watch the TV news or read a paper, instead getting their news online from sources of their choice, perhaps reading a story or two in each and if it is interesting looking on more than one site for the story for balance.
I now find it hard to believe that as little as a decade ago, I spent half an hour of the few precious hours after work watching the drivel on BBC or ITV news hearing how the Prime Minister did this or the leader of the opposition did that and then hearing guest shills with vested interests maundering on about whatever the news Editor decided was important.
Just knocking up the numbers quickly, I made each market as below, but prob a rick in there somewhere
Con 21.5
Con LD 25.1
CO KIP 14.0
Con LD KIP 22.2
Con Gr 13.0
Con UK Gr 13.5
Con LD Gr 21.2
La 14.1
La Li 20.9
La SNP 17.3
La LD SNP 27.8
(Though I don't think they've announced the timing of increases over the 5 years - other than April 2015).
For Conservatives to do better at the expense of SNP and Labour and LibDems, I have to drop my assumption that the core votes remain unchanged and assume that there is a movement of Labour voters to Tory. Perhaps there is such a movement. I can't tell because of all the polling noise and the impact of the LibDem, UKIP and SNP movements. The other possibility is that UKIP will take more from Labour than Tory (In my model I assume UKIP takes equally from both).
It is not robust discussion which is missing. It is courage.
But we just need to do it - and be prepared to ignore the noises off. If Ed Davey were serious, he would have stood up for my Lib Dem candidate when he was being attacked by fellow Lib Dem members over the Jesus and Mo cartoons. All it takes is for some politicians to show a bit of bravery.
At the moment we are outsourcing our moral compass and courage to the likes of Marf. It is pathetic that the nation of Orwell and Wilkes and the Tolpuddle Martyrs and the Chartists and Paine and Burke and Wilberforce is reduced to quivering jelly in the face of narcissistic liars and psychos whose whole moral and factual edifice can be pulled apart in minutes, if only those questioning them spent more than a few minutes doing the basic research. Pretty much everything Cage says is a lie and a demonstrable one. But no journalist ever says that to them.
"Do not be afraid" as a middle-aged man once said to the unarmed masses in the face of what we thought was the invincible Communist state.
My favourite scene 'cos I had to replicate it with a Peugeot car using 'Summertime'. How we missed Kim Bassinger .....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L5h-86gBWw
I remember in the 90s and early 2000s the media were very fond of the misery index which you got by adding the unemployment rate and the inflation rate together. This government must have one of the lowest scores on that index on record. Seems to have gone out of fashion strangely enough.
What Osborne needs to do though is not just boast about past achievements but set targets and ambitions for a future Tory government. An increase in the NWM would be pretty crass but quite beneficial.
Something for the family too to help with the social conservatives. Maybe allowing the transfer of PAs between spouses spread over a few years?
And a renewal of the pledge on health spending?
He does not have a lot of money to play with but he does have a little bit more than looked likely at Christmas.
Mine too, based on a marginal seat analysis looking for betting opportunities, came to broadly similar figures.
This may be the most boring election in a long time! Though if we are right the post election period will be very interesting indeed.
Also I think the 2% defence spending commitment is likely in some form. I can't say I'm terribly thrilled at it; I really don't like arbitrary spending targets for anything.
I don't think there is any serious doubt (bar an Ed calamity) that we have already hit the bottom of the cycle on defence spending. The world is just too unstable for us to be effectively disarmed as we are at the moment.
Rebuild airpower and have a much improved electronic detection system.
It all sounds like 1938 doesn't it?
Look at the online poll sponsors - the Sunday Mirror, the Sunday Guardian, the Sunday Independent. Do we then end up with a self perpetuating bias to the left, because those papers' readerships are most likely to register?
Differential on-line usage between the young and old is also another possibility.
I also think Shy Tory may have spread to Shy Kipper and Shy Labour.
Nasty, heartless baby eaters........racists, fruitcakes, loonies.........you actually think Ed Miliband should be PM???
My suggestions are aimed at recovering a further 2-3% of polling points from UKIP defectors. They are also nothing that any true Conservative should have a problem with.
But if Kippers are in the main grumpy crotchety old men is health spending not pretty close to their hearts and livers and prostrates and....
I think I had a lower score for Lab earlier as hadn't included SNP coalitions
Labour average 32.8% with the former, 34% with the latter. But, TNS and Survation really drag down the Conservatives' online score.
2 - better not to bother, no one would believe the Cameroons anyway and it will just help UKIP by bringing immigration back into the foreground.
3 - they won't be able to talk about anything people really care about such as CAP/CFP opt outs and freedom of movement so it's better not to bother.
4 - they have already made the £50k pledge which is good enough.
I think you were distracted by the 91/2 weeks references
Cameron needed to put some meat on the table two years ago for it to have credibility. Now it goes in the category of "election promise". May swing some voters but probably nowhere near enough.
ICM 36
ComRes 34
Opinium 34
YouGov 34 (average of last 5 polls as well as yesterday's score)
Ashcroft 34
Ipsos Mori 34
Populus 32
Survation 28
TNS 28
For long enough the Tories were struggling to get above 32 in any polls.
Germany is cutting defence spending this year as are Italy, Russia, Hungary, Bulgaria and of course ourselves. To what purpose do people propose we rearm?
Anyway foreign policy is not the Conservatives strength, and is particularly off putting for younger voters who tend to be a little more savvy.
I shall be releasing another batch of marginal seats polling at the @ConHome conference at around 5pm tomorrow
He may exceed the 31% max I thought was his top score for the last couple of years.
Indeed registering.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Russian_Military_Spending_1992-2012_SIPRI.jpg
Certain trend there.
I assumed 10% would move to Labour and that produced 33 LibDem, 268 Con and 274 Lab.
If I change that to 20% defection, then the numbers become 18 LibDem, 276 Con and 281 Lab.
If I change it to 40% defection (i.e. no effect of being a marginal) the numbers become 0 LibDem, 284 Con and 294 Lab.
This assumption of how previous LibDem voters will behave in marginals is critical for estimating the number of LibDem seats but it hardly affects the Lab lead in terms of seats.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/feb/19/frontline-ukraine-crisis-in-borderlands-richard-sakwa-review-account
Perhaps you can tell me how much Russian defence spending will drop this year?
I'm not any sort of expert on military matters but the fact that Italy is cutting defence spending is a pretty weak argument. Given the presence of IS in Libya they need to be thinking about naval patrols, surely?
However, they also greatly distrust Cameron's Conservatives so they need something deliverable and concrete from him to show he still understands and sympathises with them. Ignoring Europe (apart from the EU vote) and Immigration in the manifesto gives them nothing to grab onto.
I agree that the last thing we should be over investing in is weapons for a war we will never fight.
Older voters register to vote and exercise their vote. Far fewer of them live on their iphones or other devices, if they have them to begin with.
Young voters don't register to vote and rarely bother to go out to vote. They live on their iphones exchanging trivia with their virtual friends.
The latest number I heard was the some 7.5 million eligible voters have not bothered to register. Although some of them will be in the ethnic minority communities where mass registration has been outlawed to reduce fraud, the vast majority will be younger voters and migrant workers who are either not remotely interested in politics or can't be bothered to vote. It is from this group a great many would be Labour and Green "voters" come. We also saw in the Survation poll in Thanet South potentially a great many Farage voters also come from this group of unregistered non-voters.
I still expect the GE numbers to be nearer
Tory 34-36
Labour 25-28
LibDem 10-12
UKIP 10-12
Even in Scotland the SNP cannot rely on the huge turnout from IndyRef because the registers have been scrapped and reconstituted since September and a great many of those who registered to vote in September have not bothered to re-register to vote in May. We have seen the likes of SKY News promote young voter participation with their Stand UP Be Counted promotion. On the occasions I could be bothered watching, those involved are already members of the Youth Parliament or activists in political youth wings.
777 minutes 777 seconds
If there is a Tory to be afraid of it's him. He's smarter than the lot of them put together.
Advertising can never make up for a weak product in the long term and Osborne's the product.
But. In 2001, the Libs won the seat with less than 7000 total votes. The SNP were on 2400 and the Lab and Cons on about 3500 each, since then, the SNP vote dipped in 2005 and rose a little to 2010. So let's imagine what has happened to the Lab and Tory votes.
I see a scenario where the Libs swept up both Labour and Tory votes not on personal vote but on national swing to the Liberals. A swing that has now reversed significantly. I suggest that it is not personal vote but lending of Tory and Labour votes that gave an abnormally high Liberal vote in 2005 and 2010 while Wallace built a personal vote, Carmichael was lent votes due to Liberal overall performance.
As such I can see almost the entire Labour vote going to the SNP, while the Tories get a still "lend" votes to the Liberals (who return to historic norms + Tory lend) and the SNP clean up with the Labour vote and significant Liberal share.
That could mean a result of SNP 9000, Liberal 7500, Tory 2000, Labour 1500. This is not outwith the historic shares and the apparent 2015 movement. The 11k in 2010 was a historical aberration. It was "lent" votes from the SNP and Labour and Tories.
"Advertising can never make up for a weak product in the long term and Osborne's the product."
I doubt MS would waste one minute of his time selling George! Like outdoor pools in Sunderland some things are unsellable.
Anyway he wasn't talking about promoting a product but working on a new popular policy. It can't be too much of a secret because I either read it or heard it on a radio programme several months ago. I seem to think it had something to do with housing but I can't imagine the half baked announcement today was what he was talking about
And Populus isn't in any newspaper.
So I don't really see any such pattern.