Even accounting for boundary changes which have sine narrowed the gap,you can`t rule out a Labour majority on the same votes despite the situation in Scotland.
Level in England means that Labour are ahead in the GB poll though. Labour won't get a majority unless they are at least 3% ahead GB wide, and that's probably too optimistic from an efficiency point of view for Labour still.
Still the 30.0 Labour hit last night on Betfair was lunacy for a majority.
Ofcourse only the swing counts.If Labour are only 2% behind the Tories in England,then that`s down from 11.2% meaning a 5% swing.
A lot of Tory seats become vulnerable at this point.
Given the Labour and Tories are tied in GB despite Labour losing votes in Scotland indicates they are doing rather well in England.
Yes I'd agree but I think getting to 326 is very very hard for Labour, 316 -> 326 is the toughest stretch of all. Ed would have to take ~ 80 English Tory seats !
Conservative 226-250 band is the best bet for a very good night for Labour I think.
roger - I think Cameron and Clarkson are much more naural bedfellows than people realise. I really think Cameron is an extremely uncultivated individual but his class background tends to hide it. Hence the Philip Stephens article and the senior official saying Cameron thinks the rest of the world is somewhere to go on holiday. But with the extreme privilege as the son of an old school stock broker and a magistrate, people don't buy it.
I disagree. Clarkson is just a tedious saloon bar boor. Cameron is clearly highly intelligent. My guess is that as a consummate PR man Dave is very good at making friends with folk who in private he finds rather distasteful, but who he feels are useful to him in public. If you are a politician and you have the chance to play buddies with newspaper editors and widely read/watched journalists then you do so. Whether, ultimately, that is wise or not is another question entirely.
This tedious saloon bar boor you talk about, Jeremy Clarkson, is that the same Jeremy Clarkson who has 350 million worldwide TV viewers, earns the BBC roughly £150 million a year, and is probably the most popular and successful TV presenter in the history of British broadcasting?
That one?
Poor old Jeremy Clarkson. He might actually have achieved something if he wasn't, in the opinion of "Southam Observer", simply a tedious boor.
There are many successful saloon bar boors. Richard Littlejohn is another one. You have a go every now and agin too, but don't quite carry it off as your heart is not in it.
Yes, or Russell Brand.
Stephen Fry and David Mitchell have to be in the running for boringly smuggest gits ever.
Surely Marcus Brigstocke has got that sewn up for life?
Labour Majority at 22/26 if anyone is interested. Fisher's model indicates 25.0 is the correct price fwiw. But that has the Tories leading by 3% come election day so @Smukesh might be of interest to you.
In past years, it could have had an effect, if the Tory Party knew there would be debates in 2005, would they have elected IDS instead of Kenneth Clarke?
Clarke would have split the Tory party in two, just as Heseltine and Portillo would have
In past years, it could have had an effect, if the Tory Party knew there would be debates in 2005, would they have elected IDS instead of Kenneth Clarke?
Clarke would have split the Tory party in two, just as Heseltine and Portillo would have
And like Cameron has. Tory choice has been "split in two" or "unity in unelectableness".
Mr. T, the enormo-haddock are not ammunition, man! They're an elite army of giant, hyper-intelligent land-walking superfish!
LOL. I was talking with a friend today who was worried about the future of robots with AI. I suggested he read 'War with the Newts'. Now your enormo-haddock are reminding me of that book too. Strange how that happens.
I don't see any advantage for any party other than the original big three to enter a coalition. Far better to be able to give or withhold support from time to time rather than all in one go.
I don't see any advantage for any party other than the original big three to enter a coalition. Far better to be able to give or withhold support from time to time rather than all in one go.
Like you, I'm an ex-Labour voter and switched to the LDs when Blair came in. Now, I've either grown old or grown up, so I'm now a NOTA.
It could be my natural cynicism has replaced youthful enthusiasm. But I think Labour has changed too, and I lazily used Lefty for metropolitan/elite/liberal. At my age, I know I'm often wrong but then so are my supposed betters.
What probably drove my youthful lefty-ism was the feeling that right-wingers sneered at anyone not of their own class, when the truth was some did some did and some didn't. But that's a universal characteristic of every group.
The worst culprits now seem to be those metropolitan etc who have what I think is an intellectual snobbism. Sociologists seem to be worst - yet it's not even a proper ology is it?
See, I can do hypocrisy too.
I may be shite but I am self-aware.
I have a problem with FGM. Any competent school nurse, let alone a midwife,ought to be able to identify a reasonable number of cases; however, what do we, as a society, do then? Presumably the mother of the girl was party to the act; are we going to jail her? What does that do to the family?
I'd bet that, in almost 100% of cases, the mother of the girl is a victim too.
Not taking that Mr P; agree. So do we prosecute Granny ..... who is almost certainly also a victim?
I don't know tbh. I know that what *matters* is that young british girls stop getting cut.
Prosecutions are probably a part of that - but the main thing is convincing a generation of young women that something they came to see as normal, is something that's really not normal at all.
Obviously statisitics are almost impossible to come by, but I wouldn't be surprised if the number of british girls being cut in the last few years has fallen off a cliff - inversely correlated to the media exposure of the issue.
If that is the case, then what we're doing (whatever we're doing) is working.
The connection between Clarkson and Cameron go deeper than Cameron's solidarity with his mucker over punching his hapless underling. There was all the publicity surrounding the Brooks Coulson Clarkson Cameron 'Chipping Norton set' described so eloquently by Peter Oborne. What's more I doubt it's just women who aren't fans of macho petrol heads. What about the 'green' ex Lib Dems?
Roger- I can never see the fascination with cars. I love it most when my car is knackered, grizzled, old and bumpy; when you can leave the doors open and really do not care.
I am about to go out for an Italian lunch on the hills of Florence- I think the price of the lunch will considerably exceed the value of the car transporting us. I could probably just about swop the bottle of wine for the car.
Will the lunch be vegetarian ?
Fish actually. A rather lovely little spot in Maiano, Just over Firenze, though I only really opt for seafood. The Italians can do food and wine (a Piombino in this case) so off to finish the football and have an obligatory nap
Given that the Cyril Smith cover-up was in the 1960s to 80s, I wouldn't rush to imply that everything bad in British society was "imported"...
The kind of people who fear "the browning" of white people may disagree.
I'm still puzzled about the Cyril Smith cover-up. In the late 50's-mid 60's Smith was the poster boy for Rochdale Labour Pary, hated by the local Tories and disliked by the Liberals, whom he had left around 1950 to further his political career. He then upped sticks and, around 1970, joined the Liberals, being welcomed as candidate by the party leadership but, IIRC, certainly initially, rather resented by the local Liberals, and the Labour Party went gunning for him.
Yet nothing was ever said about his "extra-mural" activities. He ws a well-respected Labour Chair of the Education Committee, too, as well as a supporter of various public youth activities, and IIRC that support continued after his political change.
Like you, I'm an ex-Labour voter and switched to the LDs when Blair came in. Now, I've either grown old or grown up, so I'm now a NOTA.
It could be my natural cynicism has replaced youthful enthusiasm. But I think Labour has changed too, and I lazily used Lefty for metropolitan/elite/liberal. At my age, I know I'm often wrong but then so are my supposed betters.
What probably drove my youthful lefty-ism was the feeling that right-wingers sneered at anyone not of their own class, when the truth was some did some did and some didn't. But that's a universal characteristic of every group.
The worst culprits now seem to be those metropolitan etc who have what I think is an intellectual snobbism. Sociologists seem to be worst - yet it's not even a proper ology is it?
See, I can do hypocrisy too.
I may be shite but I am self-aware.
I have a problem with FGM. Any competent school nurse, let alone a midwife,ought to be able to identify a reasonable number of cases; however, what do we, as a society, do then? Presumably the mother of the girl was party to the act; are we going to jail her? What does that do to the family?
I'd bet that, in almost 100% of cases, the mother of the girl is a victim too.
Not taking that Mr P; agree. So do we prosecute Granny ..... who is almost certainly also a victim?
I don't know tbh. I know that what *matters* is that young british girls stop getting cut.
Prosecutions are probably a part of that - but the main thing is convincing a generation of young women that something they came to see as normal, is something that's really not normal at all.
Obviously statisitics are almost impossible to come by, but I wouldn't be surprised if the number of british girls being cut in the last few years has fallen off a cliff - inversely correlated to the media exposure of the issue.
If that is the case, then what we're doing (whatever we're doing) is working.
Quite a lot of child abusers were victims themselves as children. That should be taken into account in sentencing, but not before.
Like you, I'm an ex-Labour voter and switched to the LDs when Blair came in. Now, I've either grown old or grown up, so I'm now a NOTA.
It could be my natural cynicism has replaced youthful enthusiasm. But I think Labour has changed too, and I lazily used Lefty for metropolitan/elite/liberal. At my age, I know I'm often wrong but then so are my supposed betters.
What probably drove my youthful lefty-ism was the feeling that right-wingers sneered at anyone not of their own class, when the truth was some did some did and some didn't. But that's a universal characteristic of every group.
The worst culprits now seem to be those metropolitan etc who have what I think is an intellectual snobbism. Sociologists seem to be worst - yet it's not even a proper ology is it?
See, I can do hypocrisy too.
I may be shite but I am self-aware.
There is a liberal metropolitan elite that seems to straddle all three parties and which has similar views about most things except economics. The elite generally sneers at the folk below - they mock its manners, its accents, its attiudes. That happens from the left and the right; and it has always been the same.
Where the left generally went horribly wrong and where it has to stick its hands up is over issues such as grooming by moslem gangs and getting into bed with fundamentalists, so to speak. As someone on the left, what happendd in places such as Rotherham and Rochdale fills me with deep shame and real anger. It's something that everyone on the left should face up to and stop making excuses for. Do I put it all down to PC? Absolutely not - there was (and is) far more to it than that; but there is no doiubt in my mind that it aided and abetted evil people, and helped them to get away with crimes that destroyed countless lives.
I have a problem with FGM. Any competent school nurse, let alone a midwife,ought to be able to identify a reasonable number of cases; however, what do we, as a society, do then? Presumably the mother of the girl was party to the act; are we going to jail her? What does that do to the family?
I'd bet that, in almost 100% of cases, the mother of the girl is a victim too.
Not taking that Mr P; agree. So do we prosecute Granny ..... who is almost certainly also a victim?
You prosecute the person who walks the victim into the room. They are the one de facto committing an offence.
If they wish to ask for a reduced sentence on the grounds of coercion and testify against another abuser then they are free to do so.
So just looking at people who voted Con/Lab/LD in 2010 it's Con 33.31, Lab 31.62.
Yet the overall poll result is Con 33, Lab 35.
This implies that Lab is getting a net boost of between 3 and 4 points entirely due to people who didn't vote in 2010.
OK, I guess it could in theory get switchers from minor parties but surely almost nobody is switching from SNP to Lab or UKIP to Lab so the overall magnitude here would be absolutely miniscule.
Given that the Cyril Smith cover-up was in the 1960s to 80s, I wouldn't rush to imply that everything bad in British society was "imported"...
The kind of people who fear "the browning" of white people may disagree.
I'm still puzzled about the Cyril Smith cover-up. In the late 50's-mid 60's Smith was the poster boy for Rochdale Labour Pary, hated by the local Tories and disliked by the Liberals, whom he had left around 1950 to further his political career. He then upped sticks and, around 1970, joined the Liberals, being welcomed as candidate by the party leadership but, IIRC, certainly initially, rather resented by the local Liberals, and the Labour Party went gunning for him.
Yet nothing was ever said about his "extra-mural" activities. He ws a well-respected Labour Chair of the Education Committee, too, as well as a supporter of various public youth activities, and IIRC that support continued after his political change.
He also was the centre piece of a gigantic advertising campaign by Access/Mastercard. Surely if it was 'known' what he was up to there is no way they would want to associate him with their product?
So just looking at people who voted Con/Lab/LD in 2010 it's Con 33.31, Lab 31.62.
Yet the overall poll result is Con 33, Lab 35.
This implies that Lab is getting a net boost of between 3 and 4 points entirely due to people who didn't vote in 2010.
OK, I guess it could in theory get switchers from minor parties but surely almost nobody is switching from SNP to Lab or UKIP to Lab so the overall magnitude here would be absolutely miniscule.
Any thoughts on this?
No deep thoughts. But the majority of new voters in each election presumably come from the kids who have come of age since the last election, i.e. 18-23 year olds. Is it surprising that this group would skew Labour?
So just looking at people who voted Con/Lab/LD in 2010 it's Con 33.31, Lab 31.62.
Yet the overall poll result is Con 33, Lab 35.
This implies that Lab is getting a net boost of between 3 and 4 points entirely due to people who didn't vote in 2010.
OK, I guess it could in theory get switchers from minor parties but surely almost nobody is switching from SNP to Lab or UKIP to Lab so the overall magnitude here would be absolutely miniscule.
Any thoughts on this?
No deep thoughts. But the majority of new voters in each election presumably come from the kids who have come of age since the last election, i.e. 18-23 year olds. Is it surprising that this group would skew Labour?
Yes, fair point - but look at the numbers.
18 to 24s (7 year segment) comprise 11.9% of total weighted sample - first time voters (5 year segment) thus comprise (5/7) * 11.9 = 8.5%.
Lab lead by 10 points in that segment which would thus account for 0.85% of overall Lab lead.
So a significant component, but only approx 25% of what we are looking for.
So just looking at people who voted Con/Lab/LD in 2010 it's Con 33.31, Lab 31.62.
Yet the overall poll result is Con 33, Lab 35.
This implies that Lab is getting a net boost of between 3 and 4 points entirely due to people who didn't vote in 2010.
OK, I guess it could in theory get switchers from minor parties but surely almost nobody is switching from SNP to Lab or UKIP to Lab so the overall magnitude here would be absolutely miniscule.
Any thoughts on this?
Yes. The polls are up the creek without a paddle. Doesn't look good for them after the election.
Given that the Cyril Smith cover-up was in the 1960s to 80s, I wouldn't rush to imply that everything bad in British society was "imported"...
The kind of people who fear "the browning" of white people may disagree.
I'm still puzzled about the Cyril Smith cover-up. In the late 50's-mid 60's Smith was the poster boy for Rochdale Labour Pary, hated by the local Tories and disliked by the Liberals, whom he had left around 1950 to further his political career. He then upped sticks and, around 1970, joined the Liberals, being welcomed as candidate by the party leadership but, IIRC, certainly initially, rather resented by the local Liberals, and the Labour Party went gunning for him.
Yet nothing was ever said about his "extra-mural" activities. He ws a well-respected Labour Chair of the Education Committee, too, as well as a supporter of various public youth activities, and IIRC that support continued after his political change.
Because if it had the whole filthy house of cards would have come down with him.
Comments
Conservative 226-250 band is the best bet for a very good night for Labour I think.
The kind of people who fear "the browning" of white people may disagree.
Labour Majority at 22/26 if anyone is interested. Fisher's model indicates 25.0 is the correct price fwiw. But that has the Tories leading by 3% come election day so @Smukesh might be of interest to you.
http://electionsetc.com/2015/03/19/liberal-democrats-after-the-election-a-left-of-centre-party-which-should-be-able-to-work-more-easily-with-labour-than-the-conservatives/#more-958
That it agrees with my view is a happy coincidence.
Also Ed is on the Telly four times during the "debates". I'm really not sure that's the sort of win CCHQ thinks it is.
Clarke would have split the Tory party in two, just as Heseltine and Portillo would have
https://betting.betfair.com/politics/general-election-2015-betting/general-election-2015-snp-may-be-frozen-out-but-other-small-parties-could-well-join-a-coalition-200315-729.html
Prosecutions are probably a part of that - but the main thing is convincing a generation of young women that something they came to see as normal, is something that's really not normal at all.
Obviously statisitics are almost impossible to come by, but I wouldn't be surprised if the number of british girls being cut in the last few years has fallen off a cliff - inversely correlated to the media exposure of the issue.
If that is the case, then what we're doing (whatever we're doing) is working.
Yet nothing was ever said about his "extra-mural" activities. He ws a well-respected Labour Chair of the Education Committee, too, as well as a supporter of various public youth activities, and IIRC that support continued after his political change.
If they wish to ask for a reduced sentence on the grounds of coercion and testify against another abuser then they are free to do so.
And what a goal by Mata.
BBC SUNDAY POLITICS UKIP COUNCILLORS POLL
Poll of 111 UKIP Councillors for BBC One's Sunday Politics
Paul Nuttall is the most popular choice as the next leader of UKIP among the party's councillors (31%).
Suzanne Evans (23%) and Douglas Carswell (20%) are the next most popular choices to become leader if Nigel Farage decides to step down
http://comres.co.uk/polls/bbc-sunday-politics-ukip-councillors-poll/
In today's YouGov poll:
Con get 73% of Con 2010 + 5% Lab 2010 + 20% LD 2010
Con = (.73*37) + (.05*30) + (.20*24) = 27.01 + 1.5 + 4.8 = 33.31
Lab get 6% of Con 2010 + 78% Lab 2010 + 25% LD 2010
Lab = (.06*37) + (.78*30) + (.25*24) = 2.22 + 23.4 + 6 = 31.62
So just looking at people who voted Con/Lab/LD in 2010 it's Con 33.31, Lab 31.62.
Yet the overall poll result is Con 33, Lab 35.
This implies that Lab is getting a net boost of between 3 and 4 points entirely due to people who didn't vote in 2010.
OK, I guess it could in theory get switchers from minor parties but surely almost nobody is switching from SNP to Lab or UKIP to Lab so the overall magnitude here would be absolutely miniscule.
Any thoughts on this?
No mention at all of Ed's hedge fund mate though despite Ed going on about Tories hedge funds which the Same BBC gleefully reported.
Both are reports that are important to be shown but only the one involving a Tory is though.
Same old....
So it is kinda off-pissing to have someone on 5 Live saying "you really can't take your eyes off this match..."
That'll be a free subscription to SKY in the post for that person.
new thread
18 to 24s (7 year segment) comprise 11.9% of total weighted sample - first time voters (5 year segment) thus comprise (5/7) * 11.9 = 8.5%.
Lab lead by 10 points in that segment which would thus account for 0.85% of overall Lab lead.
So a significant component, but only approx 25% of what we are looking for.