Miss Plato, Phlogiston sounds almost like a name for the Islamic State.
Agree. Re oxygen, it was Hooke and Boyle who discovered that 20% of air vanished on burning in vacuum. Science moved one step at a time. Newton wrote four words on religion to every one on Science. Whilst devout he secretly did not believe in the holy trinity He was obsessed with alchemy right until Hooke spurred him on.
***** Betting Post ***** If this ComRes poll is right then the likelihood of Labour taking Bermondsey & Southwark from the LibDems' Simon Hughes looks like good value at 7/4 available from Betfred (and others), such that I'm making this my Bet of the Week without further ado. DYOR
Before putting any money on the basis of that poll, I would want specific confirmation that the pollster excludes all those who aren't actually registered to vote. Any polling in London without this is going to be damned near worthless....
Fits in well with the by-election and euro results, and is consistent with ICM and Yougov. London is somewhere Labour should outperform UNS comfortably.
The one note of caution here though relates to the population.
It is young, it is relatively transient and has a relatively high probability of being unregistered.
I don't know what made the subject so tedious, I loved biology too and expected to be entranced. Nope.
It all seemed to be about variants of Nylon but more boring. I have a peculiar interest in cleaning products and always checking out the ingredients to see what novelties are being used to fix a problem. Not a sexy subject, but fascinating and useful. If weird!
@Financier I didn't know you were a chemistry nerd either. Mine was all at the colour/oxidation end as I went into conservation/restoration of Renaissance art.
My best friend became an industrial organic chemist - a field I can't imagine being more dull. I found organics so boring. Even just thinking about it 20yrs later makes my heart sink!
Organics was brought alive when my Chem Prof allowed me to work with him on the synthesis of cortizone.
Colour chemistry _ I was told - is/was one of most difficult branches of chemistry - so well done you for exploring that side. Of course the early artists and fresco painters used pigments - did you ever do any ceiling crawling?
***** Betting Post ***** If this ComRes poll is right then the likelihood of Labour taking Bermondsey & Southwark from the LibDems' Simon Hughes looks like good value at 7/4 available from Betfred (and others), such that I'm making this my Bet of the Week without further ado. DYOR
I agree, for a while I've been backing the Lib Dems to do badly in London, the headline polling makes grim reading for them.
Particularly as Labour are doing better in London than they are in the rest of the country.
So five years of courting metropolitan luvvies and they're going backwards ?
I don't know much about Newton. He falls into the physics section of my mind which doesn't want to play. I really don't have a clue why I can't get the notion of the science of the unseen world, but I draw a complete blank a few inches beyond the Principle of Moments. I dropped Physics before the O Level along with English Literature [another subject I never got].
I just can't grasp it. Chemistry, atoms, giant numbers are fine and fun - the density of air? YAWN
Miss Plato, Phlogiston sounds almost like a name for the Islamic State.
Agree. Re oxygen, it was Hooke and Boyle who discovered that 20% of air vanished on burning in vacuum. Science moved one step at a time. Newton wrote four words on religion to every one on Science. Whilst devout he secretly did not believe in the holy trinity He was obsessed with alchemy right until Hooke spurred him on.
Probably means a good Yougov for the Tories tonight. They seem to move in tandem.
I would not be at all surprised if yesterday's 36-32 for the Tories is very close to the final result.
Possibly. As much as it would depress me, seeing Cameron stay in Downing Street might not be all bad. What sort of majority are the Conservative + Lib Dems likely to have? It can't be very much and backbench rebellions on both sides would surely become the norm. The Lib Dems have been remarkably resilient at a ratio of 5:1 - how would they handle 10:1? Both leaders would need to get a new deal through their parties. A fair number of Lib Dems won't want it and does Cameron have the requisite cash in the bank on his own side? Assuming Labour get rid of Miliband and replace him with a more popular leader (not guaranteed it must be said) then a second election in the Autumn wouldn't seem too bad.
***** Betting Post ***** If this ComRes poll is right then the likelihood of Labour taking Bermondsey & Southwark from the LibDems' Simon Hughes looks like good value at 7/4 available from Betfred (and others), such that I'm making this my Bet of the Week without further ado. DYOR
A London wide poll will tell you nothing about the prospects in any one particular seat such as Bermondsey and Southeat in London just as a nation wide poll will tell you nothing about the prospects in say Clacton .
I think it was Isam who warned yesterday of the errors of reading too much into one poll. Yesterday's CR and today's Populus should provide a similar warning against reading too much into these silly debates/q&a sessions.
***** Betting Post ***** If this ComRes poll is right then the likelihood of Labour taking Bermondsey & Southwark from the LibDems' Simon Hughes looks like good value at 7/4 available from Betfred (and others), such that I'm making this my Bet of the Week without further ado. DYOR
Before putting any money on the basis of that poll, I would want specific confirmation that the pollster excludes all those who aren't actually registered to vote. Any polling in London without this is going to be damned near worthless....
Fair comment MM, but given the two parties' respective standings in the polls generally and the fact that the timeframe is becoming ever shorter for the Yellow team to make any sort of a sustained recovery - at Christmas I saw them winning around 13% of the UK GE vote, but 10% - 11% now appears more likely - accordingly I feel this seat is seriously at risk notwithstanding the undoubted long term loyalty towards the incumbent MP.
1) Don't bet against a hung Parliament unless you get long odds. 2) Labour most seats is a terrific value bet at 2/1. 3) Since the Conservatives look unlikely to get above 300 seats (I'd guess at least 3/1), the next Government is very likely to be a Labour-led government. Lay David Cameron as Prime Minister after the next election at anything close to, or even not very close to, current prices. He's odds on at present to keep his job. This is a crazy price. Enjoy
I was told Metallurgy is the epically difficult branch with mind-bending maths.
I did ceiling crawling, had a pass to the British Museum library back room and had my mitts on Leonardo, Michaelangelo et al cartoons, Durer, Raphael and every imaginable printed, etched, silverpoint or pencil/ink drawing you can think of.
I got a place at the Smithsonian to do this and didn't take it as I simply can't stand the pretentiousness of the arty-farts. Printing inks is a huge subject - the bible text is about 4" thick just as a foundation.
I don't know what made the subject so tedious, I loved biology too and expected to be entranced. Nope.
It all seemed to be about variants of Nylon but more boring. I have a peculiar interest in cleaning products and always checking out the ingredients to see what novelties are being used to fix a problem. Not a sexy subject, but fascinating and useful. If weird!
@Financier I didn't know you were a chemistry nerd either. Mine was all at the colour/oxidation end as I went into conservation/restoration of Renaissance art.
My best friend became an industrial organic chemist - a field I can't imagine being more dull. I found organics so boring. Even just thinking about it 20yrs later makes my heart sink!
Organics was brought alive when my Chem Prof allowed me to work with him on the synthesis of cortizone.
Colour chemistry _ I was told - is/was one of most difficult branches of chemistry - so well done you for exploring that side. Of course the early artists and fresco painters used pigments - did you ever do any ceiling crawling?
Still cannot get the 'fact' that the LDs will poll sub~10% and yet get 20-30 seats - SI on PB currently says 24-26. It will be a most peculiar result.
The LibDem polling has got significantly worse since the near-extinction event of the 2014 Euros. Easy to see them virtually gone in Scotland, Wales, the Midlands, the South West and London. Where will they supposedly put up a fight?
Probably means a good Yougov for the Tories tonight. They seem to move in tandem.
I would not be at all surprised if yesterday's 36-32 for the Tories is very close to the final result.
Possibly. As much as it would depress me, seeing Cameron stay in Downing Street might not be all bad. What sort of majority are the Conservative + Lib Dems likely to have? It can't be very much and backbench rebellions on both sides would surely become the norm. The Lib Dems have been remarkably resilient at a ratio of 5:1 - how would they handle 10:1? Both leaders would need to get a new deal through their parties. A fair number of Lib Dems won't want it and does Cameron have the requisite cash in the bank on his own side? Assuming Labour get rid of Miliband and replace him with a more popular leader (not guaranteed it must be said) then a second election in the Autumn wouldn't seem too bad.
A Tory majority would depress and alarm me. if that does not happen, I am not that bothered about the result. However, I just cannot see another coalition. Cameron would love one, of course, but it makes no sense for the LDs.
A second election in November would be fascinating. If Cameron is PM after May, he will have served his second term. Does that mean he steps down? I cannot see EdM lasting if Labour is not the biggest party. He has no discernible base in the party. As a big Dan Jarvis fan, I'd like to see him take over, but this year may be too early for him.
Teachers tend to be anti-government (annoyance about the employers) - I remember in 2010 someone saying "Of course I won't vote Labour - I'm a teacher and you've squeezed our pay." Nowadays it's certainly true that if someone says they're a teacher you're odds-on that the next sentence will be "so I'm not voting Tory". There is often then a short discussion about tactical voting...
Miss Plato, Phlogiston sounds almost like a name for the Islamic State.
There is currently a series on BBC4 about the history of chemistry and the discovery of the elements.
The Periodic Table of Elements videos are good fun - by one of my non-party local endorsers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyn_Poliakoff. He was knighted for his services to popularising chemistry (he's currently the Royal Academy "Foreign Minister" and spends half his time abroad promoting British science), and is the brother of brilliant playwright Stephen P - remarkable family.
Here's a question for the knowledgeable psephologists: Does ramping a particular poll result create a bandwagon or a negative reaction? We see the BBC ramping a (Yougov) Labour lead and the Daily Mail ramping a (Comres) Tory lead. Does this help their respective tribes? Or does the Labour lead scare more people into voting Tory (and vice versa)?
I think there's some evidence that if one party seems to be running away with it, wavering voters rally behind the other one - it's not that they want them to win, but they don't want them to get totally stuffed. I remember the phenomenon in 1983 (Labour) and 1997 (Conservatives), when the losing party in both cases did a bit less badly than expected. Perhaps the LibDems will benefit this time?
As for Populus: more evidence for the "It's a tie and nothing is happening!" theory.
***** Betting Post ***** If this ComRes poll is right then the likelihood of Labour taking Bermondsey & Southwark from the LibDems' Simon Hughes looks like good value at 7/4 available from Betfred (and others), such that I'm making this my Bet of the Week without further ado. DYOR
Before putting any money on the basis of that poll, I would want specific confirmation that the pollster excludes all those who aren't actually registered to vote. Any polling in London without this is going to be damned near worthless....
Fair comment MM, but given the two parties' respective standings in the polls generally and the fact that the timeframe is becoming ever shorter for the Yellow team to make any sort of a sustained recovery - at Christmas I saw them winning around 13% of the UK GE vote, but 10% - 11% now appears more likely - accordingly I feel this seat is seriously at risk notwithstanding the undoubted long term loyalty towards the incumbent MP.
Agree that things look horrible for the LibDems. But there are supposedly huge numbers missing off the registers. It is possible that pollsters DO ignore those who aren't registered AND that recent registration drives are putting some of the Labour vote back in the mix, giving them a rise in this poll.
But my gut instinct says Hughes' voters are more likely to be registered than those who are supposedly going to vote him out.
Still cannot get the 'fact' that the LDs will poll sub~10% and yet get 20-30 seats - SI on PB currently says 24-26. It will be a most peculiar result.
I think the market believes the lib dems will end up with 10-11%, rather than sub 10%.
I don't think the financial markets are pricing in the likely outcome of the GE and potential government weakness thereafter (whoever is PM) at all. The financail markets and betting markets seem to be blithely ignoring the polling reality and system bias towards Labour and saying to themselves 'we surely won't elect Ed to power will we?'. The GE result could be a shock for some.
Speaking of extinction level events - I saw Valley of Gwangi the other Saturday morning. The stop-motion is superb for 1969. As is the trick horseback riding. We just don't see the likes of that talent in movies today.
Still cannot get the 'fact' that the LDs will poll sub~10% and yet get 20-30 seats - SI on PB currently says 24-26. It will be a most peculiar result.
The LibDem polling has got significantly worse since the near-extinction event of the 2014 Euros. Easy to see them virtually gone in Scotland, Wales, the Midlands, the South West and London. Where will they supposedly put up a fight?
1) Don't bet against a hung Parliament unless you get long odds. 2) Labour most seats is a terrific value bet at 2/1. 3) Since the Conservatives look unlikely to get above 300 seats (I'd guess at least 3/1), the next Government is very likely to be a Labour-led government. Lay David Cameron as Prime Minister after the next election at anything close to, or even not very close to, current prices. He's odds on at present to keep his job. This is a crazy price. Enjoy
All very interesting, but has antifrank reached his "conclusions" a tad too early, especially if there is a clear indication of a shift in Voting Intentions as indicated by both ComRes last night and by Populus this morning? It might be worth holding fire on the betting front insofar as the overall result is concerned for at least a further few days.
***** Betting Post ***** If this ComRes poll is right then the likelihood of Labour taking Bermondsey & Southwark from the LibDems' Simon Hughes looks like good value at 7/4 available from Betfred (and others), such that I'm making this my Bet of the Week without further ado. DYOR
I agree, for a while I've been backing the Lib Dems to do badly in London, the headline polling makes grim reading for them.
Particularly as Labour are doing better in London than they are in the rest of the country.
The Lord A constituency polling says otherwise. Much tighter.
I would not be at all surprised if yesterday's 36-32 for the Tories is very close to the final result.
I broadly agree.
I am edging towards the view that there will be little change in overall seat numbers for the leading two, with the real change on the under card.
I foresee Labour stronger in the North - espcially NW - and London, but weaker in Scotland. The Tories weaker in the North and London, but stronger in the SW and West,
It does make me wonder just what position the Lib Dems would be in now if they hadn't entered coalition. First?
In the Northwest, Morecambe and Lunsdale/Bury North are two interesting ones - Morecambe looking far better for the Conservatives than Bury North to hold despite the reasonable difference in initial majority.
Best betting strategy could be to wait for a poll, give it an hour or two for the excitable poll watchers to over react, then lay whoever did well in that poll
Something I meant to do on Sunday morning after the yougov but forgot
1) Don't bet against a hung Parliament unless you get long odds. 2) Labour most seats is a terrific value bet at 2/1. 3) Since the Conservatives look unlikely to get above 300 seats (I'd guess at least 3/1), the next Government is very likely to be a Labour-led government. Lay David Cameron as Prime Minister after the next election at anything close to, or even not very close to, current prices. He's odds on at present to keep his job. This is a crazy price. Enjoy
On point 3, I do think that Labour 226-250 is an absolutely cracking bet at 11/2. The two main parties are near-as-dammit in for 550 seats now, post-SNP surge, so 301-325 for the Tories corresponds pretty neatly to 226-250 for Labour. Yet one is top price 13/5 and the other 11/2.
***** Betting Post ***** If this ComRes poll is right then the likelihood of Labour taking Bermondsey & Southwark from the LibDems' Simon Hughes looks like good value at 7/4 available from Betfred (and others), such that I'm making this my Bet of the Week without further ado. DYOR
I agree, for a while I've been backing the Lib Dems to do badly in London, the headline polling makes grim reading for them.
Particularly as Labour are doing better in London than they are in the rest of the country.
The Lord A constituency polling says otherwise. Much tighter.
I know, but when you're polling single digits London wide/nationwide, and that you can't poll a negative share of the vote in some places, you have say they will do badly in the seats they hold as well.
I'm grateful to Lord Ashcroft, but we're putting an awful lot of faith in an untested pollster, in area of polling which is notoriously difficult to poll.
Normally I'm bullish on Lib Dem figures, but I've felt something isn't quite right with the Lib Dems in recent months.
Note the fiasco of their private polling which didn't quite live up to the hype.
I would not be at all surprised if yesterday's 36-32 for the Tories is very close to the final result.
I broadly agree.
I am edging towards the view that there will be little change in overall seat numbers for the leading two, with the real change on the under card.
I foresee Labour stronger in the North - espcially NW - and London, but weaker in Scotland. The Tories weaker in the North and London, but stronger in the SW and West,
It does make me wonder just what position the Lib Dems would be in now if they hadn't entered coalition. First?
Labour is going to struggle big time in the Midlands. I had built that into my thinking about it being the largest party in a new hung Parliament, but since the collapse in Scotland I cannot see how Labour is going to win close to most seats. It'll pick up some in London and the North - and probably in almost every English and Welsh seat where it is currently second to an LD, but beyond that it is going to be a struggle. So, yes, I can see Labour staying pretty much where it is, maybe even down a tad if Scotland is real carnage. The one bright spot will be the end of EdM.
1) Don't bet against a hung Parliament unless you get long odds. 2) Labour most seats is a terrific value bet at 2/1. 3) Since the Conservatives look unlikely to get above 300 seats (I'd guess at least 3/1), the next Government is very likely to be a Labour-led government. Lay David Cameron as Prime Minister after the next election at anything close to, or even not very close to, current prices. He's odds on at present to keep his job. This is a crazy price. Enjoy
On point 3, I do think that Labour 226-250 is an absolutely cracking bet at 11/2. The two main parties are near-as-dammit in for 550 seats now, post-SNP surge, so 301-325 for the Tories corresponds pretty neatly to 226-250 for Labour. Yet one is top price 13/5 and the other 11/2.
Kinda agree, I've been desperate to find a bookie to offer odds on Labour having fewer seats in 2015 than they did in 2010.
Still cannot get the 'fact' that the LDs will poll sub~10% and yet get 20-30 seats - SI on PB currently says 24-26. It will be a most peculiar result.
I think the market believes the lib dems will end up with 10-11%, rather than sub 10%.
Which market?
Sorry, I wrote badly. I think the Sporting Index price assumes a recovery to the 10% level, maybe even a little more. I do not believe the lib dems will get more than a dozen seats if they end up on 8%, but I can see 30 if they get to 11%, and the UKIP vote holds up.
"And here there is further bad news for the Welsh Liberal Democrats. Fully 18 percent of all those who indicated that they would vote Lib-Dem in the general election actually placed themselves between 0 and 3 on the scale of how likely they were to vote; no other party had more than 4 percent of its supporters claiming to be so unlikely to take part in the election."
King Cole, during the Cold War there were two competing theories of how the brain worked, both of which have some merit.
The capitalist, individualistic West favoured compartmentalisation (so, a given cortex handles speech, another dexterity, and so on). The Communist USSR preferred a more diffuse approach, whereby each neuron was equal and if the brain were damaged those that remained could adapt to it.
Both have a lot of truth to them (the brain's highly plastic, and, at the same time, certain areas seem to 'specialise'), but the science was driven by politics.
It's either happening or it's not. Science is all about testing and refining theory to explain the observed facts. Based on that scientists from around the world have concluded that AGW is real. No politician wants to spend money if it's not necessary, so in whose interest is it to 'make up' AGW? I can see that there would be organisations who would want to do the opposite, oil companies for example.
Not true.
Indeed the 'A' portion of AGW has not been tested at all. It is based entirely upon modelling which has failed to match the observed data.
The whole debate is an utter failure of basic scientific principles which is then used as the basis for policy decisions and political posturing by those who fail to understand those basic principles.
Even if you area scientist, you are in a minority.
What does that matter? It is about the basic principles of the scientific method. How many people 'agree' or disagree with me doesn't matter at all as far as science is concerned. That comment you just made in itself shows a complete lack of understanding of what science is and what it does.
1) Don't bet against a hung Parliament unless you get long odds. 2) Labour most seats is a terrific value bet at 2/1. 3) Since the Conservatives look unlikely to get above 300 seats (I'd guess at least 3/1), the next Government is very likely to be a Labour-led government. Lay David Cameron as Prime Minister after the next election at anything close to, or even not very close to, current prices. He's odds on at present to keep his job. This is a crazy price. Enjoy
On point 3, I do think that Labour 226-250 is an absolutely cracking bet at 11/2. The two main parties are near-as-dammit in for 550 seats now, post-SNP surge, so 301-325 for the Tories corresponds pretty neatly to 226-250 for Labour. Yet one is top price 13/5 and the other 11/2.
I'm on that band at 12/1, which I got in early February. I'm on the same band for the Conservatives at 16/1.
1) Don't bet against a hung Parliament unless you get long odds. 2) Labour most seats is a terrific value bet at 2/1. 3) Since the Conservatives look unlikely to get above 300 seats (I'd guess at least 3/1), the next Government is very likely to be a Labour-led government. Lay David Cameron as Prime Minister after the next election at anything close to, or even not very close to, current prices. He's odds on at present to keep his job. This is a crazy price. Enjoy
On point 3, I do think that Labour 226-250 is an absolutely cracking bet at 11/2. The two main parties are near-as-dammit in for 550 seats now, post-SNP surge, so 301-325 for the Tories corresponds pretty neatly to 226-250 for Labour. Yet one is top price 13/5 and the other 11/2.
Kinda agree, I've been desperate to find a bookie to offer odds on Labour having fewer seats in 2015 than they did in 2010.
I would not be at all surprised if yesterday's 36-32 for the Tories is very close to the final result.
I broadly agree.
I am edging towards the view that there will be little change in overall seat numbers for the leading two, with the real change on the under card.
I foresee Labour stronger in the North - espcially NW - and London, but weaker in Scotland. The Tories weaker in the North and London, but stronger in the SW and West,
It does make me wonder just what position the Lib Dems would be in now if they hadn't entered coalition. First?
Labour is going to struggle big time in the Midlands. I had built that into my thinking about it being the largest party in a new hung Parliament, but since the collapse in Scotland I cannot see how Labour is going to win close to most seats. It'll pick up some in London and the North - and probably in almost every English and Welsh seat where it is currently second to an LD, but beyond that it is going to be a struggle. So, yes, I can see Labour staying pretty much where it is, maybe even down a tad if Scotland is real carnage. The one bright spot will be the end of EdM.
***** Betting Post ***** If this ComRes poll is right then the likelihood of Labour taking Bermondsey & Southwark from the LibDems' Simon Hughes looks like good value at 7/4 available from Betfred (and others), such that I'm making this my Bet of the Week without further ado. DYOR
I agree, for a while I've been backing the Lib Dems to do badly in London, the headline polling makes grim reading for them.
Particularly as Labour are doing better in London than they are in the rest of the country.
The Lord A constituency polling says otherwise. Much tighter.
I know, but when you're polling single digits London wide/nationwide, and that you can't poll a negative share of the vote in some places, you have say they will do badly in the seats they hold as well.
I'm grateful to Lord Ashcroft, but we're putting an awful lot of faith in an untested pollster, in area of polling which is notoriously difficult to poll.
Normally I'm bullish on Lib Dem figures, but I've felt something isn't quite right with the Lib Dems in recent months.
Note the fiasco of their private polling which didn't quite live up to the hype.
You're picking and choosing your polls rather selectively.
There is no inconsistency between LibDems polling around 8-10% and polling well in their held seats. For the yellow peril it's about fighting 60 by-elections and to hell with the rest.
Another factor this time is unlike every prior general elections the LibDems have a very large war chest.
Still cannot get the 'fact' that the LDs will poll sub~10% and yet get 20-30 seats - SI on PB currently says 24-26. It will be a most peculiar result.
I think the market believes the lib dems will end up with 10-11%, rather than sub 10%.
Which market?
Sorry, I wrote badly. I think the Sporting Index price assumes a recovery to the 10% level, maybe even a little more. I do not believe the lib dems will get more than a dozen seats if they end up on 8%, but I can see 30 if they get to 11%, and the UKIP vote holds up.
Ah I see
Well Ukip vs lib dem is 1/3 vs 9/4... I wonder what that translates as in vote share? 12 vs 10?
King Cole, during the Cold War there were two competing theories of how the brain worked, both of which have some merit.
The capitalist, individualistic West favoured compartmentalisation (so, a given cortex handles speech, another dexterity, and so on). The Communist USSR preferred a more diffuse approach, whereby each neuron was equal and if the brain were damaged those that remained could adapt to it.
Both have a lot of truth to them (the brain's highly plastic, and, at the same time, certain areas seem to 'specialise'), but the science was driven by politics.
It's either happening or it's not. Science is all about testing and refining theory to explain the observed facts. Based on that scientists from around the world have concluded that AGW is real. No politician wants to spend money if it's not necessary, so in whose interest is it to 'make up' AGW? I can see that there would be organisations who would want to do the opposite, oil companies for example.
Not true.
Indeed the 'A' portion of AGW has not been tested at all. It is based entirely upon modelling which has failed to match the observed data.
The whole debate is an utter failure of basic scientific principles which is then used as the basis for policy decisions and political posturing by those who fail to understand those basic principles.
Even if you area scientist, you are in a minority.
What does that matter? It is about the basic principles of the scientific method. How many people 'agree' or disagree with me doesn't matter at all as far as science is concerned. That comment you just made in itself shows a complete lack of understanding of what science is and what it does.
Indeed
Aren't most scientists that make major breakthroughs in a minority?
***** Betting Post ***** If this ComRes poll is right then the likelihood of Labour taking Bermondsey & Southwark from the LibDems' Simon Hughes looks like good value at 7/4 available from Betfred (and others), such that I'm making this my Bet of the Week without further ado. DYOR
I agree, for a while I've been backing the Lib Dems to do badly in London, the headline polling makes grim reading for them.
Particularly as Labour are doing better in London than they are in the rest of the country.
The Lord A constituency polling says otherwise. Much tighter.
I know, but when you're polling single digits London wide/nationwide, and that you can't poll a negative share of the vote in some places, you have say they will do badly in the seats they hold as well.
I'm grateful to Lord Ashcroft, but we're putting an awful lot of faith in an untested pollster, in area of polling which is notoriously difficult to poll.
Normally I'm bullish on Lib Dem figures, but I've felt something isn't quite right with the Lib Dems in recent months.
Note the fiasco of their private polling which didn't quite live up to the hype.
You're picking and choosing your polls rather selectively.
There is no inconsistency between LibDems polling around 8-10% and polling well in their held seats. For the yellow peril it's about fighting 60 by-elections and to hell with the rest.
Another factor this time is unlike every prior general elections the LibDems have a very large war chest.
Oh Jack, I'm someone who has been backing the Lib Dems to do better than people expect for most of this parliament.
I expected the Lib Dems to improve their nationwide polling by now, so have hedged accordingly.
I concur with the output of your ARSE for the Lib Dems.
I would not be at all surprised if yesterday's 36-32 for the Tories is very close to the final result.
I broadly agree.
I am edging towards the view that there will be little change in overall seat numbers for the leading two, with the real change on the under card.
I foresee Labour stronger in the North - espcially NW - and London, but weaker in Scotland. The Tories weaker in the North and London, but stronger in the SW and West,
It does make me wonder just what position the Lib Dems would be in now if they hadn't entered coalition. First?
Labour is going to struggle big time in the Midlands. I had built that into my thinking about it being the largest party in a new hung Parliament, but since the collapse in Scotland I cannot see how Labour is going to win close to most seats. It'll pick up some in London and the North - and probably in almost every English and Welsh seat where it is currently second to an LD, but beyond that it is going to be a struggle. So, yes, I can see Labour staying pretty much where it is, maybe even down a tad if Scotland is real carnage. The one bright spot will be the end of EdM.
There will be a big drop in the LD vote, most of which will go to Labour. That will help it take LD and Tory seats. There may also be some slight Tory drift to UKIP.
In short, what Labour was counting on for the whole country looks like happening in London only.
King Cole, during the Cold War there were two competing theories of how the brain worked, both of which have some merit.
The capitalist, individualistic West favoured compartmentalisation (so, a given cortex handles speech, another dexterity, and so on). The Communist USSR preferred a more diffuse approach, whereby each neuron was equal and if the brain were damaged those that remained could adapt to it.
Both have a lot of truth to them (the brain's highly plastic, and, at the same time, certain areas seem to 'specialise'), but the science was driven by politics.
It's either happening or it's not. Science is all about testing and refining theory to explain the observed facts. Based on that scientists from around the world have concluded that AGW is real. No politician wants to spend money if it's not necessary, so in whose interest is it to 'make up' AGW? I can see that there would be organisations who would want to do the opposite, oil companies for example.
Not true.
Indeed the 'A' portion of AGW has not been tested at all. It is based entirely upon modelling which has failed to match the observed data.
The whole debate is an utter failure of basic scientific principles which is then used as the basis for policy decisions and political posturing by those who fail to understand those basic principles.
Even if you area scientist, you are in a minority.
What does that matter? It is about the basic principles of the scientific method. How many people 'agree' or disagree with me doesn't matter at all as far as science is concerned. That comment you just made in itself shows a complete lack of understanding of what science is and what it does.
Indeed
Aren't most scientists that make major breakthroughs in a minority?
1) Don't bet against a hung Parliament unless you get long odds. 2) Labour most seats is a terrific value bet at 2/1. 3) Since the Conservatives look unlikely to get above 300 seats (I'd guess at least 3/1), the next Government is very likely to be a Labour-led government. Lay David Cameron as Prime Minister after the next election at anything close to, or even not very close to, current prices. He's odds on at present to keep his job. This is a crazy price. Enjoy
On point 3, I do think that Labour 226-250 is an absolutely cracking bet at 11/2. The two main parties are near-as-dammit in for 550 seats now, post-SNP surge, so 301-325 for the Tories corresponds pretty neatly to 226-250 for Labour. Yet one is top price 13/5 and the other 11/2.
Kinda agree, I've been desperate to find a bookie to offer odds on Labour having fewer seats in 2015 than they did in 2010.
Go on then, even money under 258
I think I'd be better off taking the 11/2 on Labour having 226 to 250 seats
***** Betting Post ***** If this ComRes poll is right then the likelihood of Labour taking Bermondsey & Southwark from the LibDems' Simon Hughes looks like good value at 7/4 available from Betfred (and others), such that I'm making this my Bet of the Week without further ado. DYOR
I agree, for a while I've been backing the Lib Dems to do badly in London, the headline polling makes grim reading for them.
Particularly as Labour are doing better in London than they are in the rest of the country.
The Lord A constituency polling says otherwise. Much tighter.
I know, but when you're polling single digits London wide/nationwide, and that you can't poll a negative share of the vote in some places, you have say they will do badly in the seats they hold as well.
I'm grateful to Lord Ashcroft, but we're putting an awful lot of faith in an untested pollster, in area of polling which is notoriously difficult to poll.
Normally I'm bullish on Lib Dem figures, but I've felt something isn't quite right with the Lib Dems in recent months.
Note the fiasco of their private polling which didn't quite live up to the hype.
You're picking and choosing your polls rather selectively.
There is no inconsistency between LibDems polling around 8-10% and polling well in their held seats. For the yellow peril it's about fighting 60 by-elections and to hell with the rest.
Another factor this time is unlike every prior general elections the LibDems have a very large war chest.
Oh Jack, I'm someone who has been backing the Lib Dems to do better than people expect for most of this parliament.
I expected the Lib Dems to improve their nationwide polling by now, so have hedged accordingly.
I concur with the output of your ARSE for the Lib Dems.
Don't get into a nowcast mindset or single poll syndrome that sometimes infests PB.
I would not be at all surprised if yesterday's 36-32 for the Tories is very close to the final result.
I broadly agree.
I am edging towards the view that there will be little change in overall seat numbers for the leading two, with the real change on the under card.
I foresee Labour stronger in the North - espcially NW - and London, but weaker in Scotland. The Tories weaker in the North and London, but stronger in the SW and West,
It does make me wonder just what position the Lib Dems would be in now if they hadn't entered coalition. First?
Labour is going to struggle big time in the Midlands. I had built that into my thinking about it being the largest party in a new hung Parliament, but since the collapse in Scotland I cannot see how Labour is going to win close to most seats. It'll pick up some in London and the North - and probably in almost every English and Welsh seat where it is currently second to an LD, but beyond that it is going to be a struggle. So, yes, I can see Labour staying pretty much where it is, maybe even down a tad if Scotland is real carnage. The one bright spot will be the end of EdM.
There will be a big drop in the LD vote, most of which will go to Labour. That will help it take LD and Tory seats. There may also be some slight Tory drift to UKIP.
In short, what Labour was counting on for the whole country looks like happening in London only.
I feel I'm missing something. Why is Labour doing so well in London now?
The collapse of the Lib Dem vote is unifying the wealthy/better off left in the Hampsteads and Islingtons of London, combined with London's fairly unique demographics.
Suburban London (Enfield, Ilford, Croydon) is increasingly filling up with population overspill/migration from places like Peckham, Tottenham, East Ham etc
Pockets of Toryism are now cropping up in the middle where they were previously unheard of - see the Isle of Dogs/Canary Wharf.
1) Don't bet against a hung Parliament unless you get long odds. 2) Labour most seats is a terrific value bet at 2/1. 3) Since the Conservatives look unlikely to get above 300 seats (I'd guess at least 3/1), the next Government is very likely to be a Labour-led government. Lay David Cameron as Prime Minister after the next election at anything close to, or even not very close to, current prices. He's odds on at present to keep his job. This is a crazy price. Enjoy
On point 3, I do think that Labour 226-250 is an absolutely cracking bet at 11/2. The two main parties are near-as-dammit in for 550 seats now, post-SNP surge, so 301-325 for the Tories corresponds pretty neatly to 226-250 for Labour. Yet one is top price 13/5 and the other 11/2.
I'm on that band at 12/1, which I got in early February. I'm on the same band for the Conservatives at 16/1.
I remember - those seat band markets always skew high.
Thanx. I knew Peckham and Croydon very well in the 80/early 90s - plus the first Yuppies who moved into Canary Wharf/Dogs in the late 90s/00s. Things have changed so much in 25yrs.
I feel I'm missing something. Why is Labour doing so well in London now?
The collapse of the Lib Dem vote is unifying the wealthy/better off left in the Hampsteads and Islingtons of London, combined with London's fairly unique demographics.
Suburban London (Enfield, Ilford, Croydon) is increasingly filling up with population overspill/migration from places like Peckham, Tottenham, East Ham etc
Pockets of Toryism are now cropping up in the middle where they were previously unheard of - see the Isle of Dogs/Canary Wharf.
Still cannot get the 'fact' that the LDs will poll sub~10% and yet get 20-30 seats - SI on PB currently says 24-26. It will be a most peculiar result.
The LibDem polling has got significantly worse since the near-extinction event of the 2014 Euros. Easy to see them virtually gone in Scotland, Wales, the Midlands, the South West and London. Where will they supposedly put up a fight?
If you assume that in English LD/Con marginals, most red LDs will continue to vote LD as a tactical anti-Tory vote, then I can see the LDs retaining 26 out of 34 Con/LD marginals. Con will lose a bit to UKIP and LD will lose a bit to Lab and Green but it will be mainly a repeat of 2010. The LD losses will be mainly in the South West.
If you assume that in English LD/Lab marginal seats, some former red LDs will switch to Lab then I see the LDs retaining only 1 out of the 10 marginals. (Bermondsey)
In Scotland, LDs will retain only 2 out of the 10 seats (Orkney and Ross).
In Wales, LDs will retain 2 out of 3 seats, losing Cardiff.
That makes LDs retaining 31 out of their 57 seats.
In this analysis, it really doesn't matter whether LDs are on 8% or 15% nationally. It is the behaviour of the red LDs, (who have defected to Lab in the national polls), that matters in the different kinds of marginals.
Thanx. I knew Peckham and Croydon very well in the 80/early 90s - plus the first Yuppies who moved into Canary Wharf/Dogs in the late 90s/00s. Things have changed so much in 25yrs.
I feel I'm missing something. Why is Labour doing so well in London now?
The collapse of the Lib Dem vote is unifying the wealthy/better off left in the Hampsteads and Islingtons of London, combined with London's fairly unique demographics.
Suburban London (Enfield, Ilford, Croydon) is increasingly filling up with population overspill/migration from places like Peckham, Tottenham, East Ham etc
Pockets of Toryism are now cropping up in the middle where they were previously unheard of - see the Isle of Dogs/Canary Wharf.
You can't move for Yummy Mummies in Peckham these days. Not so many in Croydon.
Teachers tend to be anti-government (annoyance about the employers) - I remember in 2010 someone saying "Of course I won't vote Labour - I'm a teacher and you've squeezed our pay." Nowadays it's certainly true that if someone says they're a teacher you're odds-on that the next sentence will be "so I'm not voting Tory". There is often then a short discussion about tactical voting...
Miss Plato, Phlogiston sounds almost like a name for the Islamic State.
There is currently a series on BBC4 about the history of chemistry and the discovery of the elements.
The Periodic Table of Elements videos are good fun - by one of my non-party local endorsers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyn_Poliakoff. He was knighted for his services to popularising chemistry (he's currently the Royal Academy "Foreign Minister" and spends half his time abroad promoting British science), and is the brother of brilliant playwright Stephen P - remarkable family.
Here's a question for the knowledgeable psephologists: Does ramping a particular poll result create a bandwagon or a negative reaction? We see the BBC ramping a (Yougov) Labour lead and the Daily Mail ramping a (Comres) Tory lead. Does this help their respective tribes? Or does the Labour lead scare more people into voting Tory (and vice versa)?
I think there's some evidence that if one party seems to be running away with it, wavering voters rally behind the other one - it's not that they want them to win, but they don't want them to get totally stuffed. I remember the phenomenon in 1983 (Labour) and 1997 (Conservatives), when the losing party in both cases did a bit less badly than expected. Perhaps the LibDems will benefit this time?
As for Populus: more evidence for the "It's a tie and nothing is happening!" theory.
The Poliakoff videos and Brady's films of the rest of the Nottingham University Science team are undoubtedly some of the best things on Youtube. They teach more in ten minutes than most science documentaries do in an hour.
***** Betting Post ***** If this ComRes poll is right then the likelihood of Labour taking Bermondsey & Southwark from the LibDems' Simon Hughes looks like good value at 7/4 available from Betfred (and others), such that I'm making this my Bet of the Week without further ado. DYOR
I agree, for a while I've been backing the Lib Dems to do badly in London, the headline polling makes grim reading for them.
Particularly as Labour are doing better in London than they are in the rest of the country.
The Lord A constituency polling says otherwise. Much tighter.
I know, but when you're polling single digits London wide/nationwide, and that you can't poll a negative share of the vote in some places, you have say they will do badly in the seats they hold as well.
I'm grateful to Lord Ashcroft, but we're putting an awful lot of faith in an untested pollster, in area of polling which is notoriously difficult to poll.
Normally I'm bullish on Lib Dem figures, but I've felt something isn't quite right with the Lib Dems in recent months.
Note the fiasco of their private polling which didn't quite live up to the hype.
You're picking and choosing your polls rather selectively.
There is no inconsistency between LibDems polling around 8-10% and polling well in their held seats. For the yellow peril it's about fighting 60 by-elections and to hell with the rest.
Another factor this time is unlike every prior general elections the LibDems have a very large war chest.
Oh Jack, I'm someone who has been backing the Lib Dems to do better than people expect for most of this parliament.
I expected the Lib Dems to improve their nationwide polling by now, so have hedged accordingly.
I concur with the output of your ARSE for the Lib Dems.
Don't get into a nowcast mindset or single poll syndrome that sometimes infests PB.
Stick to my ARSE like glue.
It was the recent ICMs that got me worried for the Lib Dems.
And remember they overestimated the Lib Dems at the last election.
Teachers tend to be anti-government (annoyance about the employers) - I remember in 2010 someone saying "Of course I won't vote Labour - I'm a teacher and you've squeezed our pay." Nowadays it's certainly true that if someone says they're a teacher you're odds-on that the next sentence will be "so I'm not voting Tory". There is often then a short discussion about tactical voting...
Miss Plato, Phlogiston sounds almost like a name for the Islamic State.
There is currently a series on BBC4 about the history of chemistry and the discovery of the elements.
The Periodic Table of Elements videos are good fun - by one of my non-party local endorsers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyn_Poliakoff. He was knighted for his services to popularising chemistry (he's currently the Royal Academy "Foreign Minister" and spends half his time abroad promoting British science), and is the brother of brilliant playwright Stephen P - remarkable family.
Here's a question for the knowledgeable psephologists: Does ramping a particular poll result create a bandwagon or a negative reaction? We see the BBC ramping a (Yougov) Labour lead and the Daily Mail ramping a (Comres) Tory lead. Does this help their respective tribes? Or does the Labour lead scare more people into voting Tory (and vice versa)?
I think there's some evidence that if one party seems to be running away with it, wavering voters rally behind the other one - it's not that they want them to win, but they don't want them to get totally stuffed. I remember the phenomenon in 1983 (Labour) and 1997 (Conservatives), when the losing party in both cases did a bit less badly than expected. Perhaps the LibDems will benefit this time?
As for Populus: more evidence for the "It's a tie and nothing is happening!" theory.
The Poliakoff videos and Brady's films of the rest of the Nottingham University Science team are undoubtedly some of the best things on Youtube. They teach more in ten minutes than most science documentaries do in an hour.
A song about the periodic table featured in a NCIS episode. McGeek solved the puzzle I think.
Teachers tend to be anti-government (annoyance about the employers) - I remember in 2010 someone saying "Of course I won't vote Labour - I'm a teacher and you've squeezed our pay." Nowadays it's certainly true that if someone says they're a teacher you're odds-on that the next sentence will be "so I'm not voting Tory". There is often then a short discussion about tactical voting...
Miss Plato, Phlogiston sounds almost like a name for the Islamic State.
There is currently a series on BBC4 about the history of chemistry and the discovery of the elements.
The Periodic Table of Elements videos are good fun - by one of my non-party local endorsers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyn_Poliakoff. He was knighted for his services to popularising chemistry (snip), and is the brother of brilliant playwright Stephen P - remarkable family.
Here's a question for the knowledgeable psephologists: Does ramping a particular poll result create a bandwagon or a negative reaction? We see the BBC ramping a (Yougov) Labour lead and the Daily Mail ramping a (Comres) Tory lead. Does this help their respective tribes? Or does the Labour lead scare more people into voting Tory (and vice versa)?
I think there's some evidence that if one party seems to be running away with it, wavering voters rally behind the other one - it's not that they want them to win, but they don't want them to get totally stuffed. I remember the phenomenon in 1983 (Labour) and 1997 (Conservatives), when the losing party in both cases did a bit less badly than expected. Perhaps the LibDems will benefit this time?
As for Populus: more evidence for the "It's a tie and nothing is happening!" theory.
The Poliakoff videos and Brady's films of the rest of the Nottingham University Science team are undoubtedly some of the best things on Youtube. They teach more in ten minutes than most science documentaries do in an hour.
A song about the periodic table featured in a NCIS episode. McGeek solved the puzzle I think.
There is a Tom Lehrer song, to the tune of "Modern Major General". It ends
And these are all the elements we know about at Harvard yet There may be many others but they haven't been discarvard yet.
Hugo Rifkind nailed that one. He's also a gent who waded into a Twitter punch up I was having with The Times subs dept and got my issue fixed as he remembered my ramblings. That was awesome.
Teachers tend to be anti-government (annoyance about the employers) - I remember in 2010 someone saying "Of course I won't vote Labour - I'm a teacher and you've squeezed our pay." Nowadays it's certainly true that if someone says they're a teacher you're odds-on that the next sentence will be "so I'm not voting Tory". There is often then a short discussion about tactical voting...
Miss Plato, Phlogiston sounds almost like a name for the Islamic State.
There is currently a series on BBC4 about the history of chemistry and the discovery of the elements.
The Periodic Table of Elements videos are good fun - by one of my non-party local endorsers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyn_Poliakoff. He was knighted for his services to popularising chemistry (he's currently the Royal Academy "Foreign Minister" and spends half his time abroad promoting British science), and is the brother of brilliant playwright Stephen P - remarkable family.
Here's a question for the knowledgeable psephologists: Does ramping a particular poll result create a bandwagon or a negative reaction? We see the BBC ramping a (Yougov) Labour lead and the Daily Mail ramping a (Comres) Tory lead. Does this help their respective tribes? Or does the Labour lead scare more people into voting Tory (and vice versa)?
I think there's some evidence that if one party seems to be running away with it, wavering voters rally behind the other one - it's not that they want them to win, but they don't want them to get totally stuffed. I remember the phenomenon in 1983 (Labour) and 1997 (Conservatives), when the losing party in both cases did a bit less badly than expected. Perhaps the LibDems will benefit this time?
As for Populus: more evidence for the "It's a tie and nothing is happening!" theory.
The Poliakoff videos and Brady's films of the rest of the Nottingham University Science team are undoubtedly some of the best things on Youtube. They teach more in ten minutes than most science documentaries do in an hour.
A song about the periodic table featured in a NCIS episode. McGeek solved the puzzle I think.
The internals of the Populus look poor for Labour to me, in fact if they do well in the Southwest as seems to be indicated by a fair few subsamples that could help Dave out quite alot.
Most Populus and Ashcroft polls this year have had Sunday fieldwork end-dates, and they publish the following day. Just that ComRes last night jumped the gun by about 12 hours!
So for that reason, and I know it will disappoint the more, shall we say, radicalised PB Tories, I'm going to include ComRes in this coming week's ELBOW.
Comments
Re oxygen, it was Hooke and Boyle who discovered that 20% of air vanished on burning in vacuum. Science moved one step at a time.
Newton wrote four words on religion to every one on Science. Whilst devout he secretly did not believe in the holy trinity
He was obsessed with alchemy right until Hooke spurred him on.
The one note of caution here though relates to the population.
It is young, it is relatively transient and has a relatively high probability of being unregistered.
Click on it for a better view....
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/the-range-of-possibilities-how.html
I just can't grasp it. Chemistry, atoms, giant numbers are fine and fun - the density of air? YAWN
Still cannot get the 'fact' that the LDs will poll sub~10% and yet get 20-30 seats - SI on PB currently says 24-26. It will be a most peculiar result.
1) Don't bet against a hung Parliament unless you get long odds.
2) Labour most seats is a terrific value bet at 2/1.
3) Since the Conservatives look unlikely to get above 300 seats (I'd guess at least 3/1), the next Government is very likely to be a Labour-led government. Lay David Cameron as Prime Minister after the next election at anything close to, or even not very close to, current prices. He's odds on at present to keep his job. This is a crazy price. Enjoy
I did ceiling crawling, had a pass to the British Museum library back room and had my mitts on Leonardo, Michaelangelo et al cartoons, Durer, Raphael and every imaginable printed, etched, silverpoint or pencil/ink drawing you can think of.
I got a place at the Smithsonian to do this and didn't take it as I simply can't stand the pretentiousness of the arty-farts. Printing inks is a huge subject - the bible text is about 4" thick just as a foundation.
A second election in November would be fascinating. If Cameron is PM after May, he will have served his second term. Does that mean he steps down? I cannot see EdM lasting if Labour is not the biggest party. He has no discernible base in the party. As a big Dan Jarvis fan, I'd like to see him take over, but this year may be too early for him.
As for Populus: more evidence for the "It's a tie and nothing is happening!" theory.
Will this time be so different? I just don't have any feel for this and glad I'm not a pollster. This has 1992 written all over it.
But my gut instinct says Hughes' voters are more likely to be registered than those who are supposedly going to vote him out.
I am edging towards the view that there will be little change in overall seat numbers for the leading two, with the real change on the under card.
I foresee Labour stronger in the North - especially NW - and London, but weaker in Scotland.
The Tories weaker in the North and London, but stronger in the SW and West, maybe a tad stronger in Scotland.
It does make me wonder just what position the Lib Dems would be in now if they hadn't entered coalition. First?
Not much change.
http://www.itv.com/news/wales/update/2015-03-30/poll-shows-increased-labour-lead-in-wales/
It might be worth holding fire on the betting front insofar as the overall result is concerned for at least a further few days.
Something I meant to do on Sunday morning after the yougov but forgot
Welsh polling may be worth looking at again after Leanne is on the Telly anyway.
I'm grateful to Lord Ashcroft, but we're putting an awful lot of faith in an untested pollster, in area of polling which is notoriously difficult to poll.
Normally I'm bullish on Lib Dem figures, but I've felt something isn't quite right with the Lib Dems in recent months.
Note the fiasco of their private polling which didn't quite live up to the hype.
I might be imagining things, but if I look at it through one eye from across the room I think it spells out "Ed Miliband will never be PM"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies
Ashamed to say I only hit the "cunning constituent" bracket (overestimated house prices and public employment).
It also says
"And here there is further bad news for the Welsh Liberal Democrats. Fully 18 percent of all those who indicated that they would vote Lib-Dem in the general election actually placed themselves between 0 and 3 on the scale of how likely they were to vote; no other party had more than 4 percent of its supporters claiming to be so unlikely to take part in the election."
There is no inconsistency between LibDems polling around 8-10% and polling well in their held seats. For the yellow peril it's about fighting 60 by-elections and to hell with the rest.
Another factor this time is unlike every prior general elections the LibDems have a very large war chest.
Well Ukip vs lib dem is 1/3 vs 9/4... I wonder what that translates as in vote share? 12 vs 10?
Aren't most scientists that make major breakthroughs in a minority?
I expected the Lib Dems to improve their nationwide polling by now, so have hedged accordingly.
I concur with the output of your ARSE for the Lib Dems.
In short, what Labour was counting on for the whole country looks like happening in London only.
Galileo and loads of others know what unpopularity is.
That's doesn't require a political party, it requires press gangs....
Stick to my ARSE like glue.
Suburban London (Enfield, Ilford, Croydon) is increasingly filling up with population overspill/migration from places like Peckham, Tottenham, East Ham etc
Pockets of Toryism are now cropping up in the middle where they were previously unheard of - see the Isle of Dogs/Canary Wharf.
If you assume that in English LD/Lab marginal seats, some former red LDs will switch to Lab then I see the LDs retaining only 1 out of the 10 marginals. (Bermondsey)
In Scotland, LDs will retain only 2 out of the 10 seats (Orkney and Ross).
In Wales, LDs will retain 2 out of 3 seats, losing Cardiff.
That makes LDs retaining 31 out of their 57 seats.
In this analysis, it really doesn't matter whether LDs are on 8% or 15% nationally. It is the behaviour of the red LDs, (who have defected to Lab in the national polls), that matters in the different kinds of marginals.
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/582489031344283648
Just appalling. On so many levels. Didn't Gordon get helicopters from the POTUS gift shop for his kids? I just cringe at the ineptness of it.
And remember they overestimated the Lib Dems at the last election.
I know I'd like nothing more than that.
(Sometimes, nothing is the better gift...)
And these are all the elements we know about at Harvard yet
There may be many others but they haven't been discarvard yet.
Most Populus and Ashcroft polls this year have had Sunday fieldwork end-dates, and they publish the following day. Just that ComRes last night jumped the gun by about 12 hours!
So for that reason, and I know it will disappoint the more, shall we say, radicalised PB Tories, I'm going to include ComRes in this coming week's ELBOW.