Dame Tessa Jowell has opened up a huge lead in the race to be Labour’s candidate for London Mayor — winning more than double the support of her closest rival.
A poll published today shows that the former culture secretary is now backed by 40 per cent of Labour supporters who have an opinion, her highest total yet. None of the three London MPs also in the race — Diane Abbott, Sadiq Khan and David Lammy — managed to win more than 20 per cent backing.
Dame Tessa Jowell has opened up a huge lead in the race to be Labour’s candidate for London Mayor — winning more than double the support of her closest rival.
A poll published today shows that the former culture secretary is now backed by 40 per cent of Labour supporters who have an opinion, her highest total yet. None of the three London MPs also in the race — Diane Abbott, Sadiq Khan and David Lammy — managed to win more than 20 per cent backing.
As part of a marketing campaign, we dropped 1m freepost postcards and 40m leaflets. It's a huge task and the logistics are boggling. Never tried it for a political one - sounds great fun.
The rude postcards we got back blaming Tony Blair for everything were most amusing.
Incidentally, I have been (heavily) involved in organising the printing of the campaign leaflets for a certain political party. Blinking heck, what a logistics operation.
I defy anybody to stare at 20-odd million campaign leaflets and the workload involved and ever vote for that party again!
No-one seems to be commenting on the fact the ST YOUGOV and Populus have sample sizes of 2000 while virtually all other polls are 1000. Surely a 2000 sample reduces Moe? Is it a coincidence or causal correlation that the 2000 sample polls seem to show larger labour scores?
Dame Tessa Jowell has opened up a huge lead in the race to be Labour’s candidate for London Mayor — winning more than double the support of her closest rival.
A poll published today shows that the former culture secretary is now backed by 40 per cent of Labour supporters who have an opinion, her highest total yet. None of the three London MPs also in the race — Diane Abbott, Sadiq Khan and David Lammy — managed to win more than 20 per cent backing.
Tessa is part of my mayoral portfolio. Her and Khan. I've even had a sniff of Lammy, but not Abbott - if I was a bookie I'd be top price on her for sure.
Stick your money on Feargal Sharkey at 50/1 with Shadsy, Feargal is up for the battle, he's got a good heart, you know
I wouldn't recommend putting any money on a man who lamented "it never happens to me".
He did that number in collaboration with Vince Clarke (of Depeche Mode, Yazoo and currently Erasure fame!). They called themselves "The Assembly".
Dame Tessa Jowell has opened up a huge lead in the race to be Labour’s candidate for London Mayor — winning more than double the support of her closest rival.
A poll published today shows that the former culture secretary is now backed by 40 per cent of Labour supporters who have an opinion, her highest total yet. None of the three London MPs also in the race — Diane Abbott, Sadiq Khan and David Lammy — managed to win more than 20 per cent backing.
Tessa is part of my mayoral portfolio. Her and Khan. I've even had a sniff of Lammy, but not Abbott - if I was a bookie I'd be top price on her for sure.
Stick your money on Feargal Sharkey at 50/1 with Shadsy, Feargal is up for the battle, he's got a good heart, you know
I wouldn't recommend putting any money on a man who lamented "it never happens to me".
Feargal Sharkey win the mayoral race for London? He can't even beat his cousin at Subbeteo.
Fergal Sharkey is also racist rhyming slang nowadays
Lol @the world we live in... What is it coming to! Racist abuse so ridiculous you are more likely to die laughing
No-one seems to be commenting on the fact the ST YOUGOV and Populus have sample sizes of 2000 while virtually all other polls are 1000. Surely a 2000 sample reduces Moe? Is it a coincidence or causal correlation that the 2000 sample polls seem to show larger labour scores?
Coincidence.
I have written a thread for Sunday about why (sample) size doesn't matter, it is what you do with it that counts.
Dame Tessa Jowell has opened up a huge lead in the race to be Labour’s candidate for London Mayor — winning more than double the support of her closest rival.
A poll published today shows that the former culture secretary is now backed by 40 per cent of Labour supporters who have an opinion, her highest total yet. None of the three London MPs also in the race — Diane Abbott, Sadiq Khan and David Lammy — managed to win more than 20 per cent backing.
Thanks, had thought he'd be doing better than that given the effort that he's been putting in, but guessing that that's the difference between Labour voters and Labour activists.
My bet is that this will not have anything like the impact of 2010 because the seven way debate means no-one is getting that much time. I also suspect that the most successful strategy is to be eminently positive: if you don't get your own message across, then people won't remember you as being particularly brilliant. In many ways, this should benefit those with simple messages: i.e. the Scots and Welsh nationalists and possibly the Greens.
Like everyone else here, I suspect Farage will perform reasonably well: that being said, I don't fancy the odds. He is likely to get very negative "insta-poll" clicks from LibDem supporters, the Greens, along with the metropolitan sides of the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. For that reason, I'm not long him. Everyone hates Clegg, which makes him unattractive. That being said, I'm told he's personally very persuasive when he makes the case for the coalition, so he might exceed expectations. But I think I'd bet on someone like the PC leader (or even Natalie Bennett) because it's a crap shot, and who hates those parties?
I've had a small bet on someone heckling in the audience to be thrown out at 7/1.
Given how much Farage is hated by the great unwashed there is a reasonable chance, probably should be longer odds but just a bit of fun.
Here's your briefing note ahead of tonight's #leadersdebate, with the 6 key points everyone watching it needs to know:
1) 1000 NEW JOBS EVERY DAY. We've helped create 1,000 new jobs every day since 2010 - meaning 1,000 more people every day with the security of a pay packet.
2) THE DEFICIT HALVED. Labour left Britain with the biggest budget deficit in our peacetime history. We've halved that as a share of our economy, and are building a Britain that lives within its means.
3) INCOME TAX CUT AND BENEFITS CAPPED. We're rewarding work, by cutting income tax for over 26 million people and making sure it always pays to work.
4) LABOUR = MORE TAXES, MORE DEBT. Ed Miliband's only plans are more spending, more debt, higher benefits, and more taxes. Every working family would face a £3,028 tax rise if he got into power.
5) THE SNP + LABOUR = CHAOS. The only way Ed Miliband can get into power is with the help of Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond - and that would mean £148bn more debt, unlimited benefits and weaker defences with Trident scrapped.
6) AN EU REFERENDUM. Labour and the Lib Dems won't give people a referendum. UKIP can't - and a vote for them only makes it more likely that Ed Miliband will become Prime Minister. Only the Conservatives can and will deliver an EU referendum - and by the end of 2017.
No-one seems to be commenting on the fact the ST YOUGOV and Populus have sample sizes of 2000 while virtually all other polls are 1000. Surely a 2000 sample reduces Moe? Is it a coincidence or causal correlation that the 2000 sample polls seem to show larger labour scores?
Co-incidence - the MOE reduces from 3% to 2% approx. More important is methodology.
No-one seems to be commenting on the fact the ST YOUGOV and Populus have sample sizes of 2000 while virtually all other polls are 1000. Surely a 2000 sample reduces Moe? Is it a coincidence or causal correlation that the 2000 sample polls seem to show larger labour scores?
I have written a thread for Sunday about why (sample) size doesn't matter, it is what you do with it that counts.
Sounds like an article straight from the pages of Cosmopolitan …!
No-one seems to be commenting on the fact the ST YOUGOV and Populus have sample sizes of 2000 while virtually all other polls are 1000. Surely a 2000 sample reduces Moe? Is it a coincidence or causal correlation that the 2000 sample polls seem to show larger labour scores?
I have written a thread for Sunday about why (sample) size doesn't matter, it is what you do with it that counts.
Sounds like an article straight from the pages of Cosmopolitan …!
No-one seems to be commenting on the fact the ST YOUGOV and Populus have sample sizes of 2000 while virtually all other polls are 1000. Surely a 2000 sample reduces Moe? Is it a coincidence or causal correlation that the 2000 sample polls seem to show larger labour scores?
I have written a thread for Sunday about why (sample) size doesn't matter, it is what you do with it that counts.
Sounds like an article straight from the pages of Cosmopolitan …!
The secondary headline might be "Is your favourite pollster a stud or a dud"
No-one seems to be commenting on the fact the ST YOUGOV and Populus have sample sizes of 2000 while virtually all other polls are 1000. Surely a 2000 sample reduces Moe? Is it a coincidence or causal correlation that the 2000 sample polls seem to show larger labour scores?
2000 reduces the MOE, but not by as much as you'd think (about 1% for these levels IIRC). I think there's a fairly broad consensus that the big parties are currently more or less tied, with the Tories arguably a nose ahead on votes and behind on seats if the election was today. It's important to keep an eye on the LD/Gr vs UKIP scores, as in the key Con/Lab marginals both will shrink, probably mainly to Lab/Con respectively. Most polls have the two about equal.
My bet is that this will not have anything like the impact of 2010 because the seven way debate means no-one is getting that much time. I also suspect that the most successful strategy is to be eminently positive: if you don't get your own message across, then people won't remember you as being particularly brilliant. In many ways, this should benefit those with simple messages: i.e. the Scots and Welsh nationalists and possibly the Greens.
Like everyone else here, I suspect Farage will perform reasonably well: that being said, I don't fancy the odds. He is likely to get very negative "insta-poll" clicks from LibDem supporters, the Greens, along with the metropolitan sides of the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. For that reason, I'm not long him. Everyone hates Clegg, which makes him unattractive. That being said, I'm told he's personally very persuasive when he makes the case for the coalition, so he might exceed expectations. But I think I'd bet on someone like the PC leader (or even Natalie Bennett) because it's a crap shot, and who hates those parties?
I think the horse race element will see Cameron and Miliband in the top 3, almost regardless of how they do. About two thirds of the electorate (and therefore the panel) are pretty firm in their allegiance, and e.g. a keen Tory just isn't going to wander off and vote say Sturgeon as the winner.Dispassionate observers who judge it all on merit are not a glut on the market.
My bet is that this will not have anything like the impact of 2010 because the seven way debate means no-one is getting that much time. I also suspect that the most successful strategy is to be eminently positive: if you don't get your own message across, then people won't remember you as being particularly brilliant. In many ways, this should benefit those with simple messages: i.e. the Scots and Welsh nationalists and possibly the Greens.
Like everyone else here, I suspect Farage will perform reasonably well: that being said, I don't fancy the odds. He is likely to get very negative "insta-poll" clicks from LibDem supporters, the Greens, along with the metropolitan sides of the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. For that reason, I'm not long him. Everyone hates Clegg, which makes him unattractive. That being said, I'm told he's personally very persuasive when he makes the case for the coalition, so he might exceed expectations. But I think I'd bet on someone like the PC leader (or even Natalie Bennett) because it's a crap shot, and who hates those parties?
Yup I think the panels who are being polled on this are more important than the viewers. Online panels are usually full of people like us, partisan and those who have probably made up their minds.
I think that Sturgeon has the best chance of winning. She will appeal to Scots and lefty Labourites who want Labour to be more like the SNP. Additionally she will appeal to the whole anti-austerity side very well which makes up a large proportion of the Labour VI and Lib Dem VI.
No-one seems to be commenting on the fact the ST YOUGOV and Populus have sample sizes of 2000 while virtually all other polls are 1000. Surely a 2000 sample reduces Moe? Is it a coincidence or causal correlation that the 2000 sample polls seem to show larger labour scores?
I have written a thread for Sunday about why (sample) size doesn't matter, it is what you do with it that counts.
Sounds like an article straight from the pages of Cosmopolitan …!
The secondary headline might be "Is your favourite pollster a stud or a dud"
I fear you may have thrown away your 'true calling' on a frivolous legal career..
No-one seems to be commenting on the fact the ST YOUGOV and Populus have sample sizes of 2000 while virtually all other polls are 1000. Surely a 2000 sample reduces Moe? Is it a coincidence or causal correlation that the 2000 sample polls seem to show larger labour scores?
Coincidence.
I have written a thread for Sunday about why (sample) size doesn't matter, it is what you do with it that counts.
It is...shame Ladbrokes as a business is a steaming pile of poo. Mullen until a few months ago was head of Ladbrokes Digital, an area where they have been particularly poor."
You really couldn't make up the Tories on this site. The head of Ladbrokes had the temerity to say he wasn't going to get involved in telling people how to vote so he gets the full Martin Freeman treatment!!
We're having a debate tonight, but on what policy?
AFAIK, no major political party has yet published their manifesto. I have no idea when they intend to do so either.
Since when has electioneering been about appealing to voters' intellects? It's 95% about presentation and emotions.
I want to know what policies I am (or am not) voting for. It's sort of the whole point of an election.
After the tuition fees fiasco, parties are loathe to offer any concrete policies, especially in austere times.
You're most likely to get aspirations and a few red lines of what we won't do.
That really isn't good enough. I want to know what I'm voting for, and what I can reasonably expect from the party for whom I cast my vote if they form a government. I also want to know what the difference is between their aspirations and red-lines, if there are any.
It really isn't acceptable for parties to be wishy-washy about what they'll do, and they simply implement whatever convenient after they're elected.
It's precisely that sort of behaviour that turns people off politics.
No-one seems to be commenting on the fact the ST YOUGOV and Populus have sample sizes of 2000 while virtually all other polls are 1000. Surely a 2000 sample reduces Moe? Is it a coincidence or causal correlation that the 2000 sample polls seem to show larger labour scores?
Coincidence.
I have written a thread for Sunday about why (sample) size doesn't matter, it is what you do with it that counts.
Literary Digest, 1936!
That and YouGov in 2010, whose final poll had a mahoosive sample of size of 6,483 and was less accurate than ICM and Ipsos Mori whose sample sizes were 1,527 and 930
No-one seems to be commenting on the fact the ST YOUGOV and Populus have sample sizes of 2000 while virtually all other polls are 1000. Surely a 2000 sample reduces Moe? Is it a coincidence or causal correlation that the 2000 sample polls seem to show larger labour scores?
Coincidence.
I have written a thread for Sunday about why (sample) size doesn't matter, it is what you do with it that counts.
Literary Digest, 1936!
That and YouGov in 2010, whose final poll had a mahoosive sample of size of 6,483 and was less accurate than ICM and Ipsos Mori whose sample sizes were 1,527 and 930
Given that elections are held by command of HM, does that make her the most accurate pollster in the land?
"Serious question: why do people bother with populus? I don't know much about them, but I've seen comments all week suggesting polls like this would follow favouring Labour. Sure enough it happens and everyone is rightfully dismissing their methods."
We're having a debate tonight, but on what policy?
AFAIK, no major political party has yet published their manifesto. I have no idea when they intend to do so either.
Since when has electioneering been about appealing to voters' intellects? It's 95% about presentation and emotions.
I want to know what policies I am (or am not) voting for. It's sort of the whole point of an election.
I guess you have to pick between two evils: a classic Crosby campaign where the party roughly knows its policies but does its best to avoid discussion and scrutiny of them (late publication of manifesto, insisting debates take place before publication, promising welfare savings but refusing to say where they come from); or a Miliband campaign which is fairly open about policies but isn't really that sure what they are.
Immigration. This is what the Beeb says David Cameron's policy is:
"David Cameron wants to make migrants wait four years before they can claim certain benefits, such as tax credits, Universal Credit, or get access to social housing. He wants to stop migrants from claiming child benefit for dependents living outside the UK, and remove those that have failed to find work after six months."
Quite a bit of that Conservative policy requires effective funding of the Home Office, DWP and Border Agency staff to make it bite and reduce the numbers.
Clearly, Farage will hammer him on this tonight. But even if it is effective, I can't see it reducing overall net migration numbers. It might shave 15-20k pa off the net migration numbers if he's lucky.
"Serious question: why do people bother with populus? I don't know much about them, but I've seen comments all week suggesting polls like this would follow favouring Labour. Sure enough it happens and everyone is rightfully dismissing their methods."
And another barking mad Tory.....
Indeed. Why bother with any pollster that has ever put Labour in the lead ? I blame the BBC and the liberal metropolitan elite.
It is...shame Ladbrokes as a business is a steaming pile of poo. Mullen until a few months ago was head of Ladbrokes Digital, an area where they have been particularly poor."
You really couldn't make up the Tories on this site. The head of Ladbrokes had the temerity to say he wasn't going to get involved in telling people how to vote so he gets the full Martin Freeman treatment!!
How dare he ! He really has no right not to tell us how to vote.
Can anybody explain the differences between page 4 and page 7 of His Lordships Torbay polling? A 38%-25% Tory lead turns into the Tories behind on 33%-34%....
Could the "manual adjustments" on page 7 be a complete Horlicks? If so, huge betting implications on this seat. The Tories were massively ahead in the unweighted samples...
Delivered another 900 leaflets this morning. Kevin Foster was in chipper spirits....
"Serious question: why do people bother with populus? I don't know much about them, but I've seen comments all week suggesting polls like this would follow favouring Labour. Sure enough it happens and everyone is rightfully dismissing their methods."
And another barking mad Tory.....
Indeed. Why bother with any pollster that has ever put Labour in the lead ? I blame the BBC and the liberal metropolitan elite.
It wasn't very long ago that all of the posters regularly had Labour ahead - just shows how things have changed.
If the Lib Dems go from 57 to 30 seats, what is the likely Lab/Con gains - 50/50?
I reckon it might be something like 8 to the SNP, 12 to the Tories and 8 to Lab.
This is my own back of fag packet guesstimate
I suppose it's because John Players are no longer available that your arithmetic is wonky – "it's the tobacco that counts" was their slogan. 57 – 30 ≠ 28.
Can anybody explain the differences between page 4 and page 7 of His Lordships Torbay polling? A 38%-25% Tory lead turns into the Tories behind on 33%-34%....
Could the "manual adjustments" on page 7 be a complete Horlicks? If so, huge betting implications on this seat. The Tories were massively ahead in the unweighted samples...
Delivered another 900 leaflets this morning. Kevin Foster was in chipper spirits....
No, it's the difference between Q1 and Q2.
The Tories lead massively on the standard VI (q1) but trail when Q2 is asked about thinking specifically about your constituency question.
No-one seems to be commenting on the fact the ST YOUGOV and Populus have sample sizes of 2000 while virtually all other polls are 1000. Surely a 2000 sample reduces Moe? Is it a coincidence or causal correlation that the 2000 sample polls seem to show larger labour scores?
Coincidence.
I have written a thread for Sunday about why (sample) size doesn't matter, it is what you do with it that counts.
Literary Digest, 1936!
That and YouGov in 2010, whose final poll had a mahoosive sample of size of 6,483 and was less accurate than ICM and Ipsos Mori whose sample sizes were 1,527 and 930
Given that elections are held by command of HM, does that make her the most accurate pollster in the land?
According to Thatcher, Her Majesty would've voted SDP back in the 80s if she had a vote.
Can anybody explain the differences between page 4 and page 7 of His Lordships Torbay polling? A 38%-25% Tory lead turns into the Tories behind on 33%-34%....
Could the "manual adjustments" on page 7 be a complete Horlicks? If so, huge betting implications on this seat. The Tories were massively ahead in the unweighted samples...
Delivered another 900 leaflets this morning. Kevin Foster was in chipper spirits....
No, it's the difference between Q1 and Q2.
The Tories lead massively on the standard VI (q1) but trail when Q2 is asked about thinking specifically about your constituency question.
That 32/12% on table 5 really stands out like a sore thumb to me. What on earth are these people thinking ?
Here's your briefing note ahead of tonight's #leadersdebate, with the 6 key points everyone watching it needs to know:
1) 1000 NEW JOBS EVERY DAY. We've helped create 1,000 new jobs every day since 2010 - meaning 1,000 more people every day with the security of a pay packet.
2) THE DEFICIT HALVED. Labour left Britain with the biggest budget deficit in our peacetime history. We've halved that as a share of our economy, and are building a Britain that lives within its means.
3) INCOME TAX CUT AND BENEFITS CAPPED. We're rewarding work, by cutting income tax for over 26 million people and making sure it always pays to work.
4) LABOUR = MORE TAXES, MORE DEBT. Ed Miliband's only plans are more spending, more debt, higher benefits, and more taxes. Every working family would face a £3,028 tax rise if he got into power.
5) THE SNP + LABOUR = CHAOS. The only way Ed Miliband can get into power is with the help of Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond - and that would mean £148bn more debt, unlimited benefits and weaker defences with Trident scrapped.
6) AN EU REFERENDUM. Labour and the Lib Dems won't give people a referendum. UKIP can't - and a vote for them only makes it more likely that Ed Miliband will become Prime Minister. Only the Conservatives can and will deliver an EU referendum - and by the end of 2017.
Interesting they are still running with the £3028 tax rise after the IFS jumped on it. Presumably they figure that the fear of a thing is worse than the thing itself.
This also picks up the Anti-UKIP attack - which looks to be working - the blue ukippers object as a matter of principle to the EU because of the costs/ immigration - the red ones are the ones actually suffering due to the immigration. This is an important difference.
"Serious question: why do people bother with populus? I don't know much about them, but I've seen comments all week suggesting polls like this would follow favouring Labour. Sure enough it happens and everyone is rightfully dismissing their methods."
And another barking mad Tory.....
Indeed. Why bother with any pollster that has ever put Labour in the lead ? I blame the BBC and the liberal metropolitan elite.
It wasn't very long ago that all of the posters regularly had Labour ahead - just shows how things have changed.
What a shame Angus Reid isn't still around. They would never have had a Labour lead.
It is...shame Ladbrokes as a business is a steaming pile of poo. Mullen until a few months ago was head of Ladbrokes Digital, an area where they have been particularly poor."
You really couldn't make up the Tories on this site. The head of Ladbrokes had the temerity to say he wasn't going to get involved in telling people how to vote so he gets the full Martin Freeman treatment!!
Excellent letter. I almost took up sport so as to be able to boycott Sports Direct for being nasty about Miliband...
Can anybody explain the differences between page 4 and page 7 of His Lordships Torbay polling? A 38%-25% Tory lead turns into the Tories behind on 33%-34%....
Could the "manual adjustments" on page 7 be a complete Horlicks? If so, huge betting implications on this seat. The Tories were massively ahead in the unweighted samples...
Delivered another 900 leaflets this morning. Kevin Foster was in chipper spirits....
No, it's the difference between Q1 and Q2.
The Tories lead massively on the standard VI (q1) but trail when Q2 is asked about thinking specifically about your constituency question.
That 32/12% on table 5 really stands out like a sore thumb to me. What on earth are these people thinking ?
This is why constituency polling is so hard for pollsters and they've preferred to do aggregated polling.
"Nick Clegg has declared he can "do business" with David Cameron in a second Coalition.
The DPM says he won't allow his personal "whims and wishes" to stand in the way of doing his "duty" to Britain by forming a second coalition.
He makes clear he thinks the Lib Dems and Tories can work again together.
For the past four days of the Liberal Democrats' bus tour, Nick Clegg has been laying the ground work for a second coalition.
He says that everyone - including Cameron and Miliband - knows that the election will produce a hung parliament, and the choice for voters is "who they want to work with whom".
The red lines of his manifesto front page are a remarkably low hurdle for any suitor: green measures, more cash for mental health, tax cuts for the low paid and deficit reduction."
Can anybody explain the differences between page 4 and page 7 of His Lordships Torbay polling? A 38%-25% Tory lead turns into the Tories behind on 33%-34%....
Could the "manual adjustments" on page 7 be a complete Horlicks? If so, huge betting implications on this seat. The Tories were massively ahead in the unweighted samples...
Delivered another 900 leaflets this morning. Kevin Foster was in chipper spirits....
No, it's the difference between Q1 and Q2.
The Tories lead massively on the standard VI (q1) but trail when Q2 is asked about thinking specifically about your constituency question.
OK, was thrown by the unweighted/weighted party numbers at the head of each table. Still haven't quite my head round how they mesh together....
"Nick Clegg has declared he can "do business" with David Cameron in a second Coalition.
The DPM says he won't allow his personal "whims and wishes" to stand in the way of doing his "duty" to Britain by forming a second coalition.
He makes clear he thinks the Lib Dems and Tories can work again together.
For the past four days of the Liberal Democrats' bus tour, Nick Clegg has been laying the ground work for a second coalition.
He says that everyone - including Cameron and Miliband - knows that the election will produce a hung parliament, and the choice for voters is "who they want to work with whom".
The red lines of his manifesto front page are a remarkably low hurdle for any suitor: green measures, more cash for mental health, tax cuts for the low paid and deficit reduction."
If the Lib Dems go from 57 to 30 seats, what is the likely Lab/Con gains - 50/50?
SNP get 7, Labour get 10, Cons get 10.
That's the danger for Labour, if the Cons hold on to their seats in England or limit the damage to less than 20 seats they will easily be the largest party in government. The latest Aschroft shows a lot of UKIP vote is unwinding as was noted in the last thread. If this is replicated in the Con/Lab marginals then Labour are in trouble. The last swing was what, 3.5% Con > Lab. If UKIP unwinds then the Tories are in with a fighting chance to make > 300 seats. With Labour looking at losing 40 seats to the SNP and gaining just 20 from the Tories and 10 from the Lib Dems they may end up in a worse position than today.
A lot depends on how well Cameron can get those few UKIP voters back on side and how well he can paint Ed as a dangerous leftist to the more centrist Labour voters. So far it seems to be going well with the first few days of the campaign concentrating on the economy and with the economy moving back to the top of the YouGov index for both the nation and personal circumstances.
It is...shame Ladbrokes as a business is a steaming pile of poo. Mullen until a few months ago was head of Ladbrokes Digital, an area where they have been particularly poor."
You really couldn't make up the Tories on this site. The head of Ladbrokes had the temerity to say he wasn't going to get involved in telling people how to vote so he gets the full Martin Freeman treatment!!
Well Ladbrokes have been poor in the last few years (chart vs William Hill, who aren't even their biggest problem). But ironically that's mostly been on the watch of the outgoing CEO (Glynn) - the one who signed the letter.
"Nick Clegg has declared he can "do business" with David Cameron in a second Coalition.
The DPM says he won't allow his personal "whims and wishes" to stand in the way of doing his "duty" to Britain by forming a second coalition.
He makes clear he thinks the Lib Dems and Tories can work again together.
For the past four days of the Liberal Democrats' bus tour, Nick Clegg has been laying the ground work for a second coalition.
He says that everyone - including Cameron and Miliband - knows that the election will produce a hung parliament, and the choice for voters is "who they want to work with whom".
The red lines of his manifesto front page are a remarkably low hurdle for any suitor: green measures, more cash for mental health, tax cuts for the low paid and deficit reduction."
Daily Mail Online (@MailOnline) 02/04/2015 14:21 Are you Christian or Muslim? What gunmen asked Kenyan students as they carried out massacre dailym.ai/19KXd6A pic.twitter.com/AV4ehvSnnZ
If the Lib Dems go from 57 to 30 seats, what is the likely Lab/Con gains - 50/50?
SNP get 7, Labour get 10, Cons get 10.
That's the danger for Labour, if the Cons hold on to their seats in England or limit the damage to less than 20 seats they will easily be the largest party in government. The latest Aschroft shows a lot of UKIP vote is unwinding as was noted in the last thread. If this is replicated in the Con/Lab marginals then Labour are in trouble. The last swing was what, 3.5% Con > Lab. If UKIP unwinds then the Tories are in with a fighting chance to make > 300 seats. With Labour looking at losing 40 seats to the SNP and gaining just 20 from the Tories and 10 from the Lib Dems they may end up in a worse position than today.
A lot depends on how well Cameron can get those few UKIP voters back on side and how well he can paint Ed as a dangerous leftist to the more centrist Labour voters. So far it seems to be going well with the first few days of the campaign concentrating on the economy and with the economy moving back to the top of the YouGov index for both the nation and personal circumstances.
But as the polls keep telling us much of the UKIP vote did not come from the Conservatives in the first place so why should it unwind back all to them ?
"Nick Clegg has declared he can "do business" with David Cameron in a second Coalition.
The DPM says he won't allow his personal "whims and wishes" to stand in the way of doing his "duty" to Britain by forming a second coalition.
He makes clear he thinks the Lib Dems and Tories can work again together.
For the past four days of the Liberal Democrats' bus tour, Nick Clegg has been laying the ground work for a second coalition.
He says that everyone - including Cameron and Miliband - knows that the election will produce a hung parliament, and the choice for voters is "who they want to work with whom".
The red lines of his manifesto front page are a remarkably low hurdle for any suitor: green measures, more cash for mental health, tax cuts for the low paid and deficit reduction."
"Nick Clegg has declared he can "do business" with David Cameron in a second Coalition.
The DPM says he won't allow his personal "whims and wishes" to stand in the way of doing his "duty" to Britain by forming a second coalition.
He makes clear he thinks the Lib Dems and Tories can work again together.
For the past four days of the Liberal Democrats' bus tour, Nick Clegg has been laying the ground work for a second coalition.
He says that everyone - including Cameron and Miliband - knows that the election will produce a hung parliament, and the choice for voters is "who they want to work with whom".
The red lines of his manifesto front page are a remarkably low hurdle for any suitor: green measures, more cash for mental health, tax cuts for the low paid and deficit reduction."
"Nick Clegg has declared he can "do business" with David Cameron in a second Coalition.
The DPM says he won't allow his personal "whims and wishes" to stand in the way of doing his "duty" to Britain by forming a second coalition.
He makes clear he thinks the Lib Dems and Tories can work again together.
For the past four days of the Liberal Democrats' bus tour, Nick Clegg has been laying the ground work for a second coalition.
He says that everyone - including Cameron and Miliband - knows that the election will produce a hung parliament, and the choice for voters is "who they want to work with whom".
The red lines of his manifesto front page are a remarkably low hurdle for any suitor: green measures, more cash for mental health, tax cuts for the low paid and deficit reduction."
"Nick Clegg has declared he can "do business" with David Cameron in a second Coalition.
The DPM says he won't allow his personal "whims and wishes" to stand in the way of doing his "duty" to Britain by forming a second coalition.
He makes clear he thinks the Lib Dems and Tories can work again together.
For the past four days of the Liberal Democrats' bus tour, Nick Clegg has been laying the ground work for a second coalition.
He says that everyone - including Cameron and Miliband - knows that the election will produce a hung parliament, and the choice for voters is "who they want to work with whom".
The red lines of his manifesto front page are a remarkably low hurdle for any suitor: green measures, more cash for mental health, tax cuts for the low paid and deficit reduction."
"Nick Clegg has declared he can "do business" with David Cameron in a second Coalition.
The DPM says he won't allow his personal "whims and wishes" to stand in the way of doing his "duty" to Britain by forming a second coalition.
He makes clear he thinks the Lib Dems and Tories can work again together.
For the past four days of the Liberal Democrats' bus tour, Nick Clegg has been laying the ground work for a second coalition.
He says that everyone - including Cameron and Miliband - knows that the election will produce a hung parliament, and the choice for voters is "who they want to work with whom".
The red lines of his manifesto front page are a remarkably low hurdle for any suitor: green measures, more cash for mental health, tax cuts for the low paid and deficit reduction."
Let us hope he has dropped his absurd demand to change the electorate to include schoolchildren and foreign nationals in elections.
There are about 250,000 school children aged 18 or 19 who can already vote. Do you want to strip them off their say too?
I do not think so. If they are old enough to be sent to war, they are old enough to vote in an election. But we should not allow anyone who we do not trust to buy tobacco to decide the next government.
"Nick Clegg has declared he can "do business" with David Cameron in a second Coalition.
The DPM says he won't allow his personal "whims and wishes" to stand in the way of doing his "duty" to Britain by forming a second coalition.
He makes clear he thinks the Lib Dems and Tories can work again together.
For the past four days of the Liberal Democrats' bus tour, Nick Clegg has been laying the ground work for a second coalition.
He says that everyone - including Cameron and Miliband - knows that the election will produce a hung parliament, and the choice for voters is "who they want to work with whom".
The red lines of his manifesto front page are a remarkably low hurdle for any suitor: green measures, more cash for mental health, tax cuts for the low paid and deficit reduction."
If the Lib Dems go from 57 to 30 seats, what is the likely Lab/Con gains - 50/50?
SNP get 7, Labour get 10, Cons get 10.
That's the danger for Labour, if the Cons hold on to their seats in England or limit the damage to less than 20 seats they will easily be the largest party in government. The latest Aschroft shows a lot of UKIP vote is unwinding as was noted in the last thread. If this is replicated in the Con/Lab marginals then Labour are in trouble. The last swing was what, 3.5% Con > Lab. If UKIP unwinds then the Tories are in with a fighting chance to make > 300 seats. With Labour looking at losing 40 seats to the SNP and gaining just 20 from the Tories and 10 from the Lib Dems they may end up in a worse position than today.
A lot depends on how well Cameron can get those few UKIP voters back on side and how well he can paint Ed as a dangerous leftist to the more centrist Labour voters. So far it seems to be going well with the first few days of the campaign concentrating on the economy and with the economy moving back to the top of the YouGov index for both the nation and personal circumstances.
But as the polls keep telling us much of the UKIP vote did not come from the Conservatives in the first place so why should it unwind back all to them ?
Well in the latest set of marginals it did unwind back to them more than others. All three mainstream parties were up, but the Tories gained the most. The go to bed with Nige and wake up with Ed is driving this action. It is a line that seems to have cut through.
On another subject, how comfortable would you be with another coalition? Cons on say 300 and Libs on say 30? Supply and confidence or a proper coalition?
I was out and about this morning, in, of all places, Hampstead Heath and Belsize Park. I happened to have some spare UKIP leaflets with me and distributed them, ad hoc, among the coffee drinkers of a local venue. I got speaking with a few people, and lo and behold, about 50% of those that I spoke to said that they were going to vote UKIP come what may, but, and here's the twist, don't tell anybody about it.
It also happened to my wife at her hairdressers yesterday, where the owner confessed that he was voting UKIP ( no prompting ) but keeping the fact to himself.
There must be many, many voters also contemplating voting UKIP, but keeping shtum. How many? We will find out on May 8th.
It is...shame Ladbrokes as a business is a steaming pile of poo. Mullen until a few months ago was head of Ladbrokes Digital, an area where they have been particularly poor."
You really couldn't make up the Tories on this site. The head of Ladbrokes had the temerity to say he wasn't going to get involved in telling people how to vote so he gets the full Martin Freeman treatment!!
What are your prattling about.
1) Not a Tory
2) I welcomed what the Ladbrokes guy said...As a professional gambler, I was simply pointing out that it makes a change for Ladbrokes to do something sensible, because as a business seemed to have done anything but the sensible thing over the past few years...which has cost me money.
If the Lib Dems go from 57 to 30 seats, what is the likely Lab/Con gains - 50/50?
SNP get 7, Labour get 10, Cons get 10.
That's the danger for Labour, if the Cons hold on to their seats in England or limit the damage to less than 20 seats they will easily be the largest party in government. The latest Aschroft shows a lot of UKIP vote is unwinding as was noted in the last thread. If this is replicated in the Con/Lab marginals then Labour are in trouble. The last swing was what, 3.5% Con > Lab. If UKIP unwinds then the Tories are in with a fighting chance to make > 300 seats. With Labour looking at losing 40 seats to the SNP and gaining just 20 from the Tories and 10 from the Lib Dems they may end up in a worse position than today.
A lot depends on how well Cameron can get those few UKIP voters back on side and how well he can paint Ed as a dangerous leftist to the more centrist Labour voters. So far it seems to be going well with the first few days of the campaign concentrating on the economy and with the economy moving back to the top of the YouGov index for both the nation and personal circumstances.
Indeed that is a worry from a Labour point of view. Of course the 40 seat seat loss in Scotland is the worst case scenario - a 30 seat loss seems more plausible. A good outcome would be reduce the damage to just 20 seats (that seems pretty unlikely though!)
Again and I stand to be corrected, I think the 20 seat gain from the Tories is surely a worst case scenario. The betting markets seem to indicate a 30-40 seat gain.
Bottom line - even though the polls have moved very slightly in favour of the Tories, it's still all to play for...
"Nick Clegg has declared he can "do business" with David Cameron in a second Coalition.
The DPM says he won't allow his personal "whims and wishes" to stand in the way of doing his "duty" to Britain by forming a second coalition.
He makes clear he thinks the Lib Dems and Tories can work again together.
For the past four days of the Liberal Democrats' bus tour, Nick Clegg has been laying the ground work for a second coalition.
He says that everyone - including Cameron and Miliband - knows that the election will produce a hung parliament, and the choice for voters is "who they want to work with whom".
The red lines of his manifesto front page are a remarkably low hurdle for any suitor: green measures, more cash for mental health, tax cuts for the low paid and deficit reduction."
Let us hope he has dropped his absurd demand to change the electorate to include schoolchildren and foreign nationals in elections.
School children and foreign nationals already vote in elections.
Perhaps a case can be made for foreign nationals voting in local elections, although personally I disagree with that. But only the British public should decide on the future of the British nation. If Nick Clegg wants to open the possibility of non-UK nationals overruling the views of British people in terms of the constitutional future of this country, then that says clearly who he truly represents.
But as the polls keep telling us much of the UKIP vote did not come from the Conservatives in the first place so why should it unwind back all to them ?
It won't, but equally there is absolutely no reason to suppose that it will unwind (to the extent that it does unwind) in proportion to where it came from. In fact, I would go further, and say that it is very unlikely that it will unwind consistently. Why should LibDem to UKIP switchers, Lab to UKIP switchers, and Con to UKIP switchers - whose political leanings are by definition different - all behave in the same way?
Obviously the Conservative hope is that ex-Labour voters will tend to remain Kippers and ex-Tory voters will tend to return to the fold, especially in marginals. It's not an unreasonable hope, given Ed Miliband and Labour's economic and policy disarray - there's little enthusiasm for Ed Miliband even amongst Labour supporters. That's not to say that it will necessarily work out that way, but it's clearly what the Conservatives will (and are) trying to encourage.
I was out and about this morning, in, of all places, Hampstead Heath and Belsize Park. I happened to have some spare UKIP leaflets with me and distributed them, ad hoc, among the coffee drinkers of a local venue. I got speaking with a few people, and lo and behold, about 50% of those that I spoke to said that they were going to vote UKIP come what may, but, and here's the twist, don't tell anybody about it.
It also happened to my wife at her hairdressers yesterday, where the owner confessed that he was voting UKIP ( no prompting ) but keeping the fact to himself.
There must be many, many voters also contemplating voting UKIP, but keeping shtum. How many? We will find out on May 8th.
So you're saying UKIP will poll 50% at the election? Blimey that 102 seat prediction was a bit of a lowball.
Shy Kippers causes all sorts of epistemological problems.
It also happened to my wife at her hairdressers yesterday, where the owner confessed that he was voting UKIP ( no prompting ) but keeping the fact to himself.
It is...shame Ladbrokes as a business is a steaming pile of poo. Mullen until a few months ago was head of Ladbrokes Digital, an area where they have been particularly poor."
You really couldn't make up the Tories on this site. The head of Ladbrokes had the temerity to say he wasn't going to get involved in telling people how to vote so he gets the full Martin Freeman treatment!!
What are your prattling about.
1) Not a Tory
2) I welcomed what the Ladbrokes guy said...As a professional gambler, I was simply pointing out that it makes a change for Ladbrokes to do something sensible, because as a business seemed to have done anything but the sensible thing over the past few years...which has cost me money.
So jog on.
Should add, that if you had read my posts over the past few days, I have been critical of the whole business of open letter writing. I generally think it is a nonsense.
I was out and about this morning, in, of all places, Hampstead Heath and Belsize Park. I happened to have some spare UKIP leaflets with me and distributed them, ad hoc, among the coffee drinkers of a local venue. I got speaking with a few people, and lo and behold, about 50% of those that I spoke to said that they were going to vote UKIP come what may, but, and here's the twist, don't tell anybody about it.
It also happened to my wife at her hairdressers yesterday, where the owner confessed that he was voting UKIP ( no prompting ) but keeping the fact to himself.
There must be many, many voters also contemplating voting UKIP, but keeping shtum. How many? We will find out on May 8th.
If UKIP were being systematically understated (due to the 'silence factor') that would have shown up in the Euro election results, and in by-elections.
It has not. In both cases, UKIP did very slightly worse than opinion polls.
Here's your briefing note ahead of tonight's #leadersdebate, with the 6 key points everyone watching it needs to know:
1) 1000 NEW JOBS EVERY DAY. We've helped create 1,000 new jobs every day since 2010 - meaning 1,000 more people every day with the security of a pay packet.
2) THE DEFICIT HALVED. Labour left Britain with the biggest budget deficit in our peacetime history. We've halved that as a share of our economy, and are building a Britain that lives within its means.
3) INCOME TAX CUT AND BENEFITS CAPPED. We're rewarding work, by cutting income tax for over 26 million people and making sure it always pays to work.
4) LABOUR = MORE TAXES, MORE DEBT. Ed Miliband's only plans are more spending, more debt, higher benefits, and more taxes. Every working family would face a £3,028 tax rise if he got into power.
5) THE SNP + LABOUR = CHAOS. The only way Ed Miliband can get into power is with the help of Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond - and that would mean £148bn more debt, unlimited benefits and weaker defences with Trident scrapped.
6) AN EU REFERENDUM. Labour and the Lib Dems won't give people a referendum. UKIP can't - and a vote for them only makes it more likely that Ed Miliband will become Prime Minister. Only the Conservatives can and will deliver an EU referendum - and by the end of 2017.
I thought #4 was instantly proven to be a load of bollox?
It's the kind of absurdly exaggerated scaremongering that does more harm than good.
But as the polls keep telling us much of the UKIP vote did not come from the Conservatives in the first place so why should it unwind back all to them ?
It won't, but equally there is absolutely no reason to suppose that it will unwind (to the extent that it does unwind) in proportion to where it came from. In fact, I would go further, and say that it is very unlikely that it will unwind consistently. Why should LibDem to UKIP switchers, Lab to UKIP switchers, and Con to UKIP switchers - whose political leanings are by definition different - all behave in the same way?
Obviously the Conservative hope is that ex-Labour voters will tend to remain Kippers and ex-Tory voters will tend to return to the fold, especially in marginals. It's not an unreasonable hope, given Ed Miliband and Labour's economic and policy disarray - there's little enthusiasm for Ed Miliband even amongst Labour supporters. That's not to say that it will necessarily work out that way, but it's clearly what the Conservatives will (and are) trying to encourage.
Agree that it'd be odd if the unwind was exactly the same. The alternative theory is "last in, first out" - it's generally agreed that Tories switched to UKIP in significant numbers, then Labour voters did, so maybe Labour voters are less committed to them. Who knows? Candidates and canvassers don't, because you can't tell what "No, not voting for you" means.
Well in the latest set of marginals it did unwind back to them more than others. All three mainstream parties were up, but the Tories gained the most. The go to bed with Nige and wake up with Ed is driving this action. It is a line that seems to have cut through.
On another subject, how comfortable would you be with another coalition? Cons on say 300 and Libs on say 30? Supply and confidence or a proper coalition?
I think in that respect the LDs will probably go for another coalition - they have worked with the Tories before and it won't be the shock it was to the lefty-liberals that 2010 was.
Since the economic forecast looks relatively good for UK PLC they will want the kudos of helping to create it.
The only risk would be if Greece goes belly-up. This of course could happen before the election and if the EU demand that the UK and Germany increase contributions . . .
I was out and about this morning, in, of all places, Hampstead Heath and Belsize Park. I happened to have some spare UKIP leaflets with me and distributed them, ad hoc, among the coffee drinkers of a local venue. I got speaking with a few people, and lo and behold, about 50% of those that I spoke to said that they were going to vote UKIP come what may, but, and here's the twist, don't tell anybody about it.
It also happened to my wife at her hairdressers yesterday, where the owner confessed that he was voting UKIP ( no prompting ) but keeping the fact to himself.
There must be many, many voters also contemplating voting UKIP, but keeping shtum. How many? We will find out on May 8th.
People like to make other people happy and often tell them what they think they want to hear.
TBH, in Hamstead and Belsize Park, I'm shocked you found any Brits. We're all skiing in Switzerland, and those that remain are probably junior French and Italian hedge and investment bank employees.
We're having a debate tonight, but on what policy?
AFAIK, no major political party has yet published their manifesto. I have no idea when they intend to do so either.
Since when has electioneering been about appealing to voters' intellects? It's 95% about presentation and emotions.
I want to know what policies I am (or am not) voting for. It's sort of the whole point of an election.
Actually I disagree. The future is unpredictable, manifesto commitments are often justifiably ditched. Which party has the team of ministers and most importantly Prime Minister who will show the best judgement. that's what it's about.
I was out and about this morning, in, of all places, Hampstead Heath and Belsize Park. I happened to have some spare UKIP leaflets with me and distributed them, ad hoc, among the coffee drinkers of a local venue. I got speaking with a few people, and lo and behold, about 50% of those that I spoke to said that they were going to vote UKIP come what may, but, and here's the twist, don't tell anybody about it.
It also happened to my wife at her hairdressers yesterday, where the owner confessed that he was voting UKIP ( no prompting ) but keeping the fact to himself.
There must be many, many voters also contemplating voting UKIP, but keeping shtum. How many? We will find out on May 8th.
If UKIP were being systematically understated (due to the 'silence factor') that would have shown up in the Euro election results, and in by-elections.
It has not. In both cases, UKIP did very slightly worse than opinion polls.
The clue is in the location, Robert.
It is well known that Hampstead Heath and Belsize Park has more loons and fruitcakes per square mile than any other area in England. UKIP will pile up votes uselessly there, whilst bombing in sensible places like Wanstead and Bedford.
If the Lib Dems go from 57 to 30 seats, what is the likely Lab/Con gains - 50/50?
SNP get 7, Labour get 10, Cons get 10.
That's the danger for Labour, if the Cons hold on to their seats in England or limit the damage to less than 20 seats they will easily be the largest party in government. The latest Aschroft shows a lot of UKIP vote is unwinding as was noted in the last thread. If this is replicated in the Con/Lab marginals then Labour are in trouble. The last swing was what, 3.5% Con > Lab. If UKIP unwinds then the Tories are in with a fighting chance to make > 300 seats. With Labour looking at losing 40 seats to the SNP and gaining just 20 from the Tories and 10 from the Lib Dems they may end up in a worse position than today.
A lot depends on how well Cameron can get those few UKIP voters back on side and how well he can paint Ed as a dangerous leftist to the more centrist Labour voters. So far it seems to be going well with the first few days of the campaign concentrating on the economy and with the economy moving back to the top of the YouGov index for both the nation and personal circumstances.
Indeed that is a worry from a Labour point of view. Of course the 40 seat seat loss in Scotland is the worst case scenario - a 30 seat loss seems more plausible. A good outcome would be reduce the damage to just 20 seats (that seems pretty unlikely though!)
Again and I stand to be corrected, I think the 20 seat gain from the Tories is surely a worst case scenario. The betting markets seem to indicate a 30-40 seat gain.
Bottom line - even though the polls have moved very slightly in favour of the Tories, it's still all to play for...
A lot of the betting is based on the old Con/Lab marginals which doesn't factor in any possible UKIP > Con unwind that has been seen in the latest Con/Lib marginals. Obviously it won't be consistent but a similar picture in England would see the Tories limit quite a lot of the damage.
A wipeout is obviously the worst case for SLAB, but I think 35 losses is definitely well within the realms of possibility. The last Aschroft Scottish marginals said only three SLAB MPs would make it and the poorly reported ComRes painted a similar picture, rather than the 30 losses that was reported.
I was out and about this morning, in, of all places, Hampstead Heath and Belsize Park. I happened to have some spare UKIP leaflets with me and distributed them, ad hoc, among the coffee drinkers of a local venue. I got speaking with a few people, and lo and behold, about 50% of those that I spoke to said that they were going to vote UKIP come what may, but, and here's the twist, don't tell anybody about it.
It also happened to my wife at her hairdressers yesterday, where the owner confessed that he was voting UKIP ( no prompting ) but keeping the fact to himself.
There must be many, many voters also contemplating voting UKIP, but keeping shtum. How many? We will find out on May 8th.
If UKIP were being systematically understated (due to the 'silence factor') that would have shown up in the Euro election results, and in by-elections.
It has not. In both cases, UKIP did very slightly worse than opinion polls.
Until Newark Ukip had been consistently understated maybe it's all moe
Comments
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/5qx470kfim/Evening_Standard_London_Results_150330_Trackers_LabourMayor-Website.pdf
The rude postcards we got back blaming Tony Blair for everything were most amusing.
I have written a thread for Sunday about why (sample) size doesn't matter, it is what you do with it that counts.
Given how much Farage is hated by the great unwashed there is a reasonable chance, probably should be longer odds but just a bit of fun.
For those who've never read Men's Health - it's Cosmo for men - and my favourite read - I even subscribe.
I think that Sturgeon has the best chance of winning. She will appeal to Scots and lefty Labourites who want Labour to be more like the SNP. Additionally she will appeal to the whole anti-austerity side very well which makes up a large proportion of the Labour VI and Lib Dem VI.
You're most likely to get aspirations and a few red lines of what we won't do.
I fear you may have thrown away your 'true calling' on a frivolous legal career..
1:36PM
antifrank said:
shadsy's boss seems admirably sensible:
Ladbrokes Politics @LadPolitics · 1m1 minute ago
This letter has gone to The Daily Telegraph today from Ladbrokes CEO Jim Mullen
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBljnPtWIAAi208.jpg
It is...shame Ladbrokes as a business is a steaming pile of poo. Mullen until a few months ago was head of Ladbrokes Digital, an area where they have been particularly poor."
You really couldn't make up the Tories on this site. The head of Ladbrokes had the temerity to say he wasn't going to get involved in telling people how to vote so he gets the full Martin Freeman treatment!!
It really isn't acceptable for parties to be wishy-washy about what they'll do, and they simply implement whatever convenient after they're elected.
It's precisely that sort of behaviour that turns people off politics.
"Serious question: why do people bother with populus? I don't know much about them, but I've seen comments all week suggesting polls like this would follow favouring Labour. Sure enough it happens and everyone is rightfully dismissing their methods."
And another barking mad Tory.....
ICM and Ipsos Mori phone polls won't be until long after Easter has finished.
"David Cameron wants to make migrants wait four years before they can claim certain benefits, such as tax credits, Universal Credit, or get access to social housing. He wants to stop migrants from claiming child benefit for dependents living outside the UK, and remove those that have failed to find work after six months."
Quite a bit of that Conservative policy requires effective funding of the Home Office, DWP and Border Agency staff to make it bite and reduce the numbers.
Clearly, Farage will hammer him on this tonight. But even if it is effective, I can't see it reducing overall net migration numbers. It might shave 15-20k pa off the net migration numbers if he's lucky.
So we'd still have net migration at c.250k pa.
If the Lib Dems go from 57 to 30 seats, what is the likely Lab/Con gains - 50/50?
I blame the BBC and the liberal metropolitan elite.
This is my own back of fag packet guesstimate
How dare he ! He really has no right not to tell us how to vote.
I wouldn't have thought I needed to tell a fellow East Lancastrian that Salford Quays is in the City of Salford, not Manchester.... ;-)
Could the "manual adjustments" on page 7 be a complete Horlicks? If so, huge betting implications on this seat. The Tories were massively ahead in the unweighted samples...
Delivered another 900 leaflets this morning. Kevin Foster was in chipper spirits....
The hazy seat is Berwickshire etc. which could fall to either the SNP or the Conservatives.
The Tories lead massively on the standard VI (q1) but trail when Q2 is asked about thinking specifically about your constituency question.
This also picks up the Anti-UKIP attack - which looks to be working - the blue ukippers object as a matter of principle to the EU because of the costs/ immigration - the red ones are the ones actually suffering due to the immigration. This is an important difference.
The DPM says he won't allow his personal "whims and wishes" to stand in the way of doing his "duty" to Britain by forming a second coalition.
He makes clear he thinks the Lib Dems and Tories can work again together.
For the past four days of the Liberal Democrats' bus tour, Nick Clegg has been laying the ground work for a second coalition.
He says that everyone - including Cameron and Miliband - knows that the election will produce a hung parliament, and the choice for voters is "who they want to work with whom".
The red lines of his manifesto front page are a remarkably low hurdle for any suitor: green measures, more cash for mental health, tax cuts for the low paid and deficit reduction."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11509641/leaders-tv-debate-ITV-live.html
That's the danger for Labour, if the Cons hold on to their seats in England or limit the damage to less than 20 seats they will easily be the largest party in government. The latest Aschroft shows a lot of UKIP vote is unwinding as was noted in the last thread. If this is replicated in the Con/Lab marginals then Labour are in trouble. The last swing was what, 3.5% Con > Lab. If UKIP unwinds then the Tories are in with a fighting chance to make > 300 seats. With Labour looking at losing 40 seats to the SNP and gaining just 20 from the Tories and 10 from the Lib Dems they may end up in a worse position than today.
A lot depends on how well Cameron can get those few UKIP voters back on side and how well he can paint Ed as a dangerous leftist to the more centrist Labour voters. So far it seems to be going well with the first few days of the campaign concentrating on the economy and with the economy moving back to the top of the YouGov index for both the nation and personal circumstances.
02/04/2015 14:21
Are you Christian or Muslim? What gunmen asked Kenyan students as they carried out massacre dailym.ai/19KXd6A pic.twitter.com/AV4ehvSnnZ
Con -1, Lab -1, LD +2 UKIP +2, Greens -1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-3_ytSnSEc&feature=youtu.be
On another subject, how comfortable would you be with another coalition? Cons on say 300 and Libs on say 30? Supply and confidence or a proper coalition?
Who are the secret UKIP supporters and voters?
I was out and about this morning, in, of all places, Hampstead Heath and Belsize Park. I happened to have some spare UKIP leaflets with me and distributed them, ad hoc, among the coffee drinkers of a local venue. I got speaking with a few people, and lo and behold, about 50% of those that I spoke to said that they were going to vote UKIP come what may, but, and here's the twist, don't tell anybody about it.
It also happened to my wife at her hairdressers yesterday, where the owner confessed that he was voting UKIP ( no prompting ) but keeping the fact to himself.
There must be many, many voters also contemplating voting UKIP, but keeping shtum. How many? We will find out on May 8th.
1) Not a Tory
2) I welcomed what the Ladbrokes guy said...As a professional gambler, I was simply pointing out that it makes a change for Ladbrokes to do something sensible, because as a business seemed to have done anything but the sensible thing over the past few years...which has cost me money.
So jog on.
Again and I stand to be corrected, I think the 20 seat gain from the Tories is surely a worst case scenario. The betting markets seem to indicate a 30-40 seat gain.
Bottom line - even though the polls have moved very slightly in favour of the Tories, it's still all to play for...
Obviously the Conservative hope is that ex-Labour voters will tend to remain Kippers and ex-Tory voters will tend to return to the fold, especially in marginals. It's not an unreasonable hope, given Ed Miliband and Labour's economic and policy disarray - there's little enthusiasm for Ed Miliband even amongst Labour supporters. That's not to say that it will necessarily work out that way, but it's clearly what the Conservatives will (and are) trying to encourage.
Shy Kippers causes all sorts of epistemological problems.
It has not. In both cases, UKIP did very slightly worse than opinion polls.
It's the kind of absurdly exaggerated scaremongering that does more harm than good.
I think in that respect the LDs will probably go for another coalition - they have worked with the Tories before and it won't be the shock it was to the lefty-liberals that 2010 was.
Since the economic forecast looks relatively good for UK PLC they will want the kudos of helping to create it.
The only risk would be if Greece goes belly-up. This of course could happen before the election and if the EU demand that the UK and Germany increase contributions . . .
TBH, in Hamstead and Belsize Park, I'm shocked you found any Brits. We're all skiing in Switzerland, and those that remain are probably junior French and Italian hedge and investment bank employees.
What do we want?
Opinion Polls
When do we want them?
Now
You just can't get the staff these days (even on ZHCs)
It is well known that Hampstead Heath and Belsize Park has more loons and fruitcakes per square mile than any other area in England. UKIP will pile up votes uselessly there, whilst bombing in sensible places like Wanstead and Bedford.
A wipeout is obviously the worst case for SLAB, but I think 35 losses is definitely well within the realms of possibility. The last Aschroft Scottish marginals said only three SLAB MPs would make it and the poorly reported ComRes painted a similar picture, rather than the 30 losses that was reported.