More interestingly is the response on the deficit question. 52.6% do not want the deficit to be cut, including 25.8% of current Tory voters and 54.8% of current UKIP voters.
More interestingly is the response on the deficit question. 52.6% do not want the deficit to be cut, including 25.8% of current Tory voters and 54.8% of current UKIP voters.
Yet more proof Miliband is to the right of centre on the big economic issue.
More interestingly is the response on the deficit question. 52.6% do not want the deficit to be cut, including 25.8% of Tory voters and 54.8% of UKIP voters.
More interestingly is the response on the deficit question. 52.6% do not want the deficit to be cut, including 25.8% of current Tory voters and 54.8% of current UKIP voters.
Unsurprising. I guess despite being criticised for it by the Tories, Labour are to be praised for not taking the easy route and going anti-austerity. Mind you, they are still trying to gain the votes of the anti-austerity crowd while still planning large amounts of austerity, which is a bit rich, but it's something at least.
Survation data tables. Nothing much to see. The usual high number of Con-UKIP switchers we see in their online polls. Small amount of tactical switching to the Tories at constituency level.
Not many changes either in Scotland or Wales in the VI subsamples, so that's no impact even on a regional level.
But...but the debates are bad because they will have too much of an impact. We were told.
I look forward to that sarcasm biting me in the behind when the next poll shows Lab and Con on 29 each.
Unless you are able to enter alternate dimensions, there is no way to tell what this Survation would have been had there not been a debate!
That is spot on. The debates have given EdM a level of exposure that have been a godsend to the red team. Cameron should not have agreed to even this limited programme.
What struck me about last night was just how well prepared he was. He knew what was at stake and put the graft in.
He certainly wasn't prepared for Clegg to demand an apology on how Labour trashed the economy, nor was he prepared for Cameron's mention of mid-Staffs, because he didn't answer either point.
He is a joke.
Yet 3 out OF 4 polls had him winner.
Do you ever think it might be you?
No I don't in this instance, if Labour had a decent leader they would be miles ahead.
As it stands I think the Tories will win a minority and we will have another Tory/LD coalition.
More interestingly is the response on the deficit question. 52.6% do not want the deficit to be cut, including 25.8% of current Tory voters and 54.8% of current UKIP voters.
Yet more proof Miliband is to the right of centre on the big economic issue.
People don't understand the debt or the deficit. Or 10yr borrowing rates or the difference between an Aa1 and Aa2 rating. And why should they? They want someone to make it all ok. They want someone to turn the clock back and turn the machines back on.
That is a pretty tight set of parameters to work within as a politician.
It is a credit to Ed that he won't bow to such popularism.
As I said, last night the biggest winners last night were Nicola and Lynton Crosby. Ed has had Labour's left flank opened up and Dave will have united a lot of the fiscally conservative vote last night, especially since Farage played a core vote strategy.
Whatever the Tories are paying Crosby they should double it today.
Who do you think the fiscal conservative vote was going to go for before last night?
Survation data tables. Nothing much to see. The usual high number of Con-UKIP switchers we see in their online polls. Small amount of tactical switching to the Tories at constituency level.
Not many changes either in Scotland or Wales in the VI subsamples, so that's no impact even on a regional level.
But...but the debates are bad because they will have too much of an impact. We were told.
I look forward to that sarcasm biting me in the behind when the next poll shows Lab and Con on 29 each.
Unless you are able to enter alternate dimensions, there is no way to tell what this Survation would have been had there not been a debate!
That is spot on. The debates have given EdM a level of exposure that have been a godsend to the red team. Cameron should not have agreed to even this limited programme.
What struck me about last night was just how well prepared he was. He knew what was at stake and put the graft in.
He certainly wasn't prepared for Clegg to demand an apology on how Labour trashed the economy, nor was he prepared for Cameron's mention of mid-Staffs, because he didn't answer either point.
He is a joke.
Yet 3 out OF 4 polls had him winner.
Do you ever think it might be you?
No I don't in this instance, if Labour had a decent leader they would be miles ahead.
As it stands I think the Tories will win a minority and we will have another Tory/LD coalition.
I have said in lots of posts he is a drag on the LAB vote.
However if he is a joke why did respondents in 3 of 4 polls have him as winner?
More interestingly is the response on the deficit question. 52.6% do not want the deficit to be cut, including 25.8% of current Tory voters and 54.8% of current UKIP voters.
I'd like to see the same question put by a range of pollsters. I don't want to believe those numbers.
It's been consistently put by a variety of pollsters.
From ComRes, 16 December 2014:
Government spending should be reduced until the deficit is cleared Agree 30% Disagree 66%
Survation data tables. Nothing much to see. The usual high number of Con-UKIP switchers we see in their online polls. Small amount of tactical switching to the Tories at constituency level.
Not many changes either in Scotland or Wales in the VI subsamples, so that's no impact even on a regional level.
But...but the debates are bad because they will have too much of an impact. We were told.
I look forward to that sarcasm biting me in the behind when the next poll shows Lab and Con on 29 each.
Unless you are able to enter alternate dimensions, there is no way to tell what this Survation would have been had there not been a debate!
That is spot on. The debates have given EdM a level of exposure that have been a godsend to the red team. Cameron should not have agreed to even this limited programme.
What struck me about last night was just how well prepared he was. He knew what was at stake and put the graft in.
He certainly wasn't prepared for Clegg to demand an apology on how Labour trashed the economy, nor was he prepared for Cameron's mention of mid-Staffs, because he didn't answer either point.
He is a joke.
Yet 3 out OF 4 polls had him winner.
Do you ever think it might be you?
By an invisible margin. "Snap polls taken after the poll suggested there was no clear winner" - BBC. What happened last night was that nothing happened, as the tories wanted. The problem is that last night was part of a deal for ed: he bought the opportunity for a hell, yes demolition of Cameron at the expense of the forthcoming 5 way debate. He is at a net standstill now, with the risks very much to the downside on 16 April. He may give Nicola a shellacking of course, and he may get a free and effective sneerfest at the absent Cam. But I wouldn't bet on it.
More interestingly is the response on the deficit question. 52.6% do not want the deficit to be cut, including 25.8% of current Tory voters and 54.8% of current UKIP voters.
I'd like to see the same question put by a range of pollsters. I don't want to believe those numbers.
It's been consistently put by a variety of pollsters.
From ComRes, 16 December 2014:
Government spending should be reduced until the deficit is cleared Agree 30% Disagree 66%
Looking at Survation, the question was not that clear. It's about public services vs the deficit, not just the deficit.
"It is more important to cut the deficit, even if it means public services are not improved over the next five years" +33.9%
"It is more important that public services are improved, even if it means the deficit is not cut over the next five years" +52.6%
The post-debate polls really should have asked who won excluding the nationalist parties, because it's pretty clear Sturgeon winning would have little direct impact on England's VI.
"I would remind everyone the Coalition Economic record is decidedly pitiful over the last 5 years based on mathematical analysis.
In 1996, in last recession under John Major Conservative government the unemployment rate was 8.5%. When the Labour government came into government in 1997 it was 7.5%.
During the height of Credit Crunch, under Gordon Brown leadership is only reached 8%. Therefore, the Credit Crunch can be viewed as typical UK recession, in terms of employment. (O:cut a section here)
Over the last 5 years, the Trade Union negotiated pay cuts to salaries, below the rate of RPI (inflation) of about 6%. These pay cuts allowed more people to be employed, simply by the variables of businesses hiring more stuff at the same expenditure on salaries as they did at the height of recession in 2008.
As an example, 29.4 million people are in employment, whose wages are lowered by 6.% via deflation of salaries compared to Retail Price Index (inflation). This allows more people to be employed, this allows business or the government to employ an extra 1.764 million people for the same total expenditure on salaries as the did in compared to 2008 or 2010. This largely explains why the tax income today is remaining as bad as it is in most recessions during the post war era.
1,764,000 divide by 5 (years) divided by 365 (days) equals 966 jobs created each day over the Coalition governments term in public office. Everyone is poorer, and it pays considerably less to be employment then when the Labour Party was in government.
Any idiot can cut wages and hire extra staff, but this is not why people elect political parties to govern a country - they elect a government to be paid more wages from their current employment. This is not governance, it meaningless governance, which delivers nothing (a bit like diet drinks, zero calories, yet has the aesthetic aspects of being nice to taste), it massive con-job on the UK electorate. "
Posted by victimfromsomethingorother in the last thread
Great post victim from the last thread. Excellent to read something so intelligent from the site.
Completely wrong though. There are not many businesses that are employing more people and paying those that they employed 5 years ago less. Companies that employ more people are likely to be growing, and growing businesses tend to increase their employees wages. Businesses don't grow by cutting wages they grow by becoming better at what they do.
The economic gains from five years of coalition government are limited, but that'd precisely what you'd expect when the state is contracting (or probably more accurately trying to contract). To nick the "any idiot" phrase - Any idiot can expand the state, but contracting the public sector and still create a positive economic background requires talent.
More interestingly is the response on the deficit question. 52.6% do not want the deficit to be cut, including 25.8% of current Tory voters and 54.8% of current UKIP voters.
I'd like to see the same question put by a range of pollsters. I don't want to believe those numbers.
It's been consistently put by a variety of pollsters.
From ComRes, 16 December 2014:
Government spending should be reduced until the deficit is cleared Agree 30% Disagree 66%
Looking at Survation, the question was not that clear. It's about public services vs the deficit, not just the deficit.
"It is more important to cut the deficit, even if it means public services are not improved over the next five years" +33.9%
"It is more important that public services are improved, even if it means the deficit is not cut over the next five years" +52.6%
p.45, table 42
Well yes, but if anything asking people to prioritise makes the results more accurate.
If you ask people abstractly: "do you want to cut the deficit?" Sure, in an ideal world, everyone would want it to be cut if there's no consequences to it.
But when you spell out the consequences, people say they're not willing to sacrifice good public services just to cut the deficit.
Survation data tables. Nothing much to see. The usual high number of Con-UKIP switchers we see in their online polls. Small amount of tactical switching to the Tories at constituency level.
Not many changes either in Scotland or Wales in the VI subsamples, so that's no impact even on a regional level.
But...but the debates are bad because they will have too much of an impact. We were told.
I look forward to that sarcasm biting me in the behind when the next poll shows Lab and Con on 29 each.
Unless you are able to enter alternate dimensions, there is no way to tell what this Survation would have been had there not been a debate!
That is spot on. The debates have given EdM a level of exposure that have been a godsend to the red team. Cameron should not have agreed to even this limited programme.
What struck me about last night was just how well prepared he was. He knew what was at stake and put the graft in.
He certainly wasn't prepared for Clegg to demand an apology on how Labour trashed the economy, nor was he prepared for Cameron's mention of mid-Staffs, because he didn't answer either point.
He is a joke.
Yet 3 out OF 4 polls had him winner.
Do you ever think it might be you?
By an invisible margin. "Snap polls taken after the poll suggested there was no clear winner" - BBC. What happened last night was that nothing happened, as the tories wanted. The problem is that last night was part of a deal for ed: he bought the opportunity for a hell, yes demolition of Cameron at the expense of the forthcoming 5 way debate. He is at a net standstill now, with the risks very much to the downside on 16 April. He may give Nicola a shellacking of course, and he may get a free and effective sneerfest at the absent Cam. But I wouldn't bet on it.
Ed has been deemed so useless that just putting on an impressable suit & tie combination and not jumping around like the Easter Bunny was a huge positive for him.
Comrades - five weeks to go until the dawn of a new Red - Green era. We can flush the last vestiges of Blairism down the pan along with Cam and Clegg. Hell yes!
Survation data tables. Nothing much to see. The usual high number of Con-UKIP switchers we see in their online polls. Small amount of tactical switching to the Tories at constituency level.
Not many changes either in Scotland or Wales in the VI subsamples, so that's no impact even on a regional level.
But...but the debates are bad because they will have too much of an impact. We were told.
I look forward to that sarcasm biting me in the behind when the next poll shows Lab and Con on 29 each.
Unless you are able to enter alternate dimensions, there is no way to tell what this Survation would have been had there not been a debate!
That is spot on. The debates have given EdM a level of exposure that have been a godsend to the red team. Cameron should not have agreed to even this limited programme.
What struck me about last night was just how well prepared he was. He knew what was at stake and put the graft in.
I fear you may be right. What also strikes me is just how hungry Miliband looks for it.
Cameron looks like he's doing what he has to, and no more. Almost like he couldn't care less whether he wins or loses.
More interestingly is the response on the deficit question. 52.6% do not want the deficit to be cut, including 25.8% of current Tory voters and 54.8% of current UKIP voters.
I'd like to see the same question put by a range of pollsters. I don't want to believe those numbers.
It's been consistently put by a variety of pollsters.
From ComRes, 16 December 2014:
Government spending should be reduced until the deficit is cleared Agree 30% Disagree 66%
Looking at Survation, the question was not that clear. It's about public services vs the deficit, not just the deficit.
"It is more important to cut the deficit, even if it means public services are not improved over the next five years" +33.9%
"It is more important that public services are improved, even if it means the deficit is not cut over the next five years" +52.6%
p.45, table 42
Well yes, but if anything asking people to prioritise makes the results more accurate.
If you ask people abstractly: "do you want to cut the deficit?" Sure, in an ideal world, everyone would want it to be cut if there's no consequences to it.
But when you spell out the consequences, people say they're not willing to sacrifice good public services just to cut the deficit.
If the alternatives are cutting government spending, or increasing taxation, voters have a track record of choosing to cut spending.
More interestingly is the response on the deficit question. 52.6% do not want the deficit to be cut, including 25.8% of current Tory voters and 54.8% of current UKIP voters.
I'd like to see the same question put by a range of pollsters. I don't want to believe those numbers.
It's been consistently put by a variety of pollsters.
From ComRes, 16 December 2014:
Government spending should be reduced until the deficit is cleared Agree 30% Disagree 66%
Looking at Survation, the question was not that clear. It's about public services vs the deficit, not just the deficit.
"It is more important to cut the deficit, even if it means public services are not improved over the next five years" +33.9%
"It is more important that public services are improved, even if it means the deficit is not cut over the next five years" +52.6%
p.45, table 42
Well yes, but if anything asking people to prioritise makes the results more accurate.
If you ask people abstractly: "do you want to cut the deficit?" Sure, in an ideal world, everyone would want it to be cut if there's no consequences to it.
But when you spell out the consequences, people say they're not willing to sacrifice good public services just to cut the deficit.
If the alternatives are cutting government spending, or increasing taxation, voters have a track record of choosing to cut spending.
But they choose running a deficit over either cutting spending or raising taxes.
Survation data tables. Nothing much to see. The usual high number of Con-UKIP switchers we see in their online polls. Small amount of tactical switching to the Tories at constituency level.
Not many changes either in Scotland or Wales in the VI subsamples, so that's no impact even on a regional level.
But...but the debates are bad because they will have too much of an impact. We were told.
I look forward to that sarcasm biting me in the behind when the next poll shows Lab and Con on 29 each.
Unless you are able to enter alternate dimensions, there is no way to tell what this Survation would have been had there not been a debate!
That is spot on. The debates have given EdM a level of exposure that have been a godsend to the red team. Cameron should not have agreed to even this limited programme.
What struck me about last night was just how well prepared he was. He knew what was at stake and put the graft in.
He certainly wasn't prepared for Clegg to demand an apology on how Labour trashed the economy, nor was he prepared for Cameron's mention of mid-Staffs, because he didn't answer either point.
He is a joke.
Yet 3 out OF 4 polls had him winner.
Do you ever think it might be you?
No I don't in this instance, if Labour had a decent leader they would be miles ahead.
As it stands I think the Tories will win a minority and we will have another Tory/LD coalition.
I have said in lots of posts he is a drag on the LAB vote.
However if he is a joke why did respondents in 3 of 4 polls have him as winner?
Presumably you had him as last?
Those polls are ridiculous and you know it.
I saw it much different to others, for a start I thought Clegg did well and floored Ed by demanding an apology. Ed was OK apart from that rehearsed stare into the cameras Hughie Green style, Cam was OK, Sturgeon was best by a mile, Farage went way OTT with the HIV thing but did well later, the other two ladies were OK as well.
Survation data tables. Nothing much to see. The usual high number of Con-UKIP switchers we see in their online polls. Small amount of tactical switching to the Tories at constituency level.
Not many changes either in Scotland or Wales in the VI subsamples, so that's no impact even on a regional level.
But...but the debates are bad because they will have too much of an impact. We were told.
I look forward to that sarcasm biting me in the behind when the next poll shows Lab and Con on 29 each.
Unless you are able to enter alternate dimensions, there is no way to tell what this Survation would have been had there not been a debate!
That is spot on. The debates have given EdM a level of exposure that have been a godsend to the red team. Cameron should not have agreed to even this limited programme.
What struck me about last night was just how well prepared he was. He knew what was at stake and put the graft in.
I fear you may be right. What also strikes me is just how hungry Miliband looks for it.
Cameron looks like he's doing what he has to, and no more. Almost like he couldn't care less whether he wins or loses.
Cam was doing the "squabble ye little children" thing.
I don't mean the public don't like Crosby - therefore = toxic for the Tories. Just that his negativity doesn't work in the UK.
Pick a fight with Tim Montgomery on this as he points this out.
People always say negative campaigning, its bad, it doesn't work...then you look at Scottish Indy Referendum and even last GE (Labour went very negative and managed well in some areas with the fear factor, and it certainly dented Cameron). I don't like it as a tactic, I want to hear positive visions from all parties, but it appears to work.
Negative campaigning alone isn't enough, throw in a few bribes and make extensive use of blackmail tactics and you are on a sure fire winner. There is a long way to go in this election campaign yet.
Positive campaigning clearly doesn't work as the Referendum proved. The SNP might have run a positive campaign for Holyrood in 2011 but it had help from an incompetent Labour Party and a Lib Dem Party that was sleeping with the Tories in London.
Survation data tables. Nothing much to see. The usual high number of Con-UKIP switchers we see in their online polls. Small amount of tactical switching to the Tories at constituency level.
Not many changes either in Scotland or Wales in the VI subsamples, so that's no impact even on a regional level.
But...but the debates are bad because they will have too much of an impact. We were told.
I look forward to that sarcasm biting me in the behind when the next poll shows Lab and Con on 29 each.
Unless you are able to enter alternate dimensions, there is no way to tell what this Survation would have been had there not been a debate!
That is spot on. The debates have given EdM a level of exposure that have been a godsend to the red team. Cameron should not have agreed to even this limited programme.
What struck me about last night was just how well prepared he was. He knew what was at stake and put the graft in.
But the front page headline in today's Daily Telegraph| was: "Miliband flops as outsiders shine"
More interestingly is the response on the deficit question. 52.6% do not want the deficit to be cut, including 25.8% of current Tory voters and 54.8% of current UKIP voters.
I'd like to see the same question put by a range of pollsters. I don't want to believe those numbers.
It's been consistently put by a variety of pollsters.
From ComRes, 16 December 2014:
Government spending should be reduced until the deficit is cleared Agree 30% Disagree 66%
Looking at Survation, the question was not that clear. It's about public services vs the deficit, not just the deficit.
"It is more important to cut the deficit, even if it means public services are not improved over the next five years" +33.9%
"It is more important that public services are improved, even if it means the deficit is not cut over the next five years" +52.6%
p.45, table 42
Well yes, but if anything asking people to prioritise makes the results more accurate.
If you ask people abstractly: "do you want to cut the deficit?" Sure, in an ideal world, everyone would want it to be cut if there's no consequences to it.
But when you spell out the consequences, people say they're not willing to sacrifice good public services just to cut the deficit.
If the alternatives are cutting government spending, or increasing taxation, voters have a track record of choosing to cut spending.
But they choose running a deficit over either cutting spending or raising taxes.
The national debt has doubled during this parliament. The debt servicing costs are now £52 billion a year. That is not a sustainable policy.
More interestingly is the response on the deficit question. 52.6% do not want the deficit to be cut, including 25.8% of current Tory voters and 54.8% of current UKIP voters.
I'd like to see the same question put by a range of pollsters. I don't want to believe those numbers.
It's been consistently put by a variety of pollsters.
From ComRes, 16 December 2014:
Government spending should be reduced until the deficit is cleared Agree 30% Disagree 66%
Looking at Survation, the question was not that clear. It's about public services vs the deficit, not just the deficit.
"It is more important to cut the deficit, even if it means public services are not improved over the next five years" +33.9%
"It is more important that public services are improved, even if it means the deficit is not cut over the next five years" +52.6%
p.45, table 42
Well yes, but if anything asking people to prioritise makes the results more accurate.
If you ask people abstractly: "do you want to cut the deficit?" Sure, in an ideal world, everyone would want it to be cut if there's no consequences to it.
But when you spell out the consequences, people say they're not willing to sacrifice good public services just to cut the deficit.
It's a leading question. You don't measure the quality of public services by how much money is spent.
anyone might think the Tories would have been better setting out a positive message.
It's tricky. By several economic aggregates measures the positive message is: "look at what we have done" which EdM effectively castigated as looking to the past not the future.
People want a hook but there isn't one here. We were in a jam and we are getting out of it. Now, of course there are plenty of interesting counter-factuals around eg. infrastructure spending on May 8th 2010 but we are where we are. Good economic growth, less unemployment, challenges being met on schools and hospitals and so forth. It isn't particularly dramatic.
2010 was always categorised as the wrong election to win. Perhaps it will turn out to be but everyone thought it was the wrong election to win because the economy was unrecoverable, not because the govt did too well to the point whereby everyone is now able to say: "what was all the fuss about we want more."
Interesting that BBC News has been leading with a strapline of "more than 7 million " rather than "fewer than 8 million" which would seem more appropriate.
Survation data tables. Nothing much to see. The usual high number of Con-UKIP switchers we see in their online polls. Small amount of tactical switching to the Tories at constituency level.
Not many changes either in Scotland or Wales in the VI subsamples, so that's no impact even on a regional level.
But...but the debates are bad because they will have too much of an impact. We were told.
I look forward to that sarcasm biting me in the behind when the next poll shows Lab and Con on 29 each.
Unless you are able to enter alternate dimensions, there is no way to tell what this Survation would have been had there not been a debate!
That is spot on. The debates have given EdM a level of exposure that have been a godsend to the red team. Cameron should not have agreed to even this limited programme.
What struck me about last night was just how well prepared he was. He knew what was at stake and put the graft in.
I fear you may be right. What also strikes me is just how hungry Miliband looks for it.
Cameron looks like he's doing what he has to, and no more. Almost like he couldn't care less whether he wins or loses.
Cam was doing the "squabble ye little children" thing.
It didn't work but it didn't not work.
That's a fair observation. I think the greatest effect that will arise from these sessions is Miliband shoring up his core vote, in England.
The era of him risking shedding a big part of his base to the Greens is probably over. That, and increased Labour turnout, may help him swipe a few more marginals.
Survation data tables. Nothing much to see. The usual high number of Con-UKIP switchers we see in their online polls. Small amount of tactical switching to the Tories at constituency level.
Not many changes either in Scotland or Wales in the VI subsamples, so that's no impact even on a regional level.
But...but the debates are bad because they will have too much of an impact. We were told.
I look forward to that sarcasm biting me in the behind when the next poll shows Lab and Con on 29 each.
Unless you are able to enter alternate dimensions, there is no way to tell what this Survation would have been had there not been a debate!
That is spot on. The debates have given EdM a level of exposure that have been a godsend to the red team. Cameron should not have agreed to even this limited programme.
What struck me about last night was just how well prepared he was. He knew what was at stake and put the graft in.
But the front page headline in today's Daily Telegraph| was: "Miliband flops as outsiders shine"
And didn't The Sun have something about the day Labour lost the election?
Survation data tables. Nothing much to see. The usual high number of Con-UKIP switchers we see in their online polls. Small amount of tactical switching to the Tories at constituency level.
Not many changes either in Scotland or Wales in the VI subsamples, so that's no impact even on a regional level.
But...but the debates are bad because they will have too much of an impact. We were told.
I look forward to that sarcasm biting me in the behind when the next poll shows Lab and Con on 29 each.
Unless you are able to enter alternate dimensions, there is no way to tell what this Survation would have been had there not been a debate!
That is spot on. The debates have given EdM a level of exposure that have been a godsend to the red team. Cameron should not have agreed to even this limited programme.
What struck me about last night was just how well prepared he was. He knew what was at stake and put the graft in.
But the front page headline in today's Daily Telegraph| was: "Miliband flops as outsiders shine"
But that headline was written by the same people who published the rich peoples dont want to be taxed letter... General consensus and a range of polling suggest it was largely uneventful.
Do people really believe these pre prepared tabloid page sellers? Not convinced.
More interestingly is the response on the deficit question. 52.6% do not want the deficit to be cut, including 25.8% of current Tory voters and 54.8% of current UKIP voters.
I'd like to see the same question put by a range of pollsters. I don't want to believe those numbers.
It's been consistently put by a variety of pollsters.
From ComRes, 16 December 2014:
Government spending should be reduced until the deficit is cleared Agree 30% Disagree 66%
Looking at Survation, the question was not that clear. It's about public services vs the deficit, not just the deficit.
"It is more important to cut the deficit, even if it means public services are not improved over the next five years" +33.9%
"It is more important that public services are improved, even if it means the deficit is not cut over the next five years" +52.6%
p.45, table 42
I'd be curious about what the result might be if a pollster asked something like. "Government spending should be reduced until the national debt is cleared?" or "Public services should be improved irrespective of the cost?"
Seeing results to other economic questions filtered by these questions might be more instructive.
Survation data tables. Nothing much to see. The usual high number of Con-UKIP switchers we see in their online polls. Small amount of tactical switching to the Tories at constituency level.
Not many changes either in Scotland or Wales in the VI subsamples, so that's no impact even on a regional level.
But...but the debates are bad because they will have too much of an impact. We were told.
I look forward to that sarcasm biting me in the behind when the next poll shows Lab and Con on 29 each.
Unless you are able to enter alternate dimensions, there is no way to tell what this Survation would have been had there not been a debate!
That is spot on. The debates have given EdM a level of exposure that have been a godsend to the red team. Cameron should not have agreed to even this limited programme.
What struck me about last night was just how well prepared he was. He knew what was at stake and put the graft in.
But the front page headline in today's Daily Telegraph| was: "Miliband flops as outsiders shine"
What really pisses me off is how complacent Tories* are about Miliband. For months I've been saying, 'watch out for Miliband', 'Miliband will perform better than you think', only for those comments to be dismissed.
There was plenty of evidence he could spring a surprise from his ambushes over the last four years: energy prices freeze, Syria, Murdoch.. But, still, every Tory thought he'd burst into tears when he took the stage next to Cameron.
Well, that hasn't happened. In fact, his preparation and composure was as obvious as Cameron's complacency. It remains to be seen how that plays out but, once again, the Tories have been caught out.
More interestingly is the response on the deficit question. 52.6% do not want the deficit to be cut, including 25.8% of current Tory voters and 54.8% of current UKIP voters.
I'd like to see the same question put by a range of pollsters. I don't want to believe those numbers.
It's been consistently put by a variety of pollsters.
From ComRes, 16 December 2014:
Government spending should be reduced until the deficit is cleared Agree 30% Disagree 66%
Looking at Survation, the question was not that clear. It's about public services vs the deficit, not just the deficit.
"It is more important to cut the deficit, even if it means public services are not improved over the next five years" +33.9%
"It is more important that public services are improved, even if it means the deficit is not cut over the next five years" +52.6%
p.45, table 42
I'd be curious about what the result might be if a pollster asked something like. "Government spending should be reduced until the national debt is cleared?" or "Public services should be improved irrespective of the cost?"
Seeing results to other economic questions filtered by these questions might be more instructive.
Its the art of asking a loaded question. This poll is full of them.
Survation data tables. Nothing much to see. The usual high number of Con-UKIP switchers we see in their online polls. Small amount of tactical switching to the Tories at constituency level.
Not many changes either in Scotland or Wales in the VI subsamples, so that's no impact even on a regional level.
But...but the debates are bad because they will have too much of an impact. We were told.
I look forward to that sarcasm biting me in the behind when the next poll shows Lab and Con on 29 each.
Unless you are able to enter alternate dimensions, there is no way to tell what this Survation would have been had there not been a debate!
That is spot on. The debates have given EdM a level of exposure that have been a godsend to the red team. Cameron should not have agreed to even this limited programme.
What struck me about last night was just how well prepared he was. He knew what was at stake and put the graft in.
But the front page headline in today's Daily Telegraph| was: "Miliband flops as outsiders shine"
What really pisses me off is how complacent Tories* are about Miliband. For months I've been saying, 'watch out for Miliband', 'Miliband will perform better than you think', only for those comments to be dismissed.
There was plenty of evidence he could spring a surprise from his ambushes over the last four years: energy prices freeze, Syria, Murdoch.. But, still, every Tory thought he'd burst into tears when he took the stage next to Cameron.
Well, that hasn't happened. In fact, his preparation and composure was as obvious as Cameron's complacency. It remains to be seen how that plays out but, once again, the Tories have been caught out.
You'd think they'd have learnt by now.
*Not you, Peter!
SeanT has been saying this since Ed was made leader. You don't take on your big brother and win, without having a bit if the killer instinct.
More interestingly is the response on the deficit question. 52.6% do not want the deficit to be cut, including 25.8% of current Tory voters and 54.8% of current UKIP voters.
I'd like to see the same question put by a range of pollsters. I don't want to believe those numbers.
It's been consistently put by a variety of pollsters.
From ComRes, 16 December 2014:
Government spending should be reduced until the deficit is cleared Agree 30% Disagree 66%
Looking at Survation, the question was not that clear. It's about public services vs the deficit, not just the deficit.
"It is more important to cut the deficit, even if it means public services are not improved over the next five years" +33.9%
"It is more important that public services are improved, even if it means the deficit is not cut over the next five years" +52.6%
p.45, table 42
I'd be curious about what the result might be if a pollster asked something like. "Government spending should be reduced until the national debt is cleared?" or "Public services should be improved irrespective of the cost?"
Seeing results to other economic questions filtered by these questions might be more instructive.
The problem with these questions is that they don't reflect the debate as it is had. For instance, no party frames anti-austerity as "government spending" for its own sake, as if an entry in a ledger turns them on, while no party supports improving public services irrespective of cost. However, there is an actual debate about improving public services (what Labour says) versus cutting the deficit (what the coalition says). Perhaps this is "uncomfort polling"!
Survation data tables. Nothing much to see. The usual high number of Con-UKIP switchers we see in their online polls. Small amount of tactical switching to the Tories at constituency level.
Not many changes either in Scotland or Wales in the VI subsamples, so that's no impact even on a regional level.
But...but the debates are bad because they will have too much of an impact. We were told.
I look forward to that sarcasm biting me in the behind when the next poll shows Lab and Con on 29 each.
Unless you are able to enter alternate dimensions, there is no way to tell what this Survation would have been had there not been a debate!
That is spot on. The debates have given EdM a level of exposure that have been a godsend to the red team. Cameron should not have agreed to even this limited programme.
What struck me about last night was just how well prepared he was. He knew what was at stake and put the graft in.
But the front page headline in today's Daily Telegraph| was: "Miliband flops as outsiders shine"
What really pisses me off is how complacent Tories* are about Miliband. For months I've been saying, 'watch out for Miliband', 'Miliband will perform better than you think', only for those comments to be dismissed.
There was plenty of evidence he could spring a surprise from his ambushes over the last four years: energy prices freeze, Syria, Murdoch.. But, still, every Tory thought he'd burst into tears when he took the stage next to Cameron.
Well, that hasn't happened. In fact, his preparation and composure was as obvious as Cameron's complacency. It remains to be seen how that plays out but, once again, the Tories have been caught out.
You'd think they'd have learnt by now.
*Not you, Peter!
I don't agree with that at all. Personally I have never underestimated him, anyone prepared to knife his own brother has serious ambition.
But the events you mentioned are mostly farcical, a price freeze that is unworkable and keeps prices higher, attacking Murdoch but not a word on the Mirror Group.
As for bursting into tears, when he was properly attacked I thought his bottom lip was going to go. Have a look on Guido at the clips when Clegg attacked him and Cameron mentioned mid-Staffs
More interestingly is the response on the deficit question. 52.6% do not want the deficit to be cut, including 25.8% of current Tory voters and 54.8% of current UKIP voters.
I'd like to see the same question put by a range of pollsters. I don't want to believe those numbers.
It's been consistently put by a variety of pollsters.
From ComRes, 16 December 2014:
Government spending should be reduced until the deficit is cleared Agree 30% Disagree 66%
Looking at Survation, the question was not that clear. It's about public services vs the deficit, not just the deficit.
"It is more important to cut the deficit, even if it means public services are not improved over the next five years" +33.9%
"It is more important that public services are improved, even if it means the deficit is not cut over the next five years" +52.6%
p.45, table 42
I'd be curious about what the result might be if a pollster asked something like. "Government spending should be reduced until the national debt is cleared?" or "Public services should be improved irrespective of the cost?"
Seeing results to other economic questions filtered by these questions might be more instructive.
Its the art of asking a loaded question. This poll is full of them.
Yep. I'm not sure if this represents a sequence of re-asking the same question, although I imagine it does. I'm not sure it's in any pollsters interest to ask meaningless stuff.
Interesting that BBC News has been leading with a strapline of "more than 7 million " rather than "fewer than 8 million" which would seem more appropriate.
Possibly the rating has surprised on the upside, given that (a) debates are no longer such a novelty, and (b) the seven-way format sounded like a bit of a mess that wouldn't hold people's interest. Apparently the audience grew during transmission so that doesn't appear to have been the case.
Survation data tables. Nothing much to see. The usual high number of Con-UKIP switchers we see in their online polls. Small amount of tactical switching to the Tories at constituency level.
Not many changes either in Scotland or Wales in the VI subsamples, so that's no impact even on a regional level.
But...but the debates are bad because they will have too much of an impact. We were told.
I look forward to that sarcasm biting me in the behind when the next poll shows Lab and Con on 29 each.
Unless you are able to enter alternate dimensions, there is no way to tell what this Survation would have been had there not been a debate!
That is spot on. The debates have given EdM a level of exposure that have been a godsend to the red team. Cameron should not have agreed to even this limited programme.
What struck me about last night was just how well prepared he was. He knew what was at stake and put the graft in.
But the front page headline in today's Daily Telegraph| was: "Miliband flops as outsiders shine"
What really pisses me off is how complacent Tories* are about Miliband. For months I've been saying, 'watch out for Miliband', 'Miliband will perform better than you think', only for those comments to be dismissed.
There was plenty of evidence he could spring a surprise from his ambushes over the last four years: energy prices freeze, Syria, Murdoch.. But, still, every Tory thought he'd burst into tears when he took the stage next to Cameron.
Well, that hasn't happened. In fact, his preparation and composure was as obvious as Cameron's complacency. It remains to be seen how that plays out but, once again, the Tories have been caught out.
You'd think they'd have learnt by now.
*Not you, Peter!
Just not true that that is what tories thought. On the contrary, the strong consensus here has been that Cameron was prudent to limit his exposure to ed in the debates. And I don't understand the time-shifted edgasm we seem to be witnessing this evening. The "surprise" he sprung last night was that he avoided soiling himself.
I actually wonder if Millibland wouldn't be better off just cutting SLAB loose in terms of any kind of support physical or financial and focusing entirely on the English marginals that he really needs to win. It seems that supporting the doomed SLABers is a waste of human and material resources.
Survation data tables. Nothing much to see. The usual high number of Con-UKIP switchers we see in their online polls. Small amount of tactical switching to the Tories at constituency level.
Not many changes either in Scotland or Wales in the VI subsamples, so that's no impact even on a regional level.
But...but the debates are bad because they will have too much of an impact. We were told.
I look forward to that sarcasm biting me in the behind when the next poll shows Lab and Con on 29 each.
Unless you are able to enter alternate dimensions, there is no way to tell what this Survation would have been had there not been a debate!
That is spot on. The debates have given EdM a level of exposure that have been a godsend to the red team. Cameron should not have agreed to even this limited programme.
What struck me about last night was just how well prepared he was. He knew what was at stake and put the graft in.
But the front page headline in today's Daily Telegraph| was: "Miliband flops as outsiders shine"
What really pisses me off is how complacent Tories* are about Miliband. For months I've been saying, 'watch out for Miliband', 'Miliband will perform better than you think', only for those comments to be dismissed.
There was plenty of evidence he could spring a surprise from his ambushes over the last four years: energy prices freeze, Syria, Murdoch.. But, still, every Tory thought he'd burst into tears when he took the stage next to Cameron.
Well, that hasn't happened. In fact, his preparation and composure was as obvious as Cameron's complacency. It remains to be seen how that plays out but, once again, the Tories have been caught out.
You'd think they'd have learnt by now.
*Not you, Peter!
I don't agree with that at all. Personally I have never underestimated him, anyone prepared to knife his own brother has serious ambition.
But the events you mentioned are mostly farcical, a price freeze that is unworkable and keeps prices higher, attacking Murdoch but not a word on the Mirror Group.
As for bursting into tears, when he was properly attacked I thought his bottom lip was going to go. Have a look on Guido at the clips when Clegg attacked him and Cameron mentioned mid-Staffs
Survation data tables. Nothing much to see. The usual high number of Con-UKIP switchers we see in their online polls. Small amount of tactical switching to the Tories at constituency level.
Not many changes either in Scotland or Wales in the VI subsamples, so that's no impact even on a regional level.
But...but the debates are bad because they will have too much of an impact. We were told.
I look forward to that sarcasm biting me in the behind when the next poll shows Lab and Con on 29 each.
Unless you are able to enter alternate dimensions, there is no way to tell what this Survation would have been had there not been a debate!
That is spot on. The debates have given EdM a level of exposure that have been a godsend to the red team. Cameron should not have agreed to even this limited programme.
What struck me about last night was just how well prepared he was. He knew what was at stake and put the graft in.
But the front page headline in today's Daily Telegraph| was: "Miliband flops as outsiders shine"
What really pisses me off is how complacent Tories* are about Miliband. For months I've been saying, 'watch out for Miliband', 'Miliband will perform better than you think', only for those comments to be dismissed.
There was plenty of evidence he could spring a surprise from his ambushes over the last four years: energy prices freeze, Syria, Murdoch.. But, still, every Tory thought he'd burst into tears when he took the stage next to Cameron.
Well, that hasn't happened. In fact, his preparation and composure was as obvious as Cameron's complacency. It remains to be seen how that plays out but, once again, the Tories have been caught out.
You'd think they'd have learnt by now.
*Not you, Peter!
Just not true that that is what tories thought. On the contrary, the strong consensus here has been that Cameron was prudent to limit his exposure to ed in the debates. And I don't understand the time-shifted edgasm we seem to be witnessing this evening. The "surprise" he sprung last night was that he avoided soiling himself.
There are none as blind as those who will not see.
Survation data tables. Nothing much to see. The usual high number of Con-UKIP switchers we see in their online polls. Small amount of tactical switching to the Tories at constituency level.
Not many changes either in Scotland or Wales in the VI subsamples, so that's no impact even on a regional level.
But...but the debates are bad because they will have too much of an impact. We were told.
I look forward to that sarcasm biting me in the behind when the next poll shows Lab and Con on 29 each.
Unless you are able to enter alternate dimensions, there is no way to tell what this Survation would have been had there not been a debate!
That is spot on. The debates have given EdM a level of exposure that have been a godsend to the red team. Cameron should not have agreed to even this limited programme.
What struck me about last night was just how well prepared he was. He knew what was at stake and put the graft in.
But the front page headline in today's Daily Telegraph| was: "Miliband flops as outsiders shine"
What really pisses me off is how complacent Tories* are about Miliband. For months I've been saying, 'watch out for Miliband', 'Miliband will perform better than you think', only for those comments to be dismissed.
There was plenty of evidence he could spring a surprise from his ambushes over the last four years: energy prices freeze, Syria, Murdoch.. But, still, every Tory thought he'd burst into tears when he took the stage next to Cameron.
Well, that hasn't happened. In fact, his preparation and composure was as obvious as Cameron's complacency. It remains to be seen how that plays out but, once again, the Tories have been caught out.
You'd think they'd have learnt by now.
*Not you, Peter!
I don't agree with that at all. Personally I have never underestimated him, anyone prepared to knife his own brother has serious ambition.
Given relying on the Ed factor to pretty much single handedly lead to a Lab decline (and that is what is needed, not just for Tories to do well) seems to be a requirement of the Tory victory scenario, if they thought that was inevitable, and even accounting for bravado many seem to, then that does seem complacent.
"Q1. The next Westminster general election is now about 4 months away. On a scale of 0-10, where 10 is very certain, how certain are you to vote in the general election?"
The problem with these questions is that they don't reflect the debate as it is had. For instance, no party frames anti-austerity as "government spending" for its own sake, as if an entry in a ledger turns them on, while no party supports improving public services irrespective of cost. However, there is an actual debate about improving public services (what Labour says) versus cutting the deficit (what the coalition says). Perhaps this is "uncomfort polling"!
If you ask me whether 'Hotspur United' will win the cup I may choose to say yes or no. However you'd be wise to at least probe my knowledge of their squad before betting on the results.
Survation data tables. Nothing much to see. The usual high number of Con-UKIP switchers we see in their online polls. Small amount of tactical switching to the Tories at constituency level.
Not many changes either in Scotland or Wales in the VI subsamples, so that's no impact even on a regional level.
But...but the debates are bad because they will have too much of an impact. We were told.
I look forward when the next poll shows Lab and Con on 29 each.
Unless you are able to enter alternate dimensions, there is no way to tell what this Survation would have been had there not been a debate!
That is spot on. The debates have given EdM a level of exposure that have been a godsend to the red team. Cameron should not have agreed to even this limited programme.
What struck me about last night was just how well prepared he was. He knew what was at stake and put the graft in.
But the front page headline in today's Daily Telegraph| was: "Miliband flops as outsiders shine"
What really pisses me off is how complacent Tories* are about Miliband. For months I've been saying, 'watch out for Miliband', 'Miliband will perform better than you think', only for those comments to be dismissed.
There was plenty of evidence he could spring a surprise from his ambushes over the last four years: energy prices freeze, Syria, Murdoch.. But, still, every Tory thought he'd burst into tears when he took the stage next to Cameron.
Well, that hasn't happened. In fact, his preparation and composure was as obvious as Cameron's complacency. It remains to be seen how that plays out but, once again, the Tories have been caught out.
You'd think they'd have learnt by now.
*Not you, Peter!
Just not true that that is what tories thought. On the contrary, the strong consensus here has been that Cameron was prudent to limit his exposure to ed in the debates. And I don't understand the time-shifted edgasm we seem to be witnessing this evening. The "surprise" he sprung last night was that he avoided soiling himself.
There are none as blind as those who will not see.
What I am seeing is pure hindsight about last night based on a less-than-explosive poll result,, plus false recall as to what the tory position has been up to now. Point me to the PB tories who have been clamouring for Cameron to insist on 1 to 1 debates with ed, and plenty of 'em.
The problem with these questions is that they don't reflect the debate as it is had. For instance, no party frames anti-austerity as "government spending" for its own sake, as if an entry in a ledger turns them on, while no party supports improving public services irrespective of cost. However, there is an actual debate about improving public services (what Labour says) versus cutting the deficit (what the coalition says). Perhaps this is "uncomfort polling"!
If you ask me whether 'Hotspur United' will win the cup I may choose to say yes or no. However you'd be wise to at least probe my knowledge of their squad before betting on the results.
The electorate is not economics PhDs or PB readers. A survey of those people on the deficit would be... comfort polling!
Unless you are able to enter alternate dimensions, there is no way to tell what this Survation would have been had there not been a debate!
That is spot on. The debates have given EdM a level of exposure that have been a godsend to the red team. Cameron should not have agreed to even this limited programme.
What struck me about last night was just how well prepared he was. He knew what was at stake and put the graft in.
But the front page headline in today's Daily Telegraph| was: "Miliband flops as outsiders shine"
What really pisses me off is how complacent Tories* are about Miliband. For months I've been saying, 'watch out for Miliband', 'Miliband will perform better than you think', only for those comments to be dismissed.
There was plenty of evidence he could spring a surprise from his ambushes over the last four years: energy prices freeze, Syria, Murdoch.. But, still, every Tory thought he'd burst into tears when he took the stage next to Cameron.
Well, that hasn't happened. In fact, his preparation and composure was as obvious as Cameron's complacency. It remains to be seen how that plays out but, once again, the Tories have been caught out.
You'd think they'd have learnt by now.
*Not you, Peter!
Just not true that that is what tories thought. On the contrary, the strong consensus here has been that Cameron was prudent to limit his exposure to ed in the debates. And I don't understand the time-shifted edgasm we seem to be witnessing this evening. The "surprise" he sprung last night was that he avoided soiling himself.
I agree with you there. Most debates end up with a draw as it would be amazing for leading politicians to to anything else. Its easy for anyone who is not connected with power to be all sweetness and light. Last time it was Clegg and this time it is Sturgeon. Was Miliband effective in defending the potential loss of 40 seats to her party? No - what we have are a load of far left activist wetting themselves over being able to push for a loony agenda that even Michael Foot never dreamed of. But hey Miliband was brilliant.
Survation data tables. Nothing much to see. The usual high number of Con-UKIP switchers we see in their online polls. Small amount of tactical switching to the Tories at constituency level.
Not many changes either in Scotland or Wales in the VI subsamples, so that's no impact even on a regional level.
But...but the debates are bad because they will have too much of an impact. We were told.
I look forward to that sarcasm biting me in the behind when the next poll shows Lab and Con on 29 each.
Unless you are able to enter alternate dimensions, there is no way to tell what this Survation would have been had there not been a debate!
That is spot on. The debates have given EdM a level of exposure that have been a godsend to the red team. Cameron should not have agreed to even this limited programme.
What struck me about last night was just how well prepared he was. He knew what was at stake and put the graft in.
But the front page headline in today's Daily Telegraph| was: "Miliband flops as outsiders shine"
What really pisses me off is how complacent Tories* are about Miliband. For months I've been saying, 'watch out for Miliband', 'Miliband will perform better than you think', only for those comments to be dismissed.
There was plenty of evidence he could spring a surprise from his ambushes over the last four years: energy prices freeze, Syria, Murdoch.. But, still, every Tory thought he'd burst into tears when he took the stage next to Cameron.
Well, that hasn't happened. In fact, his preparation and composure was as obvious as Cameron's complacency. It remains to be seen how that plays out but, once again, the Tories have been caught out.
You'd think they'd have learnt by now.
*Not you, Peter!
I don't agree with that at all. Personally I have never underestimated him, anyone prepared to knife his own brother has serious ambition.
Given relying on the Ed factor to pretty much single handedly lead to a Lab decline (and that is what is needed, not just for Tories to do well) seems to be a requirement of the Tory victory scenario, if they thought that was inevitable, and even accounting for bravado many seem to, then that does seem complacent.
Its the Ed Miliband - Nicola Sturgeon/Alex Salmond question that will be one of the biggest factors in this election
I've found myself going somewhat the other way (although in a strongly correlated, but different market). There's something of the 'hunch' in my decision though.
I actually wonder if Millibland wouldn't be better off just cutting SLAB loose in terms of any kind of support physical or financial and focusing entirely on the English marginals that he really needs to win. It seems that supporting the doomed SLABers is a waste of human and material resources.
Think they already have. No organiser appointed in Dundee. All resources pulled back to defending Glasgow. It's all a bit Steiner.
Andrew Neil @afneil 25s26 seconds ago Told there's an interesting story about Ms Sturgeon coming up on @Telegraph website 21.30. @Spectator_CH on standby to follow up.
Not sure what this might be - but just noticed it.
I don't mean the public don't like Crosby - therefore = toxic for the Tories. Just that his negativity doesn't work in the UK.
Pick a fight with Tim Montgomery on this as he points this out.
People always say negative campaigning, its bad, it doesn't work...then you look at Scottish Indy Referendum and even last GE (Labour went very negative and managed well in some areas with the fear factor, and it certainly dented Cameron). I don't like it as a tactic, I want to hear positive visions from all parties, but it appears to work.
Negative campaigning alone isn't enough, throw in a few bribes and make extensive use of blackmail tactics and you are on a sure fire winner. There is a long way to go in this election campaign yet.
Positive campaigning clearly doesn't work as the Referendum proved. The SNP might have run a positive campaign for Holyrood in 2011 but it had help from an incompetent Labour Party and a Lib Dem Party that was sleeping with the Tories in London.
Surely Indyref proved positive campaigning does work. Yes almost overcame a 20-point deficit and won against No's "too poor, too wee, too stupid". It was only turned round by the last-minute intervention of Gordon Brown making the positive case for the union.
Andrew Neil @afneil 25s26 seconds ago Told there's an interesting story about Ms Sturgeon coming up on @Telegraph website 21.30. @Spectator_CH on standby to follow up.
Not sure what this might be - but just noticed it.
Has she and Dougie Alexander ever been seen in the same room?
Andrew Neil @afneil 25s26 seconds ago Told there's an interesting story about Ms Sturgeon coming up on @Telegraph website 21.30. @Spectator_CH on standby to follow up.
Not sure what this might be - but just noticed it.
She doesn't really strike me as the sort of politician likely to create a sensation.
Could someone good at maths or betting (or preferably both) tell me how I should approach the Sporting Index market on 300-up seats? Surely the Conservatives are a clear sell at 6 - or am I missing something very obvious?
I see the SNP are now up to 42-44. I'm starting to contemplate closing my buy on this, but not yet I think.
Andrew Neil @afneil 25s26 seconds ago Told there's an interesting story about Ms Sturgeon coming up on @Telegraph website 21.30. @Spectator_CH on standby to follow up.
Not sure what this might be - but just noticed it.
She doesn't really strike me as the sort of politician likely to create a sensation.
Polls say 4 did well - Cam, Mil, Far, Stur 3 did much less well - Cleg, Ben, Wood
However, people are inclined to say their own party won. And Cam and Mil both had FAR fewer saying they won than support their parties.
Thus the winners were Far and Stur. Both Cam and Mil have cause for concern:
- Cam that Far will have turned the UKIP decline and may start rising again - Mil that Stur seen as clear winner in Scotland which will help SNP retain big lead
However, wait and see polls in 3 to 4 days time. Paxman interviews made no difference - this debate may not either.
I think the greatest effect that will arise from these sessions is Miliband shoring up his core vote, in England.
The era of him risking shedding a big part of his base to the Greens is probably over. That, and increased Labour turnout, may help him swipe a few more marginals.
Anecdotally I think that's right. We had two rain-soaked canvasses today, one in a posh ward, where virtually nobody was changing their previous stance, and one in a WWC ward, where there was a trickle of previous ex-Labour doubtfuls firming up, mostly from UKIP's previous limited inroads (typical comment: "I think they've been useful in shaking things up but they're a one-trick pony"). The Greens have never been a problem in this marginal - I thought they might be, but it's not turned out that way so far. One voter said she was definitely not voting, and it struck me that it's the first time I've heard that explicitly for a couple of weeks. High turnout after all?
FPT GeoffM: I agree with you that assisted dying should be legal, with safeguards to avoid it being done in a fleeting bad moment.
Comments
Free money
777 minutes
52.6% do not want the deficit to be cut, including 25.8% of current Tory voters and 54.8% of current UKIP voters.
No Way Tories can win if that view prevails
As it stands I think the Tories will win a minority and we will have another Tory/LD coalition.
That is a pretty tight set of parameters to work within as a politician.
It is a credit to Ed that he won't bow to such popularism.
Same goes with raising the minimum wage.
That's why I said politically.
However if he is a joke why did respondents in 3 of 4 polls have him as winner?
Presumably you had him as last?
From ComRes, 16 December 2014:
Government spending should be reduced until the deficit is cleared
Agree 30%
Disagree 66%
"It is more important to cut the deficit, even if it means public services are not improved over the next five years" +33.9%
"It is more important that public services are improved, even if it means the deficit is not cut over the next five years" +52.6%
p.45, table 42
The economic gains from five years of coalition government are limited, but that'd precisely what you'd expect when the state is contracting (or probably more accurately trying to contract). To nick the "any idiot" phrase - Any idiot can expand the state, but contracting the public sector and still create a positive economic background requires talent.
If you ask people abstractly: "do you want to cut the deficit?" Sure, in an ideal world, everyone would want it to be cut if there's no consequences to it.
But when you spell out the consequences, people say they're not willing to sacrifice good public services just to cut the deficit.
Cameron looks like he's doing what he has to, and no more. Almost like he couldn't care less whether he wins or loses.
anyone might think the Tories would have been better setting out a positive message.
I saw it much different to others, for a start I thought Clegg did well and floored Ed by demanding an apology. Ed was OK apart from that rehearsed stare into the cameras Hughie Green style, Cam was OK, Sturgeon was best by a mile, Farage went way OTT with the HIV thing but did well later, the other two ladies were OK as well.
It didn't work but it didn't not work.
Positive campaigning clearly doesn't work as the Referendum proved. The SNP might have run a positive campaign for Holyrood in 2011 but it had help from an incompetent Labour Party and a Lib Dem Party that was sleeping with the Tories in London.
"Miliband flops as outsiders shine"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11187727/Its-time-to-come-clean-about-our-national-debt.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32172871
People want a hook but there isn't one here. We were in a jam and we are getting out of it. Now, of course there are plenty of interesting counter-factuals around eg. infrastructure spending on May 8th 2010 but we are where we are. Good economic growth, less unemployment, challenges being met on schools and hospitals and so forth. It isn't particularly dramatic.
2010 was always categorised as the wrong election to win. Perhaps it will turn out to be but everyone thought it was the wrong election to win because the economy was unrecoverable, not because the govt did too well to the point whereby everyone is now able to say: "what was all the fuss about we want more."
https://electionleaflets.org/parties/PP53/labour-party-3
The era of him risking shedding a big part of his base to the Greens is probably over. That, and increased Labour turnout, may help him swipe a few more marginals.
What's a girl to make of it all?
Do people really believe these pre prepared tabloid page sellers? Not convinced.
"Government spending should be reduced until the national debt is cleared?"
or
"Public services should be improved irrespective of the cost?"
Seeing results to other economic questions filtered by these questions might be more instructive.
There was plenty of evidence he could spring a surprise from his ambushes over the last four years: energy prices freeze, Syria, Murdoch.. But, still, every Tory thought he'd burst into tears when he took the stage next to Cameron.
Well, that hasn't happened. In fact, his preparation and composure was as obvious as Cameron's complacency. It remains to be seen how that plays out but, once again, the Tories have been caught out.
You'd think they'd have learnt by now.
*Not you, Peter!
40
But the events you mentioned are mostly farcical, a price freeze that is unworkable and keeps prices higher, attacking Murdoch but not a word on the Mirror Group.
As for bursting into tears, when he was properly attacked I thought his bottom lip was going to go. Have a look on Guido at the clips when Clegg attacked him and Cameron mentioned mid-Staffs
"Q1. The next Westminster general election is now about 4 months away. On a scale of 0-10, where 10 is very certain, how certain are you to vote in the general election?"
Pollsters going through the motions?
I've found myself going somewhat the other way (although in a strongly correlated, but different market). There's something of the 'hunch' in my decision though.
It's all a bit Steiner.
Part-ELBOW inc. Survation still puts the Tories 0.5% ahead, with just two days left till Sunday!
Told there's an interesting story about Ms Sturgeon coming up on @Telegraph website 21.30. @Spectator_CH on standby to follow up.
Not sure what this might be - but just noticed it.
I see the SNP are now up to 42-44. I'm starting to contemplate closing my buy on this, but not yet I think.
Polls say 4 did well - Cam, Mil, Far, Stur
3 did much less well - Cleg, Ben, Wood
However, people are inclined to say their own party won. And Cam and Mil both had FAR fewer saying they won than support their parties.
Thus the winners were Far and Stur. Both Cam and Mil have cause for concern:
- Cam that Far will have turned the UKIP decline and may start rising again
- Mil that Stur seen as clear winner in Scotland which will help SNP retain big lead
However, wait and see polls in 3 to 4 days time. Paxman interviews made no difference - this debate may not either.
As ever a high quality verdict from Curtice.
FPT GeoffM: I agree with you that assisted dying should be legal, with safeguards to avoid it being done in a fleeting bad moment.
Can someone explain Basil the squirrel to me, I don't get that one!
And Sunil's elbow (electronic leader board of the week) was named to contrast with Jack W's arse.