Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In first post-debate poll Survation finds LAB 2% ahead and

2456

Comments

  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Backed most seats LAB 3.1 and layed CON most seats 1.5

    Free money
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Latest ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen" Projection Countdown :

    777 minutes
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited April 2015
    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.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Speedy said:

    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.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Speedy said:

    "The Conservative Party is more on the side of wealthy people" +65.8% !!!!!

    p.41, table 38.

    Con 34%, Lab 91%, LD 72%, UKIP 76%

    Well what did you expect?
    It's just with an image problem like that, they have no realistic hope of winning a majority.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Speedy said:

    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.

    Now that is interesting.

    No Way Tories can win if that view prevails
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Speedy said:

    RobD said:

    Carola said:

    Interesting...

    Jack Blanchard @Jack_Blanchard_ · 25m 25 minutes ago

    Almost half of all Tory voters (47%) and two-thirds of UKIP voters (64%) support Miliband's clampdown on zero hours contracts

    Fits the idea that UKIP are not just exTory.
    Since the clampdown on zero hours is politically for the benefit of the poor it would certainly be more popular with UKIP than with the Tories.
    Loosing your job is a benefit for the poor?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    The leader approval rating in this poll has to be read carefully. Many will answer "approve" for people that they generally think useless.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,587
    Speedy said:

    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.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited April 2015
    Speedy said:

    More interestingly is the response on the deficit question.
    52.6% do not want the deficit to be cut

    I'd like to see the same question put by a range of pollsters. I don't want that number to be true.

  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800

    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    Speedy said:

    chestnut said:

    http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Full-Mirror-IV-Tables.pdf

    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.
  • EastwingerEastwinger Posts: 354
    antifrank said:

    The leader approval rating in this poll has to be read carefully. Many will answer "approve" for people that they generally think useless.

    Yes, its a stupid question. Plenty of Tories will approve of Milliband as LOTO.

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    chestnut said:

    With Survation's track record we can safely conclude that the Tories are well clear if Labour are only two in front.

    Survation was joint top pollster at the IndyRef

  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Speedy said:

    "The Conservative Party is more on the side of wealthy people" +65.8% !!!!!

    p.41, table 38.

    Con 34%, Lab 91%, LD 72%, UKIP 76%

    Well what did you expect?
    A tax cut for millionaires?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046
    Danny565 said:

    Speedy said:

    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.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    Speedy said:

    RobD said:

    Carola said:

    Interesting...

    Jack Blanchard @Jack_Blanchard_ · 25m 25 minutes ago

    Almost half of all Tory voters (47%) and two-thirds of UKIP voters (64%) support Miliband's clampdown on zero hours contracts

    Fits the idea that UKIP are not just exTory.
    Since the clampdown on zero hours is politically for the benefit of the poor it would certainly be more popular with UKIP than with the Tories.
    Loosing your job is a benefit for the poor?
    Try to explain that to the poor in a single line.
    Same goes with raising the minimum wage.
    That's why I said politically.
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    MaxPB said:

    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?
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    antifrank said:

    The leader approval rating in this poll has to be read carefully. Many will answer "approve" for people that they generally think useless.

    Yes, its a stupid question. Plenty of Tories will approve of Milliband as LOTO.

    I think the BES use a ComRes 'favourable/unfavourable' type question.

  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    edited April 2015

    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    Speedy said:

    chestnut said:

    http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Full-Mirror-IV-Tables.pdf

    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?
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited April 2015

    Speedy said:

    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%
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664

    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    Speedy said:

    chestnut said:

    http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Full-Mirror-IV-Tables.pdf

    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.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited April 2015
    Danny565 said:

    Speedy said:

    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
  • Oliver_PBOliver_PB Posts: 397
    edited April 2015
    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.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,913
    tyson said:

    "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.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091

    Danny565 said:

    Speedy said:

    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.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,711

    Backed most seats LAB 3.1 and layed CON most seats 1.5

    Free money

    I am doing the opposite. One of us will be disappointed.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046
    edited April 2015
    Ishmael_X said:

    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    Speedy said:

    chestnut said:

    http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Full-Mirror-IV-Tables.pdf

    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.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,214
    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!
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,711

    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    Speedy said:

    chestnut said:

    http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Full-Mirror-IV-Tables.pdf

    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.
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Topping

    anyone might think the Tories would have been better setting out a positive message.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Speedy said:

    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.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Speedy said:

    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.
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800

    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    Speedy said:

    chestnut said:

    http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Full-Mirror-IV-Tables.pdf

    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.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046

    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    Speedy said:

    chestnut said:

    http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Full-Mirror-IV-Tables.pdf

    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.
  • ItwasriggedItwasrigged Posts: 154

    IOS said:

    Francis

    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.

  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    edited April 2015

    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    Speedy said:

    chestnut said:

    http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Full-Mirror-IV-Tables.pdf

    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"
  • ItwasriggedItwasrigged Posts: 154
    IOS said:

    Topping

    anyone might think the Tories would have been better setting out a positive message.

    It isn't in their DNA.

  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Speedy said:

    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.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11187727/Its-time-to-come-clean-about-our-national-debt.html
  • NeilVWNeilVW Posts: 733
    edited April 2015
    Including Sky News and the BBC News channel, the debate averaged 7.7m.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32172871
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,313
    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Speedy said:

    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.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046
    edited April 2015
    IOS said:

    Topping

    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."
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,313
    NeilVW said:

    Including Sky News and the BBC News channel, the debate averaged 7.7m.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32172871

    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.

  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    If Ed's image has so improved will more Labour candidates feel more comfortable to use photographs with him?

    https://electionleaflets.org/parties/PP53/labour-party-3
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,711
    TOPPING said:

    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    Speedy said:

    chestnut said:

    http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Full-Mirror-IV-Tables.pdf

    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.
  • RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    Speedy said:

    chestnut said:

    http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Full-Mirror-IV-Tables.pdf

    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?

    What's a girl to make of it all?
  • ItwasriggedItwasrigged Posts: 154
    dr_spyn said:

    If Ed's image has so improved will more Labour candidates feel more comfortable to use photographs with him?

    https://electionleaflets.org/parties/PP53/labour-party-3

    Do you think they will actually start using the name of the Labour Party on their leaflets as well. I understand Jim Macmurphy isn't even doing that. :)

  • DennisBetsDennisBets Posts: 244

    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    Speedy said:

    chestnut said:

    http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Full-Mirror-IV-Tables.pdf

    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.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,913

    Danny565 said:

    Speedy said:

    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.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,711

    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    Speedy said:

    chestnut said:

    http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Full-Mirror-IV-Tables.pdf

    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!
  • EastwingerEastwinger Posts: 354
    Omnium said:

    Danny565 said:

    Speedy said:

    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.

  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Lab majority on Betfair....

    40
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486

    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    Speedy said:

    chestnut said:

    http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Full-Mirror-IV-Tables.pdf

    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.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,653
    Omnium said:

    Danny565 said:

    Speedy said:

    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"!
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Todays Sun will be a keeper as EICIPM does his No.10 walk
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800

    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    Speedy said:

    chestnut said:

    http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Full-Mirror-IV-Tables.pdf

    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
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,913

    Omnium said:

    Danny565 said:

    Speedy said:

    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.

  • NeilVWNeilVW Posts: 733
    edited April 2015

    NeilVW said:

    Including Sky News and the BBC News channel, the debate averaged 7.7m.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32172871

    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.
  • EastwingerEastwinger Posts: 354
    RodCrosby said:

    Lab majority on Betfair....

    40

    seat spread up to 16

  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664

    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    Speedy said:

    chestnut said:

    http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Full-Mirror-IV-Tables.pdf

    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.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    44...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415

    Backed most seats LAB 3.1 and layed CON most seats 1.5

    Free money

    I am doing the opposite. One of us will be disappointed.
    My book is fairly balanced on this - Labour feels like a good value loser
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Todays Sun will be a keeper as EICIPM does his No.10 walk

    Is Ed's No 9 walk a silly one or off the plank ?

  • rogerhrogerh Posts: 282

    rogerh said:

    Changes on previous weeks Survation Mirror poll Con -1,Lab NC,LD +1, UKIP NC ,Green NC,

    Survation tend to show changes based on the un-rounded numbers.

    Source Wikepedia opinion polls.

  • ItwasriggedItwasrigged Posts: 154
    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.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,711

    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    Speedy said:

    chestnut said:

    http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Full-Mirror-IV-Tables.pdf

    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
    You make my point for me.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,711
    Ishmael_X said:

    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    Speedy said:

    chestnut said:

    http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Full-Mirror-IV-Tables.pdf

    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.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,711
    Pulpstar said:

    Backed most seats LAB 3.1 and layed CON most seats 1.5

    Free money

    I am doing the opposite. One of us will be disappointed.
    My book is fairly balanced on this - Labour feels like a good value loser
    Perhaps. I am now shifting my betting to what I think the result will be.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,587

    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    Speedy said:

    chestnut said:

    http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Full-Mirror-IV-Tables.pdf

    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.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    Q1, Survation:

    "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?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,913
    EPG said:



    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.

  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800

    Pulpstar said:

    Backed most seats LAB 3.1 and layed CON most seats 1.5

    Free money

    I am doing the opposite. One of us will be disappointed.
    My book is fairly balanced on this - Labour feels like a good value loser
    Perhaps. I am now shifting my betting to what I think the result will be.
    Which is?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,711

    Pulpstar said:

    Backed most seats LAB 3.1 and layed CON most seats 1.5

    Free money

    I am doing the opposite. One of us will be disappointed.
    My book is fairly balanced on this - Labour feels like a good value loser
    Perhaps. I am now shifting my betting to what I think the result will be.
    Which is?
    I think Cons will have most seats. Whether DC remains as PM or not remains to be seen.
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800

    Pulpstar said:

    Backed most seats LAB 3.1 and layed CON most seats 1.5

    Free money

    I am doing the opposite. One of us will be disappointed.
    My book is fairly balanced on this - Labour feels like a good value loser
    Perhaps. I am now shifting my betting to what I think the result will be.
    Which is?
    I think Cons will have most seats. Whether DC remains as PM or not remains to be seen.
    I think that too.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,711

    tweet

    You are calling this wrong just as you called the indyref wrong.

  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664

    Ishmael_X said:

    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    Speedy said:

    chestnut said:

    http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Full-Mirror-IV-Tables.pdf

    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.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,653
    Omnium said:

    EPG said:



    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!
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Ishmael_X said:

    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    Speedy said:
    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.
  • kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    Speedy said:

    chestnut said:

    http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Full-Mirror-IV-Tables.pdf

    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
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,913
    Care to elaborate?

    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.

  • Eh_ehm_a_ehEh_ehm_a_eh Posts: 552

    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.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,135
    Shouldn't 31.5% Con in Survation be rounded up to 32? ;)

    Part-ELBOW inc. Survation still puts the Tories 0.5% ahead, with just two days left till Sunday!
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,313

    Shouldn't 31.5% Con in Survation be rounded up to 32? ;)

    Part-ELBOW inc. Survation still puts the Tories 0.5% ahead, with just two days left till Sunday!

    Maybe they use Excel, it seems to round 0.5 down.

  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    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.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    IOS said:

    Francis

    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.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,117
    EICIPM- someone please tell me what these letters stand for. I would be extremely grateful because it is doing my nut in trying to figure it out.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    dr_spyn said:

    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?
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,928
    dr_spyn said:

    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.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    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.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,117
    And while we are at it Sunil Prasannan, my vegetarian comrade. What does ELBOW stand for?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Shouldn't 31.5% Con in Survation be rounded up to 32? ;)

    Part-ELBOW inc. Survation still puts the Tories 0.5% ahead, with just two days left till Sunday!

    Maybe they use Excel, it seems to round 0.5 down.

    Doesn't Excel use bankers' rounding -- ie round up or down to the nearest even number?
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012

    dr_spyn said:

    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.
    Apart from abolishing the nuclear deterrent
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    edited April 2015
    Per Curtice (BBC):

    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.
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    tyson said:

    EICIPM- someone please tell me what these letters stand for. I would be extremely grateful because it is doing my nut in trying to figure it out.

    Ed is crap is Prime Minister
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    tyson said:

    And while we are at it Sunil Prasannan, my vegetarian comrade. What does ELBOW stand for?

    Electronic leader-board of the week?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,568
    edited April 2015



    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.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,117

    tyson said:

    EICIPM- someone please tell me what these letters stand for. I would be extremely grateful because it is doing my nut in trying to figure it out.

    Ed is crap is Prime Minister
    Does it mean that?
  • NeilVWNeilVW Posts: 733
    edited April 2015
    tyson said:

    And while we are at it Sunil Prasannan, my vegetarian comrade. What does ELBOW stand for?

    Sorry to butt in, but it's Electoral Leader Board of the Week, and EICIPM means Ed Is Crap is PM.

    Can someone explain Basil the squirrel to me, I don't get that one!
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    tyson said:

    tyson said:

    EICIPM- someone please tell me what these letters stand for. I would be extremely grateful because it is doing my nut in trying to figure it out.

    Ed is crap is Prime Minister
    Does it mean that?
    Yes, it's a back-formation from Ed Is Crap Will Never Be PM, which was an extension of Ed is crap.

    And Sunil's elbow (electronic leader board of the week) was named to contrast with Jack W's arse.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,117
    Thanks Ishmael and Nige then for clarifying the...? (I've spent too long in Italy to remember the word for letter abbreviations)
This discussion has been closed.