UKIP becoming an irrelevance in the marginals. Yet, it is interesting to see how in some seats (i.e Loughborough) the fleeing kippers are going blue, while in Stockton South the exodus favours Con and Lab equally. Perhaps UKIP will not have such a significant impact in the election, as there vote builds up in safe Tory shires?
UKIP becoming an irrelevance in the marginals. Yet, it is interesting to see how in some seats (i.e Loughborough) the fleeing kippers are going blue, while in Stockton South the exodus favours Con and Lab equally. Perhaps UKIP will not have such a significant impact in the election, as there vote builds up in safe Tory shires?
It could be more complicated, indeed it probably is. Stockton has probably seen UKIP > Con, Con > Lab. With some none voters thrown in.
in 2010 the swing in London was quite low for the tories, could we see the same again? And does that mean they will do relatively better elsewhere? Including the famed "key battlegrounds" of the midlands and north?
You have to wonder where Ukip are racking up the votes in national opinion polls as they are getting squeezed in these seats
The implication would be that UKIP are polling best in seats that aren't marginal, with some exceptions like Thurrock, and Thanet South.
Overall, the UKIP vote share is up 7.6% on average, in these seats, compared to 2010, equivalent to a national equivalent vote share of 10.7%, if it were repeated across the board.
Mr. Bets, the freezing of commodity prices was known to be foolishness which could lead to shortages or even famine in the 4th century AD (Ammianus Marcellinus lambasted Julian the Apostate, of whom he was generally in favour, for just such a policy).
Mr Dancer, energy companies take the piss, ask the electorate in all the marginals if that is true and they will say yes. Your irrelevant quote of ancient socioeconomics merely proves you live in a river punting lacrosse loving fantasy world.
The people voting and suffering in this election do not find this important, they worry about take home pay and outgoing expenses.
How condescending.
I hope and think that the public aren't as thick or ignorant as you make out.
FPT: Mr. Bets, cheers for that entertaining reply.
However, just because Ammianus Marcellinus wrote of events from some time ago does not mean his perspective on price fixing of commodities was wrong. That's as silly as saying surrounding the enemy is bad because Hannibal did it at Cannae.
Alas, I do not punt, nor do I have an affinity for lacrosse.
As for fantasy, I do rather like it, from videogames to books and films/TV series. I also write it, and can heartily recommend these books, written by me, which are both modestly priced and rather well-rated: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Thaddeus-White/e/B008C6RU98/
If, as you seem to be, you're on the left, and actively seeking to increase the pay of the self-employed or those on modest incomes, it's your moral duty to buy them. [And you might even like them].
On the surface these Ashcroft polls seem good for the Conservatives, given the average swing is only 2%, compared with 5% in the last batch and 3.5% in the national polls.
However, I'm not sure this is correct. The reason being that Ashcroft has specifically chosen, on average, seats which he has previously polled with a lower swing for this batch of polls. There is always going to variance in the swing in the Lab - Con battleground, with it being higher than average in some and lower than average in the others. By picking a batch which he has previously identified as having a lower swing, it makes extrapolating the swing to the wider battleground much more difficult.
To show this point if we compare these polls to the last ones done by Ashcroft there has been an average movement of just 0.4% towards the conservatives (or a swing of 0.2%).
Kingswood is interesting - presumably that's due to demographic change. Question then is which Labour held marginals might go Tory due to similar demographic drift. Gedling or Chorley, perhaps?
You have to wonder where Ukip are racking up the votes in national opinion polls as they are getting squeezed in these seats
The implication would be that UKIP are polling best in seats that aren't marginal, with some exceptions like Thurrock, and Thanet South.
Overall, the UKIP vote share is up 7.6% on average, in these seats, compared to 2010, equivalent to a national equivalent vote share of 10.7%, if it were repeated across the board.
Kipper vote is going to be hideously inefficient compared to other small parties :
UKIP becoming an irrelevance in the marginals. Yet, it is interesting to see how in some seats (i.e Loughborough) the fleeing kippers are going blue, while in Stockton South the exodus favours Con and Lab equally. Perhaps UKIP will not have such a significant impact in the election, as there vote builds up in safe Tory shires?
Sorry, what fleeing kippers in Loughborough? Of all the seats you could have picked for some strange reason you picked the one where the UKIP vote has not dropped at all (Remaining at 12% between October and April whilst up by 10% of the 2010 GE)
The interesting point in Loughborough is that the Tory lead has jumped from 3% to 9% without the UKIP vote dropping at all.
What are people's thoughts on Dover? It's interesting as it's not been opinion polled at all, has a larger Tory safety net than most of these, but that was on a very large swing last time around and it should have more Kippers than the average seat polled here (next door to Thanet).
UKIP becoming an irrelevance in the marginals. Yet, it is interesting to see how in some seats (i.e Loughborough) the fleeing kippers are going blue, while in Stockton South the exodus favours Con and Lab equally. Perhaps UKIP will not have such a significant impact in the election, as there vote builds up in safe Tory shires?
Sorry, what fleeing kippers in Loughborough? Of all the seats you could have picked for some strange reason you picked the one where the UKIP vote has not dropped at all (Remaining at 12% between October and April whilst up by 10% of the 2010 GE)
The interesting point in Loughborough is that the Tory lead has jumped from 3% to 9% without the UKIP vote dropping at all.
So in conclusion the UKIP deflation is simply solidifying the Tory and Labour leads in seats they were ahead anyway in the last constituency polls, Harrow East the exception that benefits Labour so much they actually flip it in their column. That's 42 LAB gains from the Tories in the constituency polls so far.
Mr Goodwin keeps tweeting a bar chart of UKIP/Farage mentions in the press over time. The implication being that as UKIP gets more coverage during the election period their poll share/vote will increase.
Note the almost complete absence of constituency-specific effects in these seats - Q2 "think about your candidates and the constituency") produces virtually identical results in every case.
I think that's because in marginals people have now been really bombarded with leaflets and direct mails (an average of 8 per voter in my patch, by my estimate) so when they're asked how they'll vote, they immediately think of the local position anyway. We've probably seen most of the squeezing that we're going to see now.
Worth noting that the tip from someone the other day to bet on Tories in Hove looks wrong (in my opinion he was also wrong with his other two, Lincoln and especially Amber Valley). DYOR, though.
UKIP becoming an irrelevance in the marginals. Yet, it is interesting to see how in some seats (i.e Loughborough) the fleeing kippers are going blue, while in Stockton South the exodus favours Con and Lab equally. Perhaps UKIP will not have such a significant impact in the election, as there vote builds up in safe Tory shires?
Sorry, what fleeing kippers in Loughborough? Of all the seats you could have picked for some strange reason you picked the one where the UKIP vote has not dropped at all (Remaining at 12% between October and April whilst up by 10% of the 2010 GE)
The interesting point in Loughborough is that the Tory lead has jumped from 3% to 9% without the UKIP vote dropping at all.
*Meant Kingswood! Apoligies.
Ah got you. No worries :-)
One other point of interest of course in all these marginals is the catastrophic collapse in the Lib Dem vote.
Miss Plato (et al), when I was younger I was quite into online psych tests [also enjoyed a few 'serious' ones at university]. The variance can be interesting (also IQ tests had wildly varying scores).
Politics is very difficult, I think. Objectivity is hard for both the test creator and the person doing it. For parties, policies change over time and whole political perspectives can shift.
Being a bit rubbish at updating my blog often enough lately [got a small queue of articles waiting], but if I remember I might dig out my old psych textbooks and have a look at the personality tests.
Re: Sun Nation poll: I took the lot and came out as a mongrel of unknown species or a polyglot: 30% Green, 30% Labour, 35% LD; 70% Con and 100% UKIP
Have just got down to the really serious business of the day. Every Thursday, the Victorian building of managed offices where we are based (failed hotel, closed theological college, facing the sea) has a free cake and coffee day. So having viewed the stock of cakes brought in - home made - and after a discussion with our lady receptionist I am off to buy some cookies on my way home.
The first Harrow East poll was always suspect. It was quite at variance with the swings being found in other London constituencies.
I remember the Euros - it was a bad start for Labour but I distinctly remember Chuka mentioning Redbridge and at the end of the night the results were a fair bit better than expected when the London chunk came in.
What are people's thoughts on Dover? It's interesting as it's not been opinion polled at all, has a larger Tory safety net than most of these, but that was on a very large swing last time around and it should have more Kippers than the average seat polled here (next door to Thanet).
UKIP becoming an irrelevance in the marginals. Yet, it is interesting to see how in some seats (i.e Loughborough) the fleeing kippers are going blue, while in Stockton South the exodus favours Con and Lab equally. Perhaps UKIP will not have such a significant impact in the election, as there vote builds up in safe Tory shires?
Sorry, what fleeing kippers in Loughborough? Of all the seats you could have picked for some strange reason you picked the one where the UKIP vote has not dropped at all (Remaining at 12% between October and April whilst up by 10% of the 2010 GE)
The interesting point in Loughborough is that the Tory lead has jumped from 3% to 9% without the UKIP vote dropping at all.
*Meant Kingswood! Apoligies.
Ah got you. No worries :-)
One other point of interest of course in all these marginals is the catastrophic collapse in the Lib Dem vote.
That's not catastophic at all, in fact it augers well for them holding onto around 25+ seats.
I did dozens of them - I used to analyse ones from Saville & Holdsworth [mainly OPQ] and had a friend who was a consultant for one firm. She was a guru on the subject, I think it was some Dutch company Garuda she really liked.
Thomas was often used as a very cheap and nasty one for sales orgs. I liked OPQ - you really needed to understand the methodology to game ti much.
Miss Plato (et al), when I was younger I was quite into online psych tests [also enjoyed a few 'serious' ones at university]. The variance can be interesting (also IQ tests had wildly varying scores).
Politics is very difficult, I think. Objectivity is hard for both the test creator and the person doing it. For parties, policies change over time and whole political perspectives can shift.
Being a bit rubbish at updating my blog often enough lately [got a small queue of articles waiting], but if I remember I might dig out my old psych textbooks and have a look at the personality tests.
Judging by the tables, Stuart Andrew is going to have the Greens on his christmas card list come the election.
Only 27% rule out Labour though.
Coin flip methinks, but with a gun to my head I'd plump for the Tories if I could have the pick at Evens. My OH's parents are 2010 Lib Dem -> Lab switchers in this seat - they live in Guiseley... a ward that will turn out solidly for Andrew.
It is a fascinating seat, but I think Andrew will hold on.
I like betting on winners though and since Winner won't allow withdrawals below £20 I've stuck the remainder on Kingswood @ 1.72.
UKIP becoming an irrelevance in the marginals. Yet, it is interesting to see how in some seats (i.e Loughborough) the fleeing kippers are going blue, while in Stockton South the exodus favours Con and Lab equally. Perhaps UKIP will not have such a significant impact in the election, as there vote builds up in safe Tory shires?
Sorry, what fleeing kippers in Loughborough? Of all the seats you could have picked for some strange reason you picked the one where the UKIP vote has not dropped at all (Remaining at 12% between October and April whilst up by 10% of the 2010 GE)
The interesting point in Loughborough is that the Tory lead has jumped from 3% to 9% without the UKIP vote dropping at all.
*Meant Kingswood! Apoligies.
Ah got you. No worries :-)
One other point of interest of course in all these marginals is the catastrophic collapse in the Lib Dem vote.
Not catastrophic enough - only losing three deposits.
Given that these are seats in which the Lib Dems are not remotely in contention, they would prefer to be losing more votes here in order to reconcile their national vote share with holding onto more votes where it could save MPs.
Their average share in these marginals is 5.2% (-12.1)
Miss Plato, must admit I've never heard of those two.
Hmm. Can't find references to the Big Five or Myers-Briggs/Keirsey. I knew they were few and far between in my textbooks. Bah. Still, got the actual Keirsey book, which is interesting.
Miss Plato, must admit I've never heard of those two.
Hmm. Can't find references to the Big Five or Myers-Briggs/Keirsey. I knew they were few and far between in my textbooks. Bah. Still, got the actual Keirsey book, which is interesting.
Worth noting that the tip from someone the other day to bet on Tories in Hove looks wrong (in my opinion he was also wrong with his other two, Lincoln and especially Amber Valley). DYOR, though.
I'd be astonished if the Conservatives held on here in Lincoln. It's one of the few seats where there's no Green candidate, aside from any other considerations. Though judging by the amount of stuff coming through my door the Conservatives are certainly fighting just as hard as Labour.
Although my vote is, with no Green, totally up for grabs I've certainly seen enough leaflets and letters to last me a lifetime. I think I'm up to 6 Labour, 5 Conservative and 1 LibDem now.
The first Harrow East poll was always suspect. It was quite at variance with the swings being found in other London constituencies.
I remember the Euros - it was a bad start for Labour but I distinctly remember Chuka mentioning Redbridge and at the end of the night the results were a fair bit better than expected when the London chunk came in.
The Tories won (in aggregate) the wards comprising Ilford North in the Redbridge Council elections on the same day as the Euros.
I know. I had an epiphany moment. It was weird - especially for everyone who knew me [or thought they did]. It took a while for them to get used to it.
I play being ENTP nowadays when it suits me, otherwise it's all INTJ. The former is much more socially acceptable
FPT: Mr. Bets, cheers for that entertaining reply.
However, just because Ammianus Marcellinus wrote of events from some time ago does not mean his perspective on price fixing of commodities was wrong. That's as silly as saying surrounding the enemy is bad because Hannibal did it at Cannae.
Alas, I do not punt, nor do I have an affinity for lacrosse.
As for fantasy, I do rather like it, from videogames to books and films/TV series. I also write it, and can heartily recommend these books, written by me, which are both modestly priced and rather well-rated: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Thaddeus-White/e/B008C6RU98/
If, as you seem to be, you're on the left, and actively seeking to increase the pay of the self-employed or those on modest incomes, it's your moral duty to buy them. [And you might even like them].
Great response, thank you for being entertained and not offended! I might even peruse your link Your creative genius deserves success
The first Harrow East poll was always suspect. It was quite at variance with the swings being found in other London constituencies.
I remember the Euros - it was a bad start for Labour but I distinctly remember Chuka mentioning Redbridge and at the end of the night the results were a fair bit better than expected when the London chunk came in.
The Tories won (in aggregate) the wards comprising Ilford North in the Redbridge Council elections on the same day as the Euros.
The first Harrow East poll was always suspect. It was quite at variance with the swings being found in other London constituencies.
I remember the Euros - it was a bad start for Labour but I distinctly remember Chuka mentioning Redbridge and at the end of the night the results were a fair bit better than expected when the London chunk came in.
There has been some extreme re-weighting in the Harrow East constituency poll.
The first Harrow East poll was always suspect. It was quite at variance with the swings being found in other London constituencies.
I remember the Euros - it was a bad start for Labour but I distinctly remember Chuka mentioning Redbridge and at the end of the night the results were a fair bit better than expected when the London chunk came in.
The Tories won (in aggregate) the wards comprising Ilford North in the Redbridge Council elections on the same day as the Euros.
What do you predict? It'll be very close for sure.
Maybe its me but I cant help finding targeting the fact that the four main leaders are white men and drawing the conclusion from they are therefore all the same, is the same thought process as thinking all black men from south London are wronguns who deserve to be stopped and searched
I am sympathetic to a lot of green mindset; I worry about the environment, I rarely eat meat, I don't drive when I could get the train etc, but how would I know what they thought from their PEB?
All I get from it is they think if you share skin colour and gender you are categorised as "all the same"
Mr. Bets, the freezing of commodity prices was known to be foolishness which could lead to shortages or even famine in the 4th century AD (Ammianus Marcellinus lambasted Julian the Apostate, of whom he was generally in favour, for just such a policy).
Mr Dancer, energy companies take the piss, ask the electorate in all the marginals if that is true and they will say yes. Your irrelevant quote of ancient socioeconomics merely proves you live in a river punting lacrosse loving fantasy world.
The people voting and suffering in this election do not find this important, they worry about take home pay and outgoing expenses.
How condescending.
I hope and think that the public aren't as thick or ignorant as you make out.
The public have a combined intelligence greater than any one person! Unpicking fairy tales and challenging block reflex substanceless condemnation for a clearly left wing policy is not being condescending.
TBH it was the slickness and high production values that made me wonder who made it. If I didn't know better - I'd never ever guess the Greenies. Their hair-shirtness doesn't fit with glossy.
It's like getting a council newspaper on Country Life paper stock and full colour. It doesn't feel right with the brand.
Maybe its me but I cant help finding targeting the fact that the four main leaders are white men and drawing the conclusion from they are therefore all the same, is the same thought process as thinking all black men from south London are wronguns who deserve to be stopped and searched
I am sympathetic to a lot of green mindset; I worry about the environment, I rarely eat meat, I don't drive when I could get the train etc, but how would I know what they thought from their PEB?
All I get from it is they think if you share skin colour and gender you are categorised as "all the same"
The first Harrow East poll was always suspect. It was quite at variance with the swings being found in other London constituencies.
I remember the Euros - it was a bad start for Labour but I distinctly remember Chuka mentioning Redbridge and at the end of the night the results were a fair bit better than expected when the London chunk came in.
There has been some extreme re-weighting in the Harrow East constituency poll.
You have to wonder where Ukip are racking up the votes in national opinion polls as they are getting squeezed in these seats
Which only goes to prove that the Lords polls are getting to be absolute bollocks.
They always have been bollocks, I feel sorry for the gullible ones on here who have followed them with real money.
I am a novice at this political betting lark, but if I moved my bets after every poll like some do I would have driven myself crazy by now.
No-one needs advice from me on how to bet on politics, but I formed my own opinion some time ago and have stuck to it, my competition entry was Con 302 Lab 270 and I still don't think I will be too far out.
My bets include Con minority at 9/2, which I am happy with, and UKIP 5 seats or more at evens which I am much less happy with.
I do think there are plenty of shy Kippers though and am hopeful of a few surprise wins whilst a couple of the big names don't get in.
My goodness me Scot P. Laura Kinnesburg of the BBC after a whole entire full day in nothern parts comes to a conclusion of sorts. Well with info such as this we must disregard the fact that the SNP is 1-10 on in Dundee West and 1-100 on in Dundee East, that Salmond has a meeting in the city last week packed to the gunnells with two overflows, 20 years of the SNP establishing dominance in the City. Well it is so obvious the great Laura has tweeted.
Anyone else have a comedy green on Labour Majority at the moment by the way ?
Yes though the recent 'plunge' has cut it in half. I am now equally comedy green on both Majs. Can't see NOM getting too much shorter before the exit poll and a surge one way or the other is quite possible in response to [rogue?] polling.
What are people's thoughts on Dover? It's interesting as it's not been opinion polled at all, has a larger Tory safety net than most of these, but that was on a very large swing last time around and it should have more Kippers than the average seat polled here (next door to Thanet).
Charlie Elphicke to hold on. Labour to beat UKIP.
5/1 looks generous but I suspect it will be an honorable 2nd for UKIP.
On the surface these Ashcroft polls seem good for the Conservatives, given the average swing is only 2%, compared with 5% in the last batch and 3.5% in the national polls.
However, I'm not sure this is correct. The reason being that Ashcroft has specifically chosen, on average, seats which he has previously polled with a lower swing for this batch of polls. There is always going to variance in the swing in the Lab - Con battleground, with it being higher than average in some and lower than average in the others. By picking a batch which he has previously identified as having a lower swing, it makes extrapolating the swing to the wider battleground much more difficult.
To show this point if we compare these polls to the last ones done by Ashcroft there has been an average movement of just 0.4% towards the conservatives (or a swing of 0.2%).
However you also have to factor in random sample variation. Plus the fact it is harder to get an individual constituency poll accurate than a national poll.
Thus whilst the first round of polling showed Con was doing better than average in these seats they may not really have been doing better than average - because of the above two factors.
Plus you have to add that they are 10 different seats (ie big sample) with a good geographical spread - so hard to see why taken together they should behave significantly different from average.
So another new batch of polls in these 10 seats showing just a 2% swing is, in my view, very encouraging for Con.
And some don't :-) On balance I'd say it was marginally positive for the Tories - the biggest single movements on the constituency betting [Kingswood & Loughborough] have been in their favour. But it's all pretty consistent with the national picture.
You have to wonder where Ukip are racking up the votes in national opinion polls as they are getting squeezed in these seats
Which only goes to prove that the Lords polls are getting to be absolute bollocks.
Absolutely not. The results from these marginals can easily be reconciled with the national vote shares given that it is exactly these sorts of marginal seats where we would expect the UKIP vote to be squeezed. Actually in a number of these seats, although the UKIP vote has dropped, it is still holding up better than I would have expected. Given we have seen a general trend down in national polls for the party these results in the places where the pressure will be greatest seem to me to be completely in line with both national polling and expectations.
On the surface these Ashcroft polls seem good for the Conservatives, given the average swing is only 2%, compared with 5% in the last batch and 3.5% in the national polls.
However, I'm not sure this is correct. The reason being that Ashcroft has specifically chosen, on average, seats which he has previously polled with a lower swing for this batch of polls. There is always going to variance in the swing in the Lab - Con battleground, with it being higher than average in some and lower than average in the others. By picking a batch which he has previously identified as having a lower swing, it makes extrapolating the swing to the wider battleground much more difficult.
To show this point if we compare these polls to the last ones done by Ashcroft there has been an average movement of just 0.4% towards the conservatives (or a swing of 0.2%).
However you also have to factor in random sample variation. Plus the fact it is harder to get an individual constituency poll accurate than a national poll.
Thus whilst the first round of polling showed Con was doing better than average in these seats they may not really have been doing better than average - because of the above two factors.
Plus you have to add that they are 10 different seats (ie big sample) with a good geographical spread - so hard to see why taken together they should behave significantly different from average.
So another new batch of polls in these 10 seats showing just a 2% swing is, in my view, very encouraging for Con.
It's seems to me that the points you raise in your first two sentences are contradicted by the points you make in your last two sentences. You are of course right that there is likely to be random sampling variation affecting each of these individual polls. However, you are also correct that this is likely to cancel itself out across a sample of 10 seats.
So we have 10 seats which were previously showing a below-average swing to Labour in aggregate, still showing a below-average swing to Labour. It seems unlikely to me that this has much to do with sample variation.
The last set of Ashcroft polls had a 5% swing and that was just a few weeks ago. It seems unlikely that there has been a dramatic change in the last few weeks given other polling.
What is much more likely, in my view, is that there is something systemic about these seats which is resulting in a below average swing. You say its hard to see why they would behave differently but there are lots of reasons other than geography which alters the level of swing between seats - demographic change, incumbent popularity and campaign activity to name just a few.
Labour really made little progress at all in the past 5 years is the message from these with a few weeks for a swing of a point or two likely to Cons too.
Think we will see a substantial improvement in Con vote efficiency.
Roger - see May 2015 and my posts. These polls show an average swing to the Conservatives of just 0.2% since the last time Ashcroft polling. They are not showing any significant movement.
David Cameron has given an interview to The House magazine, in which he:
Declares that there can’t be another referendum on Scottish independence within a generation, possibly within his lifetime.
Makes clear that his view that Scotland’s future is “settled” would not change - even if the SNP puts a new referendum in their 2016 Holyrood manifesto.
Defends the BBC against Alex Salmond’s claim that the Corporation was a “national disgrace” in its referendum reporting.
Comments
Nicky Morgan looks safe.
Good.
Still more than 10% in some of these seats, enough to change the vote significantly.
going to be a long night
Kippers must be spitting bricks being shown to be part of the LibLabConKip.
Overall, the UKIP vote share is up 7.6% on average, in these seats, compared to 2010, equivalent to a national equivalent vote share of 10.7%, if it were repeated across the board.
I hope and think that the public aren't as thick or ignorant as you make out.
FPT: Mr. Bets, cheers for that entertaining reply.
However, just because Ammianus Marcellinus wrote of events from some time ago does not mean his perspective on price fixing of commodities was wrong. That's as silly as saying surrounding the enemy is bad because Hannibal did it at Cannae.
Alas, I do not punt, nor do I have an affinity for lacrosse.
As for fantasy, I do rather like it, from videogames to books and films/TV series.
I also write it, and can heartily recommend these books, written by me, which are both modestly priced and rather well-rated: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Thaddeus-White/e/B008C6RU98/
If, as you seem to be, you're on the left, and actively seeking to increase the pay of the self-employed or those on modest incomes, it's your moral duty to buy them. [And you might even like them].
However, I'm not sure this is correct. The reason being that Ashcroft has specifically chosen, on average, seats which he has previously polled with a lower swing for this batch of polls. There is always going to variance in the swing in the Lab - Con battleground, with it being higher than average in some and lower than average in the others. By picking a batch which he has previously identified as having a lower swing, it makes extrapolating the swing to the wider battleground much more difficult.
To show this point if we compare these polls to the last ones done by Ashcroft there has been an average movement of just 0.4% towards the conservatives (or a swing of 0.2%).
Con 207, Lab 190
Harrow East
Con 190 Lab 180
The risk for Labour is that they've picked up the can't-be-arsed vote.
30% Green, 30% Labour, 35% LD; 70% Con and 100% UKIP
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/537044601065197569
I like the Green PPBs though. This one, and the one from last year's EU Parliament campaign.
Could be
LDs 10%, 35 seats
SNP 5% 45 seats
Kipper 10% 3 seats.
Stockton South a slight fly in the ointment.
The interesting point in Loughborough is that the Tory lead has jumped from 3% to 9% without the UKIP vote dropping at all.
http://newstonoone.blogspot.hu/2014/04/and-where-might-ukips-support-go-to.html
This holds up better than some of my older posts.
Or the haven't even registered to vote vote.
That's 42 LAB gains from the Tories in the constituency polls so far.
twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/585405560914366464
My brother is a Labour Party member and only scored 60% in the Labour quiz
Mass immigration
Pro EU
Carbon subsidies
Big welfare state
Soft on crime
At least they stuck to their credentials and recycled a Horrible Histories sketch rather than making something new I guess
I think that's because in marginals people have now been really bombarded with leaflets and direct mails (an average of 8 per voter in my patch, by my estimate) so when they're asked how they'll vote, they immediately think of the local position anyway. We've probably seen most of the squeezing that we're going to see now.
Worth noting that the tip from someone the other day to bet on Tories in Hove looks wrong (in my opinion he was also wrong with his other two, Lincoln and especially Amber Valley). DYOR, though.
One other point of interest of course in all these marginals is the catastrophic collapse in the Lib Dem vote.
Politics is very difficult, I think. Objectivity is hard for both the test creator and the person doing it. For parties, policies change over time and whole political perspectives can shift.
Being a bit rubbish at updating my blog often enough lately [got a small queue of articles waiting], but if I remember I might dig out my old psych textbooks and have a look at the personality tests.
Thomas was often used as a very cheap and nasty one for sales orgs. I liked OPQ - you really needed to understand the methodology to game ti much.
It is a fascinating seat, but I think Andrew will hold on.
I like betting on winners though and since Winner won't allow withdrawals below £20 I've stuck the remainder on Kingswood @ 1.72.
Given that these are seats in which the Lib Dems are not remotely in contention, they would prefer to be losing more votes here in order to reconcile their national vote share with holding onto more votes where it could save MPs.
Their average share in these marginals is 5.2% (-12.1)
Hmm. Can't find references to the Big Five or Myers-Briggs/Keirsey. I knew they were few and far between in my textbooks. Bah. Still, got the actual Keirsey book, which is interesting.
OPQ is very occupational rather than team building orientated. Thomas is just about finding sales killers or "Doers" in their language.
Although my vote is, with no Green, totally up for grabs I've certainly seen enough leaflets and letters to last me a lifetime. I think I'm up to 6 Labour, 5 Conservative and 1 LibDem now.
Before these polls May 2015 had the Conservatives ahead in 9 of the 10 seats polled, they are now ahead in 5.
I play being ENTP nowadays when it suits me, otherwise it's all INTJ. The former is much more socially acceptable
I might even peruse your link
Your creative genius deserves success
I am sympathetic to a lot of green mindset; I worry about the environment, I rarely eat meat, I don't drive when I could get the train etc, but how would I know what they thought from their PEB?
All I get from it is they think if you share skin colour and gender you are categorised as "all the same"
Reality check
It's like getting a council newspaper on Country Life paper stock and full colour. It doesn't feel right with the brand.
It's not very likely to happen but it's probably better than a 2.5% chance. SNP meltdown? I've backed worse 40/1 shots.
I am a novice at this political betting lark, but if I moved my bets after every poll like some do I would have driven myself crazy by now.
No-one needs advice from me on how to bet on politics, but I formed my own opinion some time ago and have stuck to it, my competition entry was Con 302 Lab 270 and I still don't think I will be too far out.
My bets include Con minority at 9/2, which I am happy with, and UKIP 5 seats or more at evens which I am much less happy with.
I do think there are plenty of shy Kippers though and am hopeful of a few surprise wins whilst a couple of the big names don't get in.
5:02PM
My goodness me Scot P. Laura Kinnesburg of the BBC after a whole entire full day in nothern parts comes to a conclusion of sorts. Well with info such as this we must disregard the fact that the SNP is 1-10 on in Dundee West and 1-100 on in Dundee East, that Salmond has a meeting in the city last week packed to the gunnells with two overflows, 20 years of the SNP establishing dominance in the City. Well it is so obvious the great Laura has tweeted.
Scot P get a grip.
Spock was an INTJ, I think.
Mr. Bets, cheers.
Thus whilst the first round of polling showed Con was doing better than average in these seats they may not really have been doing better than average - because of the above two factors.
Plus you have to add that they are 10 different seats (ie big sample) with a good geographical spread - so hard to see why taken together they should behave significantly different from average.
So another new batch of polls in these 10 seats showing just a 2% swing is, in my view, very encouraging for Con.
So we have 10 seats which were previously showing a below-average swing to Labour in aggregate, still showing a below-average swing to Labour. It seems unlikely to me that this has much to do with sample variation.
The last set of Ashcroft polls had a 5% swing and that was just a few weeks ago. It seems unlikely that there has been a dramatic change in the last few weeks given other polling.
What is much more likely, in my view, is that there is something systemic about these seats which is resulting in a below average swing. You say its hard to see why they would behave differently but there are lots of reasons other than geography which alters the level of swing between seats - demographic change, incumbent popularity and campaign activity to name just a few.
Think we will see a substantial improvement in Con vote efficiency.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32216710