A quick calculation and adjusting these Lord A Con/Lab marginals with the ARSE filter shows 10 Con holds. Completely in line with the direction of travel of my mighty organ.
Somewhere between a 3 and 4% swing (if I am understanding Andy Cooke correctly). More consistent with the internet polling than ICM. But are these internet or phone polls?
These aren't that bad for the Conservatives. None of the Labour leads are worth boasting about. Though I will point out (again) that Finchley & Golders Green is a great bet for Labour.
Also worthy of note: UKIP will be really disappointed in their tallies in Dover, Dudley South and Cleethorpes.
@skynewsniall: Craig Oliver briefs T manifesto launch - contains two new policies, previously unannounced, to help "working people" http://t.co/5uKOHJpkLf
These aren't that bad for the Conservatives. None of the Labour leads are worth boasting about. Though I will point out (again) that Finchley & Golders Green is a great bet for Labour.
Also worthy of note: UKIP will be really disappointed in their tallies in Dover, Dudley South and Cleethorpes.
UKIP haven't got a cat in hell's chance in adjoining Grimsby based on that Cleethorpes number.
These aren't that bad for the Conservatives. None of the Labour leads are worth boasting about. Though I will point out (again) that Finchley & Golders Green is a great bet for Labour.
Also worthy of note: UKIP will be really disappointed in their tallies in Dover, Dudley South and Cleethorpes.
UKIP haven't got a cat in hell's chance in adjoining Grimsby based on that Cleethorpes number.
EdM asks the FT : “Why exactly do you need to pay your shareholders dividends?”
Is this the guy who used to lecture in economics ?
That's actually an awesome economics puzzle. There's a school of thought that says shareholders are better off if you just let the value of the company grow, a la Steve Jobs, and let them extract value from it on their own schedule by selling stock. Then there are a bunch of theories trying to explain investors' apparently irrational preference for dividends, one being that they keep them in a different conceptual box from the value of the stock.
I am not an economist (tm), (thank god), but don't dividends allow big investors extract value from successful companies without damaging their long-term shareholding .I would have guessed that that is quite important to long-term investors such as pension funds?
For a long-term investor, if you sell shares, you may have to buy them back later, and if the target company is successful that will probably be at a higher price.
And the Apple-clause should be invoked: few companies are as successful as Apple, and they are very atypical.
No, a large investor that sells some stock instead of taking a dividend will end up with the same value of stock (since what they still hold is worth more due to the lack of a dividend) so there's no need to buy anything back later.
EdM asks the FT : “Why exactly do you need to pay your shareholders dividends?”
Is this the guy who used to lecture in economics ?
That's actually an awesome economics puzzle. There's a school of thought that says shareholders are better off if you just let the value of the company grow, a la Steve Jobs, and let them extract value from it on their own schedule by selling stock. Then there are a bunch of theories trying to explain investors' apparently irrational preference for dividends, one being that they keep them in a different conceptual box from the value of the stock.
I am not an economist (tm), (thank god), but don't dividends allow big investors extract value from successful companies without damaging their long-term shareholding .I would have guessed that that is quite important to long-term investors such as pension funds?
For a long-term investor, if you sell shares, you may have to buy them back later, and if the target company is successful that will probably be at a higher price.
And the Apple-clause should be invoked: few companies are as successful as Apple, and they are very atypical.
No, a large investor that sells some stock instead of taking a dividend will end up with the same value of stock (since what they still hold is worth more due to the lack of a dividend) so there's no need to buy anything back later.
Bad news for Con:That means 1 in 2 seats requiring 5 % swing are open for Labour.
Nicola Sturgeon won't be liking this.
This confirms that a reasonable expectation is Labour gaining 60 seats from the Tories, add in the 10-15 Liberal seats they will take and the 40 they lose to the SNP and you have Labour comfortably in teh 280-290 range which is where ONLY the SNP can make Ed PM.
So that looks like 10/10 Tory holds come the 7th May from today's Ashcroft. We will be able to deduct at least 2-3% from any Labour score owing to non-registration of voters let alone those who don't actually vote.
Rough calc: average swing Con to Lab is 4.3%. Seems enough for EICIPM to me.
3.5% swing from Con to Lab. That's equivalent to a 3% Conservative lead in England and Wales. It would imply c.40 Labour gains from the Conservatives. Factoring in losses to UKIP and SNP, and gains from Lib Dems, that would probably leave Con and Lab roughly level.
These aren't that bad for the Conservatives. None of the Labour leads are worth boasting about. Though I will point out (again) that Finchley & Golders Green is a great bet for Labour.
Also worthy of note: UKIP will be really disappointed in their tallies in Dover, Dudley South and Cleethorpes.
London appears to be the only place where we can be fairly sure that Labour are going to improve significantly on their 2010 showing. Recently, I have been wondering about Putney, where Labour were 20/1 the last time I looked. Yes, Justine Greening has a very big majority, but Labour have a decent candidate and they did hold the seat from 1997-2005. A long-shot indeed but it does seem to be within the bounds of possibility?
A cautionary note would be that much of this polling is half-term fieldwork, and quite a lot of the samples show over-sampling of females.
Regional picture remains the same. Labour thriving in NW and London, but making no progress with Essex man and Kent Man. Also, continuing to lose ground in the west country.
Milton Keynes S is a good poll for Labour though.
I'm having real difficulty reconciling the S/SE/SW subsamples (very big swings to Lab) in the national polls with the marginals.
Rough calc: average swing Con to Lab is 4.3%. Seems enough for EICIPM to me.
3.5% swing from Con to Lab. That's equivalent to a 3% Conservative lead in England and Wales. It would imply c.40 Labour gains from the Conservatives. Factoring in losses to UKIP and SNP, and gains from Lib Dems, that would probably leave Con and Lab roughly level.
His Lordship's polling was done before yesterday's pathetic effort by Labour to claim some economic credibility. Their Manifesto launch was risible.
They have got three weeks of pain ahead, as it becomes crystal clear that Labour hasn't got anything approaching a coherent approach to running the economy.
What I have found amusing over the last couple of days is the way that Osborne has been able to weaponise (to turn a phrase) the Tories' superior credibility about the economy. He has done this by promising apparently "unfunded" (I really resent the way all politicians use that word in the context of a £90bn deficit) additional spending.
This works both ways. Firstly, every time he is challenged about it it allows him to boast about his seriously impressive economic record and demonstrate that he is promising no more than he has already delivered over the last 5 years.
Secondly, when Labour and Ed Balls in particular are trying to be oh so grown up and responsible (fingers crossed behind their backs or otherwise) it has the delightful side effect of reducing them to spluttering incoherence like we saw yesterday. Labour still get shot down on their slightly fanciful if superficially more complete arithmetic and Osborne gets to say "we will find a way, again."
If he did not have the superior economic credibility he could not possibly get away with this but he does and he is using it to maximum effect.
Jo Co seemed to lose the plot slightly on yesterday's Daily Politics show, when interviewing Sajid Javid on this theme. The Daily Mirror are this morning reporting it as a car crash for Javid, but to some extent Jo Co was drawing false parallels. Essentially, her line was you promised to get rid of the deficit, and didn't, so why should we believe you on the NHS. Javid kept saying that the Tories had delivered on the NHS and would continue to do so, whilst Jo Co wore herself ragged trying to suggest otherwise. The 11 minute interview commences at 46.30 here...
I'm pretty sure the Tories will hold all the seats that Ashcroft has polled in today's release.
There does seem to be a Bristol effect where the Tories are doing very well in that general area: Kingswood, Bristol NW, NE Somerset.
The Bristol/Bath/N Somerset area is doing well economically, being a diverse economy and is installing new transport infrastructure to cope with demand (e.g. re-opening former railway lines).
Its airport is growing and there are now 12 daily coaches to and from the airport to Cardiff.
It is the economic centre for the SW and for near S Wales.
EdM asks the FT : “Why exactly do you need to pay your shareholders dividends?”
Is this the guy who used to lecture in economics ?
That's actually an awesome economics puzzle. There's a school of thought that says shareholders are better off if you just let the value of the company grow, a la Steve Jobs, and let them extract value from it on their own schedule by selling stock. Then there are a bunch of theories trying to explain investors' apparently irrational preference for dividends, one being that they keep them in a different conceptual box from the value of the stock.
I am not an economist (tm), (thank god), but don't dividends allow big investors extract value from successful companies without damaging their long-term shareholding .I would have guessed that that is quite important to long-term investors such as pension funds?
For a long-term investor, if you sell shares, you may have to buy them back later, and if the target company is successful that will probably be at a higher price.
And the Apple-clause should be invoked: few companies are as successful as Apple, and they are very atypical.
No, a large investor that sells some stock instead of taking a dividend will end up with the same value of stock (since what they still hold is worth more due to the lack of a dividend) so there's no need to buy anything back later.
Again, I am far from being an expert, but surely if you're an institutional investor you may have to buy some shares in the same company in the future? The number of companies that can be invested in (especially to a large amount) are rather limited, and the institutional investors have vast sums to invest.
The dividends give them a regular income whilst maintaining their holding in a company they believe will continue growing.
These aren't that bad for the Conservatives. None of the Labour leads are worth boasting about. Though I will point out (again) that Finchley & Golders Green is a great bet for Labour.
Also worthy of note: UKIP will be really disappointed in their tallies in Dover, Dudley South and Cleethorpes.
London appears to be the only place where we can be fairly sure that Labour are going to improve significantly on their 2010 showing. Recently, I have been wondering about Putney, where Labour were 20/1 the last time I looked. Yes, Justine Greening has a very big majority, but Labour have a decent candidate and they did hold the seat from 1997-2005. A long-shot indeed but it does seem to be within the bounds of possibility?
Putney has probably gentrified further in recent years, or at least not deteriorated demographically. Very much doubt Labour have a chance there.
I have now compared the ten Ashcroft marginals with my switching model.
Seven are in line. Three are not. These are:
Dover - where Lab is 7% less than my model and UKIP is 5% more. Con is in line. My interpretation is that UKIP is hitting Lab particularly hard in Dover.
Harlow - where Lab is 4% less than my model and Con is 3% higher. No obvious reason. I assume a particularly good Con candidate or campaign.
NE Somerset - where Lab is 11% less than my model and Con is 6% higher (and LD is 6% higher). This must be the Mogg effect and an ineffective LD squeeze. A Boris type situation??
Excluding NE Somerset, the average Con vote and Lab vote is within 1% of my model, The average LD vote is 3% higher than my model, UKIP 2% lower and Green 1% lower.
I'll now fine-tune my model, particularly my assumptions about LD switchers to UKIP and Green in non-LD marginals and see what the overall effect is. I suspect not a lot.
I have now compared the ten Ashcroft marginals with my switching model.
Seven are in line. Three are not. These are:
Dover - where Lab is 7% less than my model and UKIP is 5% more. Con is in line. My interpretation is that UKIP is hitting Lab particularly hard in Dover.
Harlow - where Lab is 4% less than my model and Con is 3% higher. No obvious reason. I assume a particularly good Con candidate or campaign.
NE Somerset - where Lab is 11% less than my model and Con is 6% higher (and LD is 6% higher). This must be the Mogg effect and an ineffective LD squeeze. A Boris type situation??
Excluding NE Somerset, the average Con vote and Lab vote is within 1% of my model, The average LD vote is 3% higher than my model, UKIP 2% lower and Green 1% lower.
I'll now fine-tune my model, particularly my assumptions about LD switchers to UKIP and Green in non-LD marginals and see what the overall effect is. I suspect not a lot.
As I suspected, moving votes between the minor parties changes their share of the vote but has zero effect on number of seats.
What I have found amusing over the last couple of days is the way that Osborne has been able to weaponise (to turn a phrase) the Tories' superior credibility about the economy. He has done this by promising apparently "unfunded" (I really resent the way all politicians use that word in the context of a £90bn deficit) additional spending.
This works both ways. Firstly, every time he is challenged about it it allows him to boast about his seriously impressive economic record and demonstrate that he is promising no more than he has already delivered over the last 5 years.
Secondly, when Labour and Ed Balls in particular are trying to be oh so grown up and responsible (fingers crossed behind their backs or otherwise) it has the delightful side effect of reducing them to spluttering incoherence like we saw yesterday. Labour still get shot down on their slightly fanciful if superficially more complete arithmetic and Osborne gets to say "we will find a way, again."
If he did not have the superior economic credibility he could not possibly get away with this but he does and he is using it to maximum effect.
Jo Co seemed to lose the plot slightly on yesterday's Daily Politics show, when interviewing Sajid Javid on this theme. The Daily Mirror are this morning reporting it as a car crash for Javid, but to some extent Jo Co was drawing false parallels. Essentially, her line was you promised to get rid of the deficit, and didn't, so why should we believe you on the NHS. Javid kept saying that the Tories had delivered on the NHS and would continue to do so, whilst Jo Co wore herself ragged trying to suggest otherwise. The 11 minute interview commences at 46.30 here...
Jo Co and everyone in the media misses the point about the 'deficit' and to correct them on the spot merely confuses more. The tories aim was to eliminate the structural deficit. This turned out to be bigger. So they admitted to taking longer to reduce it rather than cripple us all with more cuts 'for idealogical reasons'. Far from being a defeat or a failure or a broken promise, it shows the tories are not cutting for cuts sake they are not blind to the consequences of cuts, in short they are not what the opposition pain them.
Jo Co seems to think that filling the defict comes from Osborne's own back pocket. Hard for her to think that in fact the spending is on us and the money for it has to come from us.
His Lordship's polling was done before yesterday's pathetic effort by Labour to claim some economic credibility. Their Manifesto launch was risible.
They have got three weeks of pain ahead, as it becomes crystal clear that Labour hasn't got anything approaching a coherent approach to running the economy.
Well you are correct there. Labour have had nothing to do for 5 years except plan a manifesto launch and their economics gets savaged by the IFS for being meaningless. They produce an 'ordinary' docker supporting it, who turns out to be a raving rioting leftie. They get Burnham saying that the NHS actually does not need any more money, despite an official report to the contrary - but then criticise the tories for promising to actually spend more! They get Balls demolishing Murphy's campaign (or vice versa take your pick). All this after their non dom plans 'all went pear shaped'. And thats before you consider what their other 'normal' socialist policies are. As the WSJ says - ''Too much taxing and spending, too little economic growth.'' Has anyone actually looked at labour's barmy spending plans or their even more barmy priorities? Not least their promise to balkanise England to keep it weak and voiceless compared to Scotland. Old Labour rides again - they have even brought back the striking dockers...
Comments
Bad news for Con:That means 1 in 2 seats requiring 5 % swing are open for Labour.
Also worthy of note: UKIP will be really disappointed in their tallies in Dover, Dudley South and Cleethorpes.
2-5
Bet365's prices are correct.
Present adult rate £6.50 x 40 hrs x 52 = £13,520
Has anyone calculated the average swing ?
More seriously, find other seats with UKIP in the 4/1-8/1 range and there'll almost certainly be some value on one of the big two.
Modigliani and Miller.
EICINPIPM.
There does seem to be a Bristol effect where the Tories are doing very well in that general area: Kingswood, Bristol NW, NE Somerset.
Regional picture remains the same. Labour thriving in NW and London, but making no progress with Essex man and Kent Man. Also, continuing to lose ground in the west country.
Milton Keynes S is a good poll for Labour though.
I'm having real difficulty reconciling the S/SE/SW subsamples (very big swings to Lab) in the national polls with the marginals.
Early in the morning though.
They have got three weeks of pain ahead, as it becomes crystal clear that Labour hasn't got anything approaching a coherent approach to running the economy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05rj5c7/daily-politics-13042015
Its airport is growing and there are now 12 daily coaches to and from the airport to Cardiff.
It is the economic centre for the SW and for near S Wales.
The dividends give them a regular income whilst maintaining their holding in a company they believe will continue growing.
Seven are in line. Three are not. These are:
Dover - where Lab is 7% less than my model and UKIP is 5% more. Con is in line. My interpretation is that UKIP is hitting Lab particularly hard in Dover.
Harlow - where Lab is 4% less than my model and Con is 3% higher. No obvious reason. I assume a particularly good Con candidate or campaign.
NE Somerset - where Lab is 11% less than my model and Con is 6% higher (and LD is 6% higher). This must be the Mogg effect and an ineffective LD squeeze. A Boris type situation??
Excluding NE Somerset, the average Con vote and Lab vote is within 1% of my model, The average LD vote is 3% higher than my model, UKIP 2% lower and Green 1% lower.
I'll now fine-tune my model, particularly my assumptions about LD switchers to UKIP and Green in non-LD marginals and see what the overall effect is. I suspect not a lot.
My current predictions are:
... vote share ...seats
Con .. 34.6% ... 255
Lab .. 34.3% ... 284
LD .. 10.7% ... 33
UKIP ... 11.8% ...2
Grn .. 4.2% ... 1
SNP .. 3.8% ...54
The tories aim was to eliminate the structural deficit. This turned out to be bigger. So they admitted to taking longer to reduce it rather than cripple us all with more cuts 'for idealogical reasons'.
Far from being a defeat or a failure or a broken promise, it shows the tories are not cutting for cuts sake they are not blind to the consequences of cuts, in short they are not what the opposition pain them.
Jo Co seems to think that filling the defict comes from Osborne's own back pocket. Hard for her to think that in fact the spending is on us and the money for it has to come from us.
Labour have had nothing to do for 5 years except plan a manifesto launch and their economics gets savaged by the IFS for being meaningless. They produce an 'ordinary' docker supporting it, who turns out to be a raving rioting leftie. They get Burnham saying that the NHS actually does not need any more money, despite an official report to the contrary - but then criticise the tories for promising to actually spend more! They get Balls demolishing Murphy's campaign (or vice versa take your pick). All this after their non dom plans 'all went pear shaped'. And thats before you consider what their other 'normal' socialist policies are. As the WSJ says - ''Too much taxing and spending, too little economic growth.''
Has anyone actually looked at labour's barmy spending plans or their even more barmy priorities? Not least their promise to balkanise England to keep it weak and voiceless compared to Scotland.
Old Labour rides again - they have even brought back the striking dockers...