Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Stand by for this morning seat polling from Lord Ashcroft

2»

Comments

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    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.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    I'm the right side of the Ashcroft in Finchley and the wrong side in Crewe but I think I'll keep those as is.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Cameron setting out manifesto at 11am.
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    These are Labour target seats 70-90.

    Bad news for Con:That means 1 in 2 seats requiring 5 % swing are open for Labour.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,137
    Rough calc: average swing Con to Lab is 4.3%. Seems enough for EICIPM to me.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    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?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    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.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,137

    Moggster for PM starts here.

    No, no, make him Party Chairman. He'd be on Radio 4 every other day explaining how the stagecoach service could be improved.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    You can get 2-5 on Mogg at SkyBet right now.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @skynewsniall: Craig Oliver briefs T manifesto launch - contains two new policies, previously unannounced, to help "working people" http://t.co/5uKOHJpkLf
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    So Labour pickup three but all within moe and Con likely to gain further by the time votes are cast.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Plato said:

    Does the £12500 tax threshold take all [using normal working hours] minimum wage earners out of tax completely?

    Not quite.

    Present adult rate £6.50 x 40 hrs x 52 = £13,520

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Even on the 7 seats where Labour is not winning, the swings are towards Labour.

    Has anyone calculated the average swing ?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,137

    The Mogg has done well in NE Somerset.

    All the rest well within MoE, except Dover and Harlow.

    Looks like Greens may be helping him (+7%).
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,949
    antifrank said:

    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.
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    FalseFlag said:

    So Labour pickup three but all within moe and Con likely to gain further by the time votes are cast.

    Like swingback?
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Pulpstar said:

    You can get 2-5 on Mogg at SkyBet right now.

    They've moved Dudley South the wrong way!

    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.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Austin Mitchell's standing down this time isn't he?

    antifrank said:

    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.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    Rough calc: average swing Con to Lab is 4.3%. Seems enough for EICIPM to me.

    EICINPIPM
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    SMukesh said:

    These are Labour target seats 70-90.

    Bad news for Con:That means 1 in 2 seats requiring 5 % swing are open for Labour.

    Nicola Sturgeon won't be liking this.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,137
    surbiton said:

    Even on the 7 seats where Labour is not winning, the swings are towards Labour.

    Has anyone calculated the average swing ?

    3.5% by my reckoning. But its early in the day.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,067
    FalseFlag said:

    So Labour pickup three but all within moe and Con likely to gain further by the time votes are cast.

    With these results EICIPM comforatably. Right-wingers need to get their heads of the sky. Poor set of marginal polls for you lot...
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708

    Indigo said:

    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.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415

    Pulpstar said:

    You can get 2-5 on Mogg at SkyBet right now.

    They've moved Dudley South the wrong way!

    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.
    I've backed the Mogg for a Ton and Dover for £20 off the back of these ;)
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    edited April 2015
    JackW said:

    Plato said:

    Does the £12500 tax threshold take all [using normal working hours] minimum wage earners out of tax completely?

    Not quite.

    Present adult rate £6.50 x 40 hrs x 52 = £13,520

    Income Taxes (note plural) will be around £900 for such individuals.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801

    Indigo said:

    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.
    Taxes, transaction costs.

    Modigliani and Miller.
  • New Thread
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    Labour must be picking up virtually all the ethnic non jewish vote in London given that JC poll.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    surbiton said:

    SMukesh said:

    These are Labour target seats 70-90.

    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.

    EICINPIPM.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited April 2015
    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.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Dair said:

    JackW said:

    Plato said:

    Does the £12500 tax threshold take all [using normal working hours] minimum wage earners out of tax completely?

    Not quite.

    Present adult rate £6.50 x 40 hrs x 52 = £13,520

    Income Taxes (note plural) will be around £900 for such individuals.
    Another factor is the expected NMW rate rise to £8 that will clearly attract further tax.

  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    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.
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    Tick tock.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546

    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.

  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331
    antifrank said:

    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?
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    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.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    edited April 2015
    Sean_F said:

    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.

    42/10 4.2

    Early in the morning though.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,949
    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.
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    DavidL said:

    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...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05rj5c7/daily-politics-13042015
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    AndyJS said:

    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.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,500

    Indigo said:

    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.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801

    antifrank said:

    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.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,680
    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.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,680
    Barnesian said:

    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.

    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

  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Gadfly said:

    DavidL said:

    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...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05rj5c7/daily-politics-13042015
    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.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012

    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...
This discussion has been closed.