politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The seats down for CON hold are where there’s the least amo

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The seats down for CON hold are where there’s the least amount of 2010 LD to LAB switching

For the past four years my analysis of GE15 has been that 2010 LD voters in the marginals were likely to be a main driving force. In 2010 they represented nearly one in four of all GB votes. Now the party had been polling only a fraction of that. Where would those votes move?

Read the full story here

Ishmael_X

1

Casino_Royale

The UKIP defectors are almost as important.

Gadfly

Moving average chart of the 100 most recent YouGov polls. Click to enlarge...

david_herdson

FPT:

asjohnstone said:

david_herdson said:

True, ratification wouldn't be complete within two years but there's no reason there can't be something agreed and signed on within that time.

Could you have a referendum on that basis ? What happens if someone, like Greece, refuses to ratifiy?

I don't see the problem with having a referendum based on a signed treaty. The prospect of a foreign government willingly opting not to ratify a treaty it had signed is not a realistic one (there is a possibility of a new government not ratifying a treaty a previous one had signed, as - ironically - would have been the case here had Lisbon not already been in place by 2010).

If another country fails to ratify despite its government's efforts (with no prospect of a re-run as in Ireland or Denmark in the past), then there would be an irrevocable swing towards exit within the Conservative Party. Cameron's position as leader would depend on whether or not he chose to join that movement.

Philip_Thompson

Casino_Royale said:

The UKIP defectors are almost as important.

Are they?

In 2010 3.1% voted for UKIP (and a further 1.9% for the BNP who seem to have largely switched to UKIP). 23.0% voted LD.
According to the BBC Poll of Polls UKIP are now on 14% and LD's are on 9%

That means that 14% of the electorate are ex-LD and 11% are new-UKIP (9% if you assign BNP->UKIP).

Though of course its over-simplistic to think of UKIP as "blues on holiday" or disappearing yellows as now reds.

Indigo

david_herdson said:

FPT:

asjohnstone said:

david_herdson said:

True, ratification wouldn't be complete within two years but there's no reason there can't be something agreed and signed on within that time.

Could you have a referendum on that basis ? What happens if someone, like Greece, refuses to ratifiy?

I don't see the problem with having a referendum based on a signed treaty. The prospect of a foreign government willingly opting not to ratify a treaty it had signed is not a realistic one (there is a possibility of a new government not ratifying a treaty a previous one had signed, as - ironically - would have been the case here had Lisbon not already been in place by 2010).

If another country fails to ratify despite its government's efforts (with no prospect of a re-run as in Ireland or Denmark in the past), then there would be an irrevocable swing towards exit within the Conservative Party. Cameron's position as leader would depend on whether or not he chose to join that movement.

In a number of countries ratification would be by referendum, so the Irish government, or the French government might sign the treaty, and then their population refuses to pass the referendum.

SouthamObserver

How many of the Con Holds were Labour prior to the last election? Is it all of them?

Philip_Thompson

david_herdson said:

FPT:

asjohnstone said:

david_herdson said:

True, ratification wouldn't be complete within two years but there's no reason there can't be something agreed and signed on within that time.

Could you have a referendum on that basis ? What happens if someone, like Greece, refuses to ratifiy?

I don't see the problem with having a referendum based on a signed treaty. The prospect of a foreign government willingly opting not to ratify a treaty it had signed is not a realistic one (there is a possibility of a new government not ratifying a treaty a previous one had signed, as - ironically - would have been the case here had Lisbon not already been in place by 2010).

If another country fails to ratify despite its government's efforts (with no prospect of a re-run as in Ireland or Denmark in the past), then there would be an irrevocable swing towards exit within the Conservative Party. Cameron's position as leader would depend on whether or not he chose to join that movement.

Another nation failing to ratify would be akin to Ireland repeatedly (told to do it again) or France and the Netherlands failing to ratify the Constitution (rename it and start again). I'm not sure if there would be a move to exit considering the public had voted in, there'd probably on the track record be a second renegotiation with a second UK referendum.

You don't hold a referendum after ratification, that doesn't happen. Referendums always happen before ratification, that's why a Lisbon referendum was a non-starter after Brown cancelled the election and ratified it.

david_herdson

Indigo said:

david_herdson said:

FPT:

asjohnstone said:

david_herdson said:

True, ratification wouldn't be complete within two years but there's no reason there can't be something agreed and signed on within that time.

Could you have a referendum on that basis ? What happens if someone, like Greece, refuses to ratifiy?

I don't see the problem with having a referendum based on a signed treaty. The prospect of a foreign government willingly opting not to ratify a treaty it had signed is not a realistic one (there is a possibility of a new government not ratifying a treaty a previous one had signed, as - ironically - would have been the case here had Lisbon not already been in place by 2010).

If another country fails to ratify despite its government's efforts (with no prospect of a re-run as in Ireland or Denmark in the past), then there would be an irrevocable swing towards exit within the Conservative Party. Cameron's position as leader would depend on whether or not he chose to join that movement.

In a number of countries ratification would be by referendum, so the Irish government, or the French government might sign the treaty, and then their population refuses to pass the referendum.

Yes, that is a risk but the comment I was responding to was yours imagining "France saying they are not remotely interested in ratifying a treaty that caters only to British interests, and Poland saying they will not ratify any treaty that restricts access to benefits to non-nationals". If those governments held that view, then they would not sign at all. If they have signed, then the assumption must be that they're willing to try to ratify it. (And if they don't sign, Cameron would have the options then of leading the Out campaign, calling a new general election, or resigning as PM).

Sean_F

SouthamObserver said:

How many of the Con Holds were Labour prior to the last election? Is it all of them?

Yes. Although Ashcroft has Labour ahead by 4% in Croydon Central, which the Conservatives won in 2005.

NickPalmer

I've been keeping a careful eye on the "Red Liberal" fiogure in YouGov and elsewhere over recent months. The figure for a long time was that 30-odd% of 2010 LibDems (excluding don't knows) were switching to Labour. That fell to the mid-20s for a while, and it's now generally back over 30.

Continuing FPT: although it's right that Maastricht was concluded speedily, that's because there was a general consensus that everyone wanted it. I'm not sure that it's generally realised in Britain, or even on PB, that the idea that a big new treaty is desirable any time soon is a British concept which has completely failed to make progress. Nobody is discussing a major new treaty anywhere in Europe that I've spotted, and I read a lot of Continental media in the original. There will be a need for a routine revision near the end of the decade: anything beyond that will need to be sold to 27 dubious partners. Many of them view the idea as an internal device aimed at satisfying the British Conservative Party: they are merely too polite to say so very often.

The position is like a man with 27 wives who wants to agree an open relationship with all of them. Some might like it, some not, but really it's going to take a long time. I actually doubt if anything substantive will be agreed by 2020, let alone 2017, and it's quite possible that there won't be a serious discussion of a major treaty revision at all.

That's one reason a Tory government in 2015-20 would be such an excruciating experience - five years of grumbling and bitching about something that isn't happening.

Philip_Thompson

david_herdson said:

Indigo said:

david_herdson said:

FPT:

asjohnstone said:

david_herdson said:

True, ratification wouldn't be complete within two years but there's no reason there can't be something agreed and signed on within that time.

Could you have a referendum on that basis ? What happens if someone, like Greece, refuses to ratifiy?

I don't see the problem with having a referendum based on a signed treaty. The prospect of a foreign government willingly opting not to ratify a treaty it had signed is not a realistic one (there is a possibility of a new government not ratifying a treaty a previous one had signed, as - ironically - would have been the case here had Lisbon not already been in place by 2010).

If another country fails to ratify despite its government's efforts (with no prospect of a re-run as in Ireland or Denmark in the past), then there would be an irrevocable swing towards exit within the Conservative Party. Cameron's position as leader would depend on whether or not he chose to join that movement.

In a number of countries ratification would be by referendum, so the Irish government, or the French government might sign the treaty, and then their population refuses to pass the referendum.

Yes, that is a risk but the comment I was responding to was yours imagining "France saying they are not remotely interested in ratifying a treaty that caters only to British interests, and Poland saying they will not ratify any treaty that restricts access to benefits to non-nationals". If those governments held that view, then they would not sign at all. If they have signed, then the assumption must be that they're willing to try to ratify it. (And if they don't sign, Cameron would have the options then of leading the Out campaign, calling a new general election, or resigning as PM).

Surely he'd also have a fourth option of begrudgingly leading the In campaign? It's very unlikely but its a possibility.

Either way if Cameron stays as PM we have the possibility of a renegotiation and a commitment to a referendum.
If Miliband becomes PM we have the commitment not to have a referendum.

If you want one the choice couldn't be simpler.

DavidL

Morning all. One of Osborne's many talents is that he very rarely makes the same mistake twice. Every budget and statement since the pasty nonsense has been far more carefully road tested for example.

What he has obviously concluded from 2010 is that being straight with the British people and telling them what it is really going to be like goes down like a cup of cold sick. They would rather live in a fantasy land where money is available for all their pet indulgences and any penalties are only paid by those richer than the voter who is being spoken to.

So that is what he has provided. And it does seem to be popular. Labour must be as sick as the proverbial parrot about this manoeuvre. Shame.

edmundintokyo

david_herdson said:

FPT:

asjohnstone said:

david_herdson said:

True, ratification wouldn't be complete within two years but there's no reason there can't be something agreed and signed on within that time.

Could you have a referendum on that basis ? What happens if someone, like Greece, refuses to ratifiy?

I don't see the problem with having a referendum based on a signed treaty. The prospect of a foreign government willingly opting not to ratify a treaty it had signed is not a realistic one (there is a possibility of a new government not ratifying a treaty a previous one had signed, as - ironically - would have been the case here had Lisbon not already been in place by 2010).

If another country fails to ratify despite its government's efforts (with no prospect of a re-run as in Ireland or Denmark in the past), then there would be an irrevocable swing towards exit within the Conservative Party. Cameron's position as leader would depend on whether or not he chose to join that movement.

If it was just a quick thing with concessions for the UK only then no opposition-controlled body would ratify. They'd all say their own country was getting screwed by failing to achieve their own country's demands of X, Y and Z. Likewise the opposition campaigns in referendums.

YBarddCwsc

I have always been slightly suspicious of OGH's argument --- as our OGH so obviously falls into the category of a 2010 LibDem voting in a tight Lab/Con marginal. It is always nice to feel that ones vote, and the votes of like-minded people, are absolutely crucial to the outcome.

I would have been much more convinced if OGH’s argument had been put forward by a dyed-in the-wool Tory or Labour voter.

There is of course a well-known tendency of everyone to be somewhat self-serving -- in the nicest possible way.

Casino_Royale said:

The UKIP defectors are almost as important.

Hence, UKIP defectors consider themselves to be the most important.

My take is that nothing & no-one in this election is likely to be important -- other than Scotland & ex-SLAB voters.

If the SNP really do manage to destroy SLAB, it will be a truly extraordinary achievement. It will be the defining moment of not just the election --- but also the next 5 to 10 years, and the future of the UK as a country.

Of all Miliband’s failings, it is his failings in Scotland (because he has presided over catastrophe after catastrophe) that look likely to have the longest & most devastating impact.

Indigo

Philip_Thompson said:

david_herdson said:

Indigo said:

david_herdson said:

FPT:

asjohnstone said:

david_herdson said:

True, ratification wouldn't be complete within two years but there's no reason there can't be something agreed and signed on within that time.

Could you have a referendum on that basis ? What happens if someone, like Greece, refuses to ratifiy?

I don't see the problem with having a referendum based on a signed treaty. The prospect of a foreign government willingly opting not to ratify a treaty it had signed is not a realistic one (there is a possibility of a new government not ratifying a treaty a previous one had signed, as - ironically - would have been the case here had Lisbon not already been in place by 2010).

If another country fails to ratify despite its government's efforts (with no prospect of a re-run as in Ireland or Denmark in the past), then there would be an irrevocable swing towards exit within the Conservative Party. Cameron's position as leader would depend on whether or not he chose to join that movement.

In a number of countries ratification would be by referendum, so the Irish government, or the French government might sign the treaty, and then their population refuses to pass the referendum.

Yes, that is a risk but the comment I was responding to was yours imagining "France saying they are not remotely interested in ratifying a treaty that caters only to British interests, and Poland saying they will not ratify any treaty that restricts access to benefits to non-nationals". If those governments held that view, then they would not sign at all. If they have signed, then the assumption must be that they're willing to try to ratify it. (And if they don't sign, Cameron would have the options then of leading the Out campaign, calling a new general election, or resigning as PM).

Surely he'd also have a fourth option of begrudgingly leading the In campaign? It's very unlikely but its a possibility.

Either way if Cameron stays as PM we have the possibility of a renegotiation and a commitment to a referendum.
If Miliband becomes PM we have the commitment not to have a referendum.

If you want one the choice couldn't be simpler.

This canard again. It depends. Voting for Cameron in Heywood and Middleton or a range of Northern suburban constituencies will get you neither a Tory government nor a referendum, voting kipper might get you one or both.

Freggles

Gadfly said:

Moving average chart of the 100 most recent YouGov polls. Click to enlarge...

Broken, sleazy, irresponsible, slippery Tories on the slide.

bigjohnowls

YBarddCwsc said:

I have always been slightly suspicious of OGH's argument --- as our OGH so obviously falls into the category of a 2010 LibDem voting in a tight Lab/Con marginal. It is always nice to feel that ones vote, and the votes of like-minded people, are absolutely crucial to the outcome.

I would have been much more convinced if OGH’s argument had been put forward by a dyed-in the-wool Tory or Labour voter.

There is of course a well-known tendency of everyone to be somewhat self-serving -- in the nicest possible way.

Casino_Royale said:

The UKIP defectors are almost as important.

Hence, UKIP defectors consider themselves to be the most important.

My take is that nothing & no-one in this election is likely to be important -- other than Scotland & ex-SLAB voters.

If the SNP really do manage to destroy SLAB, it will be a truly extraordinary achievement. It will be the defining moment of not just the election --- but also the next 5 to 10 years, and the future of the UK as a country.

Of all Miliband’s failings, it is his failings in Scotland (because he has presided over catastrophe after catastrophe) that look likely to have the longest & most devastating impact.

Thought he had vote swapped to a LD/CON marginal

lolandol

Nick Palmer
Not sure those figures are correct as they ignore Don't Knows and WNV, e.g. today's YG has 30% 2010LD going to Labour but that's 30% of 81% as 19% DK/WNV. So today is 24.3% of 2010 LD's.

TheScreamingEagles

Apologies for linking to Guido but

@GuidoFawkes: LOL at the Moment Miliband Realises Tory Has Made Fool of Him [VIDEO] http://t.co/hgkptECa2y http://t.co/CblkcWVtrm

Fenster

DavidL said:

Morning all. One of Osborne's many talents is that he very rarely makes the same mistake twice. Every budget and statement since the pasty nonsense has been far more carefully road tested for example.

What he has obviously concluded from 2010 is that being straight with the British people and telling them what it is really going to be like goes down like a cup of cold sick. They would rather live in a fantasy land where money is available for all their pet indulgences and any penalties are only paid by those richer than the voter who is being spoken to.

So that is what he has provided. And it does seem to be popular. Labour must be as sick as the proverbial parrot about this manoeuvre. Shame.

I agree.

Talking of austerity last time round probably felt all grown-up but scared people to death. Austerity? People who were old enough to remember post WW2 would remember real austerity. The past five years have been nothing of the sort. I live in a constituency considered to be on the poverty line. It's really not that bad and although post-2008 has been marginally tougher it hasn't been austere by any means. I know a lot of youngsters (through rugby) and they all have cars, Iphones, Netflix and plenty of heavy weekends. They live the dream.

Osborne could probably cut just as much over the next five years and dress-it up as the roaring twenties. It'll be more popular and have the same end result.

He's lived and learned. And he's never going to convince the militant lefty, bedroom tax, people-committing-suicide-at-the-mere-sight-of-a-Tory brigade anyway.

lolandol

Nick Palmer
Apologies, see you said excluding DK's, but I think 25% overall is a more realistic figure so around 6% of electorate.

DavidL

The key on EU renegotiation from Cameron's POV seems to be social security reform limiting entitlement to non EU nationals until they have put something into our particular pot. This is pretty popular in Germany for example and may not even require Treaty change, simply revisal of the complex regulations and directives that currently control that entitlement.

From my POV the position is more complex. I see the EZ gradually becoming a more cohesive bloc (probably ex Greece) who will need to integrate fiscal policy with monetary policy to work effectively. That will require a degree of integration greater than anything seen to date. It is also going to make that bloc more likely to vote as one overriding the interests of those not in it (principally us) by QMV. If we are to remain in the EU we need to find ways of facilitating that integration whilst at the same time protecting outsiders like us from being taken advantage of.

In short we need to accept that the creation of the Euro was a step change in the EU which requires the creation of EU heavy and EU light. Getting the details of that sort of deal sorted out by 2017 seems to me optimistic but it has been obvious for some years now that this is a problem on both sides of the fence and I am not sure I agree with Nick that no progress has been made.

It is yet another real world problem that Labour seems to have nothing to say about.

TheScreamingEagles

Times/YouGov poll

In an exclusive YouGov poll for Red Box, I asked: "Labour's manifesto says that 'Every policy in this manifesto is paid for. Not one commitment requires additional borrowing.' What do you think about this?"

We offered three options to choose from: 20 per cent chose "Labour means this and in government will keep its promise​". Some 47 per cent thought "Labour means this now but would not in practice be able to keep its promise"​. Just 17 per cent thought "Labour doesn't mean this​".

Philip_Thompson

Indigo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

david_herdson said:

Indigo said:

david_herdson said:

FPT:

asjohnstone said:

david_herdson said:

True, ratification wouldn't be complete within two years but there's no reason there can't be something agreed and signed on within that time.

Could you have a referendum on that basis ? What happens if someone, like Greece, refuses to ratifiy?

I don't see the problem with having a referendum based on a signed treaty. The prospect of a foreign government willingly opting not to ratify a treaty it had signed is not a realistic one (there is a possibility of a new government not ratifying a treaty a previous one had signed, as - ironically - would have been the case here had Lisbon not already been in place by 2010).

If another country fails to ratify despite its government's efforts (with no prospect of a re-run as in Ireland or Denmark in the past), then there would be an irrevocable swing towards exit within the Conservative Party. Cameron's position as leader would depend on whether or not he chose to join that movement.

In a number of countries ratification would be by referendum, so the Irish government, or the French government might sign the treaty, and then their population refuses to pass the referendum.

Yes, that is a risk but the comment I was responding to was yours imagining "France saying they are not remotely interested in ratifying a treaty that caters only to British interests, and Poland saying they will not ratify any treaty that restricts access to benefits to non-nationals". If those governments held that view, then they would not sign at all. If they have signed, then the assumption must be that they're willing to try to ratify it. (And if they don't sign, Cameron would have the options then of leading the Out campaign, calling a new general election, or resigning as PM).

Surely he'd also have a fourth option of begrudgingly leading the In campaign? It's very unlikely but its a possibility.

Either way if Cameron stays as PM we have the possibility of a renegotiation and a commitment to a referendum.
If Miliband becomes PM we have the commitment not to have a referendum.

If you want one the choice couldn't be simpler.

This canard again. It depends. Voting for Cameron in Heywood and Middleton or a range of Northern suburban constituencies will get you neither a Tory government nor a referendum, voting kipper might get you one or both.

Re-read what I wrote. I never said "voting for Cameron" I said "if Cameron stays as PM". Do you still dispute what I wrote?

Slackbladder

TheScreamingEagles said:

Apologies for linking to Guido but

@GuidoFawkes: LOL at the Moment Miliband Realises Tory Has Made Fool of Him [VIDEO] http://t.co/hgkptECa2y http://t.co/CblkcWVtrm

Suprised they let anyone unvetted that close to Miliband.

I guess the asumption that they made was anyone ethnic must automatically be a labour voter...

That said I find the 'getting the x vote for us' distateful. Everyone is an individual.

Philip_Thompson

bigjohnowls said:

YBarddCwsc said:

I have always been slightly suspicious of OGH's argument --- as our OGH so obviously falls into the category of a 2010 LibDem voting in a tight Lab/Con marginal. It is always nice to feel that ones vote, and the votes of like-minded people, are absolutely crucial to the outcome.

I would have been much more convinced if OGH’s argument had been put forward by a dyed-in the-wool Tory or Labour voter.

There is of course a well-known tendency of everyone to be somewhat self-serving -- in the nicest possible way.

Casino_Royale said:

The UKIP defectors are almost as important.

Hence, UKIP defectors consider themselves to be the most important.

My take is that nothing & no-one in this election is likely to be important -- other than Scotland & ex-SLAB voters.

If the SNP really do manage to destroy SLAB, it will be a truly extraordinary achievement. It will be the defining moment of not just the election --- but also the next 5 to 10 years, and the future of the UK as a country.

Of all Miliband’s failings, it is his failings in Scotland (because he has presided over catastrophe after catastrophe) that look likely to have the longest & most devastating impact.

Thought he had vote swapped to a LD/CON marginal

No you can only legally vote in your own constituency. He's voting in his own registered constituency, with a legally-unenforceable commitment by someone else to vote in the LD/CON marginal.

Sean_F

Casino_Royale said:

The UKIP defectors are almost as important.

If UKIP are on 10% or less, the Conservatives will be back in government. If they're on 13% or more, they won't be.

Ishmael_X

Freggles said:

Gadfly said:

Moving average chart of the 100 most recent YouGov polls. Click to enlarge...

Broken, sleazy, irresponsible, slippery Tories on the slide.

Broken self-selecting internet panel based polling on the slide.

[Deleted User]

Slackbladder said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Apologies for linking to Guido but

@GuidoFawkes: LOL at the Moment Miliband Realises Tory Has Made Fool of Him [VIDEO] http://t.co/hgkptECa2y http://t.co/CblkcWVtrm

Everyone is an individual.

I'm not.

DavidL

TheScreamingEagles said:

Times/YouGov poll

In an exclusive YouGov poll for Red Box, I asked: "Labour's manifesto says that 'Every policy in this manifesto is paid for. Not one commitment requires additional borrowing.' What do you think about this?"

We offered three options to choose from: 20 per cent chose "Labour means this and in government will keep its promise​". Some 47 per cent thought "Labour means this now but would not in practice be able to keep its promise"​. Just 17 per cent thought "Labour doesn't mean this​".

British people really do try to give others the benefit of the doubt even when the evidence is overwhelming. It is one of our more attractive features.

Slackbladder

Patrick said:

Slackbladder said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Apologies for linking to Guido but

@GuidoFawkes: LOL at the Moment Miliband Realises Tory Has Made Fool of Him [VIDEO] http://t.co/hgkptECa2y http://t.co/CblkcWVtrm

Everyone is an individual.

I'm not.

Very good

DavidL

Ishmael_X said:

Freggles said:

Gadfly said:

Moving average chart of the 100 most recent YouGov polls. Click to enlarge...

Broken, sleazy, irresponsible, slippery Tories on the slide.

Broken self-selecting internet panel based polling on the slide.

As I said the other day if ICM prove to be right the whole concept of internet polling using self selected panels is heading for that round shaped receptacle in the corner. The internet pollsters have a lot at stake in this election.

MarqueeMark

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

The UKIP defectors are almost as important.

If UKIP are on 10% or less, the Conservatives will be back in government. If they're on 13% or more, they won't be.

Sticking with my 9 point something...

Anecdote alert: we had a guy yesterday when out canvassing. He was out in his front garden, UKIP poster in the front window. He got a cheery smile anyway. His response?

"Yeah, I know I've got a UKIP poster, but I was thinking I'd vote for you lot anyway..."

Sean_F

Ishmael_X said:

Freggles said:

Gadfly said:

Moving average chart of the 100 most recent YouGov polls. Click to enlarge...

Broken, sleazy, irresponsible, slippery Tories on the slide.

Broken self-selecting internet panel based polling on the slide.

Since Easter, Yougov have shown a rise of about 1% in the Labour lead. I don't know if that's down to their new weightings.

Philip_Thompson

Freggles said:

Gadfly said:

Moving average chart of the 100 most recent YouGov polls. Click to enlarge...

Broken, sleazy, irresponsible, slippery Tories on the slide.

That seems to show in the last few polls Lab and UKIP flat with a swing from Tory to Green/LD.

Don't think so LOL. (Yes I know its more complicated underneath but that's odd).

TheScreamingEagles

DavidL said:

Ishmael_X said:

Freggles said:

Gadfly said:

Moving average chart of the 100 most recent YouGov polls. Click to enlarge...

Broken, sleazy, irresponsible, slippery Tories on the slide.

Broken self-selecting internet panel based polling on the slide.

As I said the other day if ICM prove to be right the whole concept of internet polling using self selected panels is heading for that round shaped receptacle in the corner. The internet pollsters have a lot at stake in this election.

I'm hopeful we'll get the Ipsos Mori Phone poll today.

AllyPally_Rob

TheScreamingEagles said:

Apologies for linking to Guido but

@GuidoFawkes: LOL at the Moment Miliband Realises Tory Has Made Fool of Him [VIDEO] http://t.co/hgkptECa2y http://t.co/CblkcWVtrm

Guido Fawkes was a decent website at one point, some interesting Westminster gossip ect. It seems to have turned into a poor man's Drudge Report now. The attacks on Miliband like this will backfire. If the Tories want to win this they are better doing what Cam did yesterday and offering a positive vision.

Sean_F

MarqueeMark said:

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

The UKIP defectors are almost as important.

If UKIP are on 10% or less, the Conservatives will be back in government. If they're on 13% or more, they won't be.

Sticking with my 9 point something...

Anecdote alert: we had a guy yesterday when out canvassing. He was out in his front garden, UKIP poster in the front window. He got a cheery smile anyway. His response?

"Yeah, I know I've got a UKIP poster, but I was thinking I'd vote for you lot anyway..."

As would I, if I lived in Torbay.

JonCisBack

Fenster said:

DavidL said:

Morning all. One of Osborne's many talents is that he very rarely makes the same mistake twice. Every budget and statement since the pasty nonsense has been far more carefully road tested for example.

What he has obviously concluded from 2010 is that being straight with the British people and telling them what it is really going to be like goes down like a cup of cold sick. They would rather live in a fantasy land where money is available for all their pet indulgences and any penalties are only paid by those richer than the voter who is being spoken to.

So that is what he has provided. And it does seem to be popular. Labour must be as sick as the proverbial parrot about this manoeuvre. Shame.

I agree.

Talking of austerity last time round probably felt all grown-up but scared people to death. Austerity? People who were old enough to remember post WW2 would remember real austerity. The past five years have been nothing of the sort. I live in a constituency considered to be on the poverty line. It's really not that bad and although post-2008 has been marginally tougher it hasn't been austere by any means. I know a lot of youngsters (through rugby) and they all have cars, Iphones, Netflix and plenty of heavy weekends. They live the dream.

Osborne could probably cut just as much over the next five years and dress-it up as the roaring twenties. It'll be more popular and have the same end result.

He's lived and learned. And he's never going to convince the militant lefty, bedroom tax, people-committing-suicide-at-the-mere-sight-of-a-Tory brigade anyway.

If you took a piece of paper and drew the government spending for 2010-11 as a first bar on a bar chart, then asked people to draw in bars representing what they thought they spending amount in £ was for the years between then and now, a lot of people would make the bars progressively smaller.

Of course, the opposite is true. Cash amount is in fact almost double in the latest year compared to 2000-01!!

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5326/economics/government-spending/

Funny kind of austerity.

DavidL

The Sporting Index mid points have moved again with the Tory lead up to 15, a big jump from 11.

I very much doubt this has anything to do with the manifestos and expect it is a somewhat delayed response to the ICM. If they are going to be that slow to respond to a major poll or event there has to be some betting opportunities there.

JohnO

Whoosh and the mods move with the speed of light to delete that naughty post about YouGov.

Can some kind patient poster once again explain that pollster's change in methodology and its rationale/logic (if any) for concentrating on Jan/Feb switchers or whatever they did! Yes, I am confused.

But, critically, does all this mean that YouGov's VI are now more questionable as a consequence compared to all the other polls be they internet or phone?

SMukesh

Ok.The Con's latest wheeze may shift a point or two in the polls but they are still likely to be toast.

If Miliband can produce something from the manifesto to excite his support(apart from minimum wage,am sick of it) he can gain some momentum,otherwise it is going to be neck and neck till the election.

ydoethur

SMukesh said:

Ok.The Con's latest wheeze may shift a point or two in the polls but they are still likely to be toast.

If Miliband can produce something from the manifesto to excite his support(apart from minimum wage,am sick of it) he can gain some momentum,otherwise it is going to be neck and neck till the election.

How's he supposed to do that, when he's already launched it? Monday was the moment to gain some momentum, and it doesn't appear to have happened.

Sean_F

JohnO said:

Whoosh and the mods move with the speed of light to delete that naughty post about YouGov.

Can some kind patient poster once again explain that pollster's change in methodology and its rationale/logic (if any) for concentrating on Jan/Feb switchers or whatever they did! Yes, I am confused.

But, critically, does all this mean that YouGov's VI are now more questionable as a consequence compared to all the other polls be they internet or phone?

On the face of it, if you weight to voting intention in Jan/Feb, rather than party I/D in 2010, I'd expect that to favour Labour.

Tabman

Philip_Thompson said:

bigjohnowls said:

YBarddCwsc said:

I have always been slightly suspicious of OGH's argument --- as our OGH so obviously falls into the category of a 2010 LibDem voting in a tight Lab/Con marginal. It is always nice to feel that ones vote, and the votes of like-minded people, are absolutely crucial to the outcome.

I would have been much more convinced if OGH’s argument had been put forward by a dyed-in the-wool Tory or Labour voter.

There is of course a well-known tendency of everyone to be somewhat self-serving -- in the nicest possible way.

Casino_Royale said:

The UKIP defectors are almost as important.

Hence, UKIP defectors consider themselves to be the most important.

My take is that nothing & no-one in this election is likely to be important -- other than Scotland & ex-SLAB voters.

If the SNP really do manage to destroy SLAB, it will be a truly extraordinary achievement. It will be the defining moment of not just the election --- but also the next 5 to 10 years, and the future of the UK as a country.

Of all Miliband’s failings, it is his failings in Scotland (because he has presided over catastrophe after catastrophe) that look likely to have the longest & most devastating impact.

Thought he had vote swapped to a LD/CON marginal

No you can only legally vote in your own constituency. He's voting in his own registered constituency, with a legally-unenforceable commitment by someone else to vote in the LD/CON marginal.

If that caught on it would be AV by the back door

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

I trust we're all looking forward to the big reveal today?

Yes, the fourth episode of Zodiac Eclipse will be up at Kraxon magazine!

Oh, and some Clegg chap will be announcing the Lib Dem manifesto.

Ishmael_X

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

Ishmael_X said:

Freggles said:

Gadfly said:

Moving average chart of the 100 most recent YouGov polls. Click to enlarge...

Broken, sleazy, irresponsible, slippery Tories on the slide.

Broken self-selecting internet panel based polling on the slide.

As I said the other day if ICM prove to be right the whole concept of internet polling using self selected panels is heading for that round shaped receptacle in the corner. The internet pollsters have a lot at stake in this election.

I'm hopeful we'll get the Ipsos Mori Phone poll today.

Yay!

The more pollsters you put in the "ignore" pile, the more interesting it gets to hear from the others.

DavidL

SMukesh said:

Ok.The Con's latest wheeze may shift a point or two in the polls but they are still likely to be toast.

If Miliband can produce something from the manifesto to excite his support(apart from minimum wage,am sick of it) he can gain some momentum,otherwise it is going to be neck and neck till the election.

I really have difficulty in seeing how any new policy announcement now that was not in the manifesto is going to come across as anything other than desperation and panic. The tories did it at the last election with Dave's guarantee of pensioner goodies and I am not sure it did them any good.

I think Ed Balls panicked when he thought that he was going to have to deliver the first draft and put the red pen through anything costing money. He must be infuriated at what the Tories have done and his boss will not be happy either.

TheScreamingEagles

JohnO said:

Whoosh and the mods move with the speed of light to delete that naughty post about YouGov.

Can some kind patient poster once again explain that pollster's change in methodology and its rationale/logic (if any) for concentrating on Jan/Feb switchers or whatever they did! Yes, I am confused.

But, critically, does all this mean that YouGov's VI are now more questionable as a consequence compared to all the other polls be they internet or phone?

They think 2015 will be like 2005.

They've moved from a 2010 voter ID weighting, to another, which I think would slightly favour Labour, but not that much.

We're going to find out in 3 weeks time, if they are right or wrong

YouGov are also returning to a method we successfully used in the 2005 general election. Our usual polling method relies upon weighting by party identification. However, for the campaign itself we will be drawing our daily polling samples from people who we previously contacted in January and February this year and weighting our data using how those people told us they were voting at that time (a period when the polls were broadly stable and Labour were, on average, slightly less than a point ahead).

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/04/08/labour-lead-2/

DavidL

Sean_F said:

JohnO said:

Whoosh and the mods move with the speed of light to delete that naughty post about YouGov.

Can some kind patient poster once again explain that pollster's change in methodology and its rationale/logic (if any) for concentrating on Jan/Feb switchers or whatever they did! Yes, I am confused.

But, critically, does all this mean that YouGov's VI are now more questionable as a consequence compared to all the other polls be they internet or phone?

On the face of it, if you weight to voting intention in Jan/Feb, rather than party I/D in 2010, I'd expect that to favour Labour.

If they are weighting don't knows back to a time when Labour had consistent leads I would agree. OTOH it may be that ICM's weighting back to 2010 gives the Tories an advantage they should not have given the Parliament is a full 5 years. Just another layer of uncertainty.

isam

20 odd days to go and negative canvassing reports still on zero

ydoethur

DavidL said:

SMukesh said:

Ok.The Con's latest wheeze may shift a point or two in the polls but they are still likely to be toast.

If Miliband can produce something from the manifesto to excite his support(apart from minimum wage,am sick of it) he can gain some momentum,otherwise it is going to be neck and neck till the election.

I really have difficulty in seeing how any new policy announcement now that was not in the manifesto is going to come across as anything other than desperation and panic. The tories did it at the last election with Dave's guarantee of pensioner goodies and I am not sure it did them any good.

I think Ed Balls panicked when he thought that he was going to have to deliver the first draft and put the red pen through anything costing money. He must be infuriated at what the Tories have done and his boss will not be happy either.

This is where we come back to the basic problem Labour has - they are still seen as a party that will blithely spend money they haven't got on things that are not needed without a thought for the consequences. Living through those consequences, people are now reluctant to take those risks. As a result, Miliband and Balls were quite right not to make any unfunded spending commitments. However, because the Conservatives are believed to be meaner than Henry VII on being told that he will have to pay a 10s bill in 10 years, they can get away with it.

It's this problem, far more than the perennial rumblings about leadership, that make it very difficult for Labour to win elections.

MarqueeMark

isam said:

20 odd days to go and negative canvassing reports still on zero

Because we have no SLAB posters who report back?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Isam, ha, reminds me of the news last night (and tonight, and on Monday). After the manifesto of each party the media is obliged to give other parties a rebuttal. But we all know they're not going to say "That was great, and has forced me to abandon my own wretched party and join this one instead". Every leader basically says "That's a load of crap."

Plato

Speaking of manifestos, here's a summary of the Tory one. Anyone have a Labour version?

The personal tax-free allowance raised to £12,500
No 40p tax until you're earning £50,000
The family home taken out of Inheritance Tax
£8 billion more a year for our NHS - so it's there for your family, 7 days a week
Rail fares frozen for five years
Welfare controlled to reward work
Multinationals pursued so they pay their tax
The Right to Buy extended to 1.3 million extra families
30 hours of free childcare a week for working families with 3 and 4 year-olds
Everyone earning the Minimum Wage lifted out of income tax altogether

JohnO

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnO said:

Whoosh and the mods move with the speed of light to delete that naughty post about YouGov.

Can some kind patient poster once again explain that pollster's change in methodology and its rationale/logic (if any) for concentrating on Jan/Feb switchers or whatever they did! Yes, I am confused.

But, critically, does all this mean that YouGov's VI are now more questionable as a consequence compared to all the other polls be they internet or phone?

They think 2015 will be like 2005.

They've moved from a 2010 voter ID weighting, to another, which I think would slightly favour Labour, but not that much.

We're going to find out in 3 weeks time, if they are right or wrong

YouGov are also returning to a method we successfully used in the 2005 general election. Our usual polling method relies upon weighting by party identification. However, for the campaign itself we will be drawing our daily polling samples from people who we previously contacted in January and February this year and weighting our data using how those people told us they were voting at that time (a period when the polls were broadly stable and Labour were, on average, slightly less than a point ahead).

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/04/08/labour-lead-2/

Many thanks (and to Sean) for the explanations. So YouGov are now only using those they contacted in January and February for their remaining polls until May 7th. I wonder how large that overall pool will be.

PS And how successful were YouGov in 2005 compared to their rivals. In 2010 they didn't do too badly, did they?

anotherDave

Sean_F said:

JohnO said:

Whoosh and the mods move with the speed of light to delete that naughty post about YouGov.

Can some kind patient poster once again explain that pollster's change in methodology and its rationale/logic (if any) for concentrating on Jan/Feb switchers or whatever they did! Yes, I am confused.

But, critically, does all this mean that YouGov's VI are now more questionable as a consequence compared to all the other polls be they internet or phone?

On the face of it, if you weight to voting intention in Jan/Feb, rather than party I/D in 2010, I'd expect that to favour Labour.

YouGov asked a party ID-ish question last week, that produced very similar numbers to the Party ID weights Populus uses.

"The kind of society it wants is broadly the kind of society I want

Con 29%, Lab 29%, LD 11%"

p.3
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/3wwffeujmb/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-090415.pdf

Populus Party ID weights
"Regardless of which party, if any, you are likely to end up voting for at the next General Election due in May 2015 or are leaning towards at the moment, which political party would you say you have usually most closely identified yourself with?"

Con 30%, Lab 30%, LD 10%, UKIP 6%

p.12
http://populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/OmOnline_Vote_13-04-2015_BPC.pdf

Alistair

MarqueeMark said:

isam said:

20 odd days to go and negative canvassing reports still on zero

Because we have no SLAB posters who report back?

SLAB canvassers go out but never return...

ydoethur

MarqueeMark said:

isam said:

20 odd days to go and negative canvassing reports still on zero

Because we have no SLAB posters who report back?

Are there any left?

Whatever the outcome, the story of this election looks set to be the final destruction of the Scottish Labour movement. It has effectively been replaced by the SNP as the progressive party, and certainly it has lost its reputation as the party that will help the ordinary people of Scotland.

There are some fascinating papers to be written in the next ten years on the reasons for it: Labour's corruption, its failures of leadership, maladministration at the local level, its arrogant disdain for its voters, the charisma of Salmond and the provocative government of the SNP - all of these could be considered.

Does perhaps offer opportunities for the Scottish Conservatives to rebrand themselves as the opposition to the SNP. There's certainly enough out there who would consider their policies if they could only shed the tarnishing of their image by Thatcher's ruthless disregard for Scotland's different needs:

http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/analysis/317160-analysis-stephen-daisley-on-public-support-for-the-benefits-cap/

But that's for the longer term. In the meanwhile, the SNP seem set to have a political hegemony north of the border for 5-10 years, maybe longer.

Pulpstar

Poster watch:

1 "Vote Labour" sign up in 'diverse' Darnall, zero election signs seen in WWC Killamarsh.

Certainly if Ed is going to get the core old Labour vote out it won't be with much enthusiasm !

Philip_Thompson

Plato said:

Speaking of manifestos, here's a summary of the Tory one. Anyone have a Labour version?

The personal tax-free allowance raised to £12,500
No 40p tax until you're earning £50,000
The family home taken out of Inheritance Tax
£8 billion more a year for our NHS - so it's there for your family, 7 days a week
Rail fares frozen for five years
Welfare controlled to reward work
Multinationals pursued so they pay their tax
The Right to Buy extended to 1.3 million extra families
30 hours of free childcare a week for working families with 3 and 4 year-olds
Everyone earning the Minimum Wage lifted out of income tax altogether

Yes we have from Labour

Bash the rich
Spend
Bash the rich
Spend
Bash the rich
Bash the rich
Bash the rich
Spend
Spend
Spend
We won't borrow - honest, trust us

Richard_Tyndall

david_herdson said:

FPT:

asjohnstone said:

david_herdson said:

True, ratification wouldn't be complete within two years but there's no reason there can't be something agreed and signed on within that time.

Could you have a referendum on that basis ? What happens if someone, like Greece, refuses to ratifiy?

I don't see the problem with having a referendum based on a signed treaty. The prospect of a foreign government willingly opting not to ratify a treaty it had signed is not a realistic one (there is a possibility of a new government not ratifying a treaty a previous one had signed, as - ironically - would have been the case here had Lisbon not already been in place by 2010).

If another country fails to ratify despite its government's efforts (with no prospect of a re-run as in Ireland or Denmark in the past), then there would be an irrevocable swing towards exit within the Conservative Party. Cameron's position as leader would depend on whether or not he chose to join that movement.

The problem there being there won't be a signed treaty - ratified or not - by 2017. According to Juncker there won't even be one by the end of the next Parliament.

chestnut

Yougov attracts so much attention because it polls so often. They're like a fog. If they polled at the same frequency as the rest (and Populus likewise) the picture might be a tad clearer:

ICM (phone): Con 39 Lab 33
Opinium (web): Con 36 Lab 34
Comres (phone): Con 34 Lab 33
TNS (web): Con 34 Lab 32
Ashcroft (phone) Con 33 Lab 33
Populus (web) Con 33 Lab 33
Ipsos (phone) Con 33 Lab 34
Yougov (web) Con 33 Lab 35
Comres (web) Con 33 Lab 35
Survation(web) Con 31 Lab 35
Panelbase (web) Con 31 Lab 37

TheScreamingEagles

JohnO said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnO said:

Whoosh and the mods move with the speed of light to delete that naughty post about YouGov.

Can some kind patient poster once again explain that pollster's change in methodology and its rationale/logic (if any) for concentrating on Jan/Feb switchers or whatever they did! Yes, I am confused.

But, critically, does all this mean that YouGov's VI are now more questionable as a consequence compared to all the other polls be they internet or phone?

They think 2015 will be like 2005.

They've moved from a 2010 voter ID weighting, to another, which I think would slightly favour Labour, but not that much.

We're going to find out in 3 weeks time, if they are right or wrong

YouGov are also returning to a method we successfully used in the 2005 general election. Our usual polling method relies upon weighting by party identification. However, for the campaign itself we will be drawing our daily polling samples from people who we previously contacted in January and February this year and weighting our data using how those people told us they were voting at that time (a period when the polls were broadly stable and Labour were, on average, slightly less than a point ahead).

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/04/08/labour-lead-2/

Many thanks (and to Sean) for the explanations. So YouGov are now only using those they contacted in January and February for their remaining polls until May 7th. I wonder how large that overall sample will be.

That sample is 100,000 strong.

JohnO

Richard_Tyndall said:

david_herdson said:

FPT:

asjohnstone said:

david_herdson said:

True, ratification wouldn't be complete within two years but there's no reason there can't be something agreed and signed on within that time.

Could you have a referendum on that basis ? What happens if someone, like Greece, refuses to ratifiy?

I don't see the problem with having a referendum based on a signed treaty. The prospect of a foreign government willingly opting not to ratify a treaty it had signed is not a realistic one (there is a possibility of a new government not ratifying a treaty a previous one had signed, as - ironically - would have been the case here had Lisbon not already been in place by 2010).

If another country fails to ratify despite its government's efforts (with no prospect of a re-run as in Ireland or Denmark in the past), then there would be an irrevocable swing towards exit within the Conservative Party. Cameron's position as leader would depend on whether or not he chose to join that movement.

The problem there being there won't be a signed treaty - ratified or not - by 2017. According to Juncker there won't even be one by the end of the next Parliament.

Ah, Richard, as you're back. Regarding our bet, I'm afraid I didn't register it with PtP but I'm sure he joined in the discussion at the time. My memory - it may be faulty - was that it was simply whether Cameron would be more 'right wing' by the time of the election, and that if we didn't agree between us, he would be the arbiter. I don't think it covered the outcome of the election itself.

NickPalmer

isam said:

20 odd days to go and negative canvassing reports still on zero

Well, my canvassing reports are basically no change for months. Win a few, lose a few, but basically it's "Hello again, yes, as I told you last autumn..." We're not storming ahead, we're not sliding back.

DavidL said:

If they are weighting don't knows back to a time when Labour had consistent leads I would agree. OTOH it may be that ICM's weighting back to 2010 gives the Tories an advantage they should not have given the Parliament is a full 5 years. Just another layer of uncertainty.

The YG weighting is to a period when the Labour lead was 0-1%. As that's been pretty typical of recent months, it seems reasonable to take it as a baseline. E.g. tonight's YG will show us the immediate impact of the Tory manifesto on a balanced group, and the following days will show if it lasts.

OblitusSumMe

JohnO said:

Can some kind patient poster once again explain that pollster's change in methodology and its rationale/logic (if any) for concentrating on Jan/Feb switchers or whatever they did! Yes, I am confused.

But, critically, does all this mean that YouGov's VI are now more questionable as a consequence compared to all the other polls be they internet or phone?

The stated rationale is that they know precisely what people's responses were to polls in January and February and they trust those polls as an accurate reflection of opinion across the country at that time. Therefore they can use it as a stable target against which to weight the samples for their polls now, which they believe is a better way of achieving a politically balanced sample than relying on past-vote recall for 2010, or party ID.

The problems with this are:

1. Were YouGov polls an accurate snapshot of public opinion in January and February? If they had systematic biases at that time then the new methodology has those systematic biases now, as well as potentially adding some more.

2. It reduces the size of the polling panel to roughly 60,000 people, some of whom will now be too busy with the garden to respond to YouGov surveys. I really don't think you can call the sample thus gained as random** in any meaningful sense of that word, though it partly depends on what the response rate is to an invite to complete a YouGov poll.

However, putting all that aside, bear in mind that His Lordship astutely pointed out that opinion polls in January/February tended to be a fairly good guide to the election result for recent elections, because by then people have largely made up their minds and the campaigns cancel out. If that's the case this time, than YouGov's new methodology will effectively be ensuring that they pretty closely follow their polling average for January/February, and therefore get about as close to the election result as their methodology at the time would allow.

As an aside I would also say that if the above sounds a bit harsh it is only because I regard the biggest problem with opinion polling is achieving a random sample, and because online polling is operated on an opt-in basis it is going to find that harder to achieve than with a phone sample. I'm surprised that they do as well as they do, really, and for that I must give them enormous credit for their efforts.

** By comparison, a journal editor wrote in EOS recently than the response rate to peer review requests was about 1-in-4 outside of Nature/Science, so if you assume the response rate for YouGov is equal to that then they will be sending out invites to their entire panel on average about once a week, or more often if people are less likely to respond to YouGov polls than peer review requests. This is almost as self-selecting as people who choose to reply to Nick Palmer's emails...

AlastairMeeks

Morning all, here are the latest Labour constituency seat markets, ranked by odds of them winning:

http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-labour-battleground-in-april-2015.html

I'll be going through each of the parties in turn this week for the final run-up to the election.

TheScreamingEagles

NickPalmer said:

isam said:

20 odd days to go and negative canvassing reports still on zero

Well, my canvassing reports are basically no change for months. Win a few, lose a few, but basically it's "Hello again, yes, as I told you last autumn..." We're not storming ahead, we're not sliding back.

DavidL said:

If they are weighting don't knows back to a time when Labour had consistent leads I would agree. OTOH it may be that ICM's weighting back to 2010 gives the Tories an advantage they should not have given the Parliament is a full 5 years. Just another layer of uncertainty.

The YG weighting is to a period when the Labour lead was 0-1%. As that's been pretty typical of recent months, it seems reasonable to take it as a baseline. E.g. tonight's YG will show us the immediate impact of the Tory manifesto on a balanced group, and the following days will show if it lasts.

I'm not expecting that, UKIP manifesto today, Farage in the debate tomorrow and no Dave.

Expect UKIP to hog the headlines, and UKIP generally do well, when they are visible in the media.

TheScreamingEagles

This is what Peter Kellner wrote in the Sunday Times this weekend

In fact, it has been neck-and-neck for six months. In order to achieve greater accuracy and minimise sampling fluctuations, YouGov has changed its methods for the final month of the campaign. Our starting point is the pool of more than 100,000 people we questioned in January and February. At the time we found an average Labour lead of less than 1%. So did an average of 54 polls conducted by other companies, even though individual surveys varied between a Labour lead of 7% and a Tory lead of 4%.

Starting last week, YouGov has been requestioning separate samples of at least 1,600 voters drawn from that initial 100,000-strong pool. This allows us to compare what they told us some weeks ago with what they say now. As a result we can be confident that any marked deviation from neck-and-neck will be real, and not a sampling wobble.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/04/12/parties-find-impossible-gain-edge/

Ishmael_X

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnO said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnO said:

Whoosh and the mods move with the speed of light to delete that naughty post about YouGov.

Can some kind patient poster once again explain that pollster's change in methodology and its rationale/logic (if any) for concentrating on Jan/Feb switchers or whatever they did! Yes, I am confused.

But, critically, does all this mean that YouGov's VI are now more questionable as a consequence compared to all the other polls be they internet or phone?

They think 2015 will be like 2005.

They've moved from a 2010 voter ID weighting, to another, which I think would slightly favour Labour, but not that much.

We're going to find out in 3 weeks time, if they are right or wrong

YouGov are also returning to a method we successfully used in the 2005 general election. Our usual polling method relies upon weighting by party identification. However, for the campaign itself we will be drawing our daily polling samples from people who we previously contacted in January and February this year and weighting our data using how those people told us they were voting at that time (a period when the polls were broadly stable and Labour were, on average, slightly less than a point ahead).

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/04/08/labour-lead-2/

Many thanks (and to Sean) for the explanations. So YouGov are now only using those they contacted in January and February for their remaining polls until May 7th. I wonder how large that overall sample will be.

That sample is 100,000 strong.

"Overall sample" is a weasel phrase, the sample is the people they put the question to on any given day. Actually they are now polling a population of 100 000.

foxinsoxuk

Richard_Tyndall said:

david_herdson said:

FPT:

asjohnstone said:

david_herdson said:

True, ratification wouldn't be complete within two years but there's no reason there can't be something agreed and signed on within that time.

Could you have a referendum on that basis ? What happens if someone, like Greece, refuses to ratifiy?

I don't see the problem with having a referendum based on a signed treaty. The prospect of a foreign government willingly opting not to ratify a treaty it had signed is not a realistic one (there is a possibility of a new government not ratifying a treaty a previous one had signed, as - ironically - would have been the case here had Lisbon not already been in place by 2010).

If another country fails to ratify despite its government's efforts (with no prospect of a re-run as in Ireland or Denmark in the past), then there would be an irrevocable swing towards exit within the Conservative Party. Cameron's position as leader would depend on whether or not he chose to join that movement.

The problem there being there won't be a signed treaty - ratified or not - by 2017. According to Juncker there won't even be one by the end of the next Parliament.

In which case the tory referendum is on current terms.

Poster count anecdote. The only one that I have seen in Leicester is a Tory one for the council (3 hindu candidates btw) and several Labour ones outside Keith Vaz's office. Apathy rules in Leicezter East!

Election address today from Labour candidate going on about A E waiting (LRI performance much better over last two years). No picture of either Ed.

MarqueeMark

ydoethur said:

MarqueeMark said:

isam said:

20 odd days to go and negative canvassing reports still on zero

Because we have no SLAB posters who report back?

Are there any left?

Whatever the outcome, the story of this election looks set to be the final destruction of the Scottish Labour movement. It has effectively been replaced by the SNP as the progressive party, and certainly it has lost its reputation as the party that will help the ordinary people of Scotland.

There are some fascinating papers to be written in the next ten years on the reasons for it: Labour's corruption, its failures of leadership, maladministration at the local level, its arrogant disdain for its voters, the charisma of Salmond and the provocative government of the SNP - all of these could be considered.

Does perhaps offer opportunities for the Scottish Conservatives to rebrand themselves as the opposition to the SNP. There's certainly enough out there who would consider their policies if they could only shed the tarnishing of their image by Thatcher's ruthless disregard for Scotland's different needs:

http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/analysis/317160-analysis-stephen-daisley-on-public-support-for-the-benefits-cap/

But that's for the longer term. In the meanwhile, the SNP seem set to have a political hegemony north of the border for 5-10 years, maybe longer.

Is Plaid's failure to set the valley's alight down to a lack of a charismatic leader like Salmond - or is just that much more difficult to cultivate a separate political Welsh identity?

MaxPB

isam said:

20 odd days to go and negative canvassing reports still on zero

Didn't shadsy have a good line on canvass returns?

tyson

Plato said:

Speaking of manifestos, here's a summary of the Tory one. Anyone have a Labour version?

The personal tax-free allowance raised to £12,500
No 40p tax until you're earning £50,000
The family home taken out of Inheritance Tax
£8 billion more a year for our NHS - so it's there for your family, 7 days a week
Rail fares frozen for five years
Welfare controlled to reward work
Multinationals pursued so they pay their tax
The Right to Buy extended to 1.3 million extra families
30 hours of free childcare a week for working families with 3 and 4 year-olds
Everyone earning the Minimum Wage lifted out of income tax altogether

A social democratic platform

TheScreamingEagles

MaxPB said:

isam said:

20 odd days to go and negative canvassing reports still on zero

Didn't shadsy have a good line on canvass returns?

He did, he said last week, based on the canvass reports he'd seen on twitter, he was expecting the big 4 parties to have a combined vote share of 270% on election day.

MarqueeMark

Ishmael_X said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnO said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnO said:

Whoosh and the mods move with the speed of light to delete that naughty post about YouGov.

Can some kind patient poster once again explain that pollster's change in methodology and its rationale/logic (if any) for concentrating on Jan/Feb switchers or whatever they did! Yes, I am confused.

But, critically, does all this mean that YouGov's VI are now more questionable as a consequence compared to all the other polls be they internet or phone?

They think 2015 will be like 2005.

They've moved from a 2010 voter ID weighting, to another, which I think would slightly favour Labour, but not that much.

We're going to find out in 3 weeks time, if they are right or wrong

YouGov are also returning to a method we successfully used in the 2005 general election. Our usual polling method relies upon weighting by party identification. However, for the campaign itself we will be drawing our daily polling samples from people who we previously contacted in January and February this year and weighting our data using how those people told us they were voting at that time (a period when the polls were broadly stable and Labour were, on average, slightly less than a point ahead).

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/04/08/labour-lead-2/

Many thanks (and to Sean) for the explanations. So YouGov are now only using those they contacted in January and February for their remaining polls until May 7th. I wonder how large that overall sample will be.

That sample is 100,000 strong.

"Overall sample" is a weasel phrase, the sample is the people they put the question to on any given day. Actually they are now polling a population of 100 000.

And what a population they are!

JohnO

OblitusSumMe said:

JohnO said:

Can some kind patient poster once again explain that pollster's change in methodology and its rationale/logic (if any) for concentrating on Jan/Feb switchers or whatever they did! Yes, I am confused.

The stated rationale is that they know precisely what people's responses were to polls in January and February and they trust those polls as an accurate reflection of opinion across the country at that time. Therefore they can use it as a stable target against which to weight the samples for their polls now, which they believe is a better way of achieving a politically balanced sample than relying on past-vote recall for 2010, or party ID.

The problems with this are:

1. Were YouGov polls an accurate snapshot of public opinion in January and February? If they had systematic biases at that time then the new methodology has those systematic biases now, as well as potentially adding some more.

2. It reduces the size of the polling panel to roughly 60,000 people, some of whom will now be too busy with the garden to respond to YouGov surveys. I really don't think you can call the sample thus gained as random** in any meaningful sense of that word, though it partly depends on what the response rate is to an invite to complete a YouGov poll.

However, putting all that aside, bear in mind that His Lordship astutely pointed out that opinion polls in January/February tended to be a fairly good guide to the election result for recent elections, because by then people have largely made up their minds and the campaigns cancel out. If that's the case this time, than YouGov's new methodology will effectively be ensuring that they pretty closely follow their polling average for January/February, and therefore get about as close to the election result as their methodology at the time would allow.

As an aside I would also say that if the above sounds a bit harsh it is only because I regard the biggest problem with opinion polling is achieving a random sample, and because online polling is operated on an opt-in basis it is going to find that harder to achieve than with a phone sample. I'm surprised that they do as well as they do, really, and for that I must give them enormous credit for their efforts.

** By comparison, a journal editor wrote in EOS recently than the response rate to peer review requests was about 1-in-4 outside of Nature/Science, so if you assume the response rate for YouGov is equal to that then they will be sending out invites to their entire panel on average about once a week, or more often if people are less likely to respond to YouGov polls than peer review requests. This is almost as self-selecting as people who choose to reply to Nick Palmer's emails...

Many thanks - that is also much appreciated.

chestnut

NickPalmer said:

The YG weighting is to a period when the Labour lead was 0-1%. As that's been pretty typical of recent months, it seems reasonable to take it as a baseline. E.g. tonight's YG will show us the immediate impact of the Tory manifesto on a balanced group, and the following days will show if it lasts.

The number of respondents claiming to have watched the entire TV debate when YG sampled them really calls into question just how valid any sample of theirs is.

JosiasJessop

Slackbladder said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Apologies for linking to Guido but

@GuidoFawkes: LOL at the Moment Miliband Realises Tory Has Made Fool of Him [VIDEO] http://t.co/hgkptECa2y http://t.co/CblkcWVtrm

Suprised they let anyone unvetted that close to Miliband.

I guess the asumption that they made was anyone ethnic must automatically be a labour voter...

That said I find the 'getting the x vote for us' distateful. Everyone is an individual.

It's the same thinking that allows unelected 'community leaders' to say they speak for segments of the population.

edmundintokyo

chestnut said:

NickPalmer said:

The YG weighting is to a period when the Labour lead was 0-1%. As that's been pretty typical of recent months, it seems reasonable to take it as a baseline. E.g. tonight's YG will show us the immediate impact of the Tory manifesto on a balanced group, and the following days will show if it lasts.

The number of respondents claiming to have watched the entire TV debate when YG sampled them really calls into question just how valid any sample of theirs is.

Alternatively it tells us that voters are full of shit.

JonCisBack

foxinsoxuk said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

david_herdson said:

FPT:

asjohnstone said:

david_herdson said:

True, ratification wouldn't be complete within two years but there's no reason there can't be something agreed and signed on within that time.

Could you have a referendum on that basis ? What happens if someone, like Greece, refuses to ratifiy?

I don't see the problem with having a referendum based on a signed treaty. The prospect of a foreign government willingly opting not to ratify a treaty it had signed is not a realistic one (there is a possibility of a new government not ratifying a treaty a previous one had signed, as - ironically - would have been the case here had Lisbon not already been in place by 2010).

If another country fails to ratify despite its government's efforts (with no prospect of a re-run as in Ireland or Denmark in the past), then there would be an irrevocable swing towards exit within the Conservative Party. Cameron's position as leader would depend on whether or not he chose to join that movement.

The problem there being there won't be a signed treaty - ratified or not - by 2017. According to Juncker there won't even be one by the end of the next Parliament.

Poster count anecdote. The only one that I have seen in Leicester is a Tory one for the council (3 hindu candidates btw) and several Labour ones outside Keith Vaz's office. Apathy rules in Leicezter East!

I have seen one field full of Robert Halfon posters near the M11 in Harlow and that is literally all. Not a one, even on a drive through about 4 or 5 miles of NE London at the weekend.

In 2010 I got mildly obsessive about it and started driving home from work different ways, and still failed to spot any posters at all more or less - a couple of generic "conservative" ones in farmers fields, and a Lib Dem poster on what transpired to be the Lib Dem candidate's own house! (Erstwhile PB poster and amusingly now Labour party member Andrew Lewin).

And that was it! Pretty dull when the local MP has a 15K+ majority in both my home and work constituencies.

rcs1000

Richard_Tyndall said:

david_herdson said:

FPT:

asjohnstone said:

david_herdson said:

True, ratification wouldn't be complete within two years but there's no reason there can't be something agreed and signed on within that time.

Could you have a referendum on that basis ? What happens if someone, like Greece, refuses to ratifiy?

I don't see the problem with having a referendum based on a signed treaty. The prospect of a foreign government willingly opting not to ratify a treaty it had signed is not a realistic one (there is a possibility of a new government not ratifying a treaty a previous one had signed, as - ironically - would have been the case here had Lisbon not already been in place by 2010).

If another country fails to ratify despite its government's efforts (with no prospect of a re-run as in Ireland or Denmark in the past), then there would be an irrevocable swing towards exit within the Conservative Party. Cameron's position as leader would depend on whether or not he chose to join that movement.

The problem there being there won't be a signed treaty - ratified or not - by 2017. According to Juncker there won't even be one by the end of the next Parliament.

I think that it would be impossible to get more than a Memorandum of Understanding in place before the end of 2017.

However, I think there is an important thing to remember here. The EU is not a signatory to the Treaties of Rome, Maastrich or Lisbon - only the countries that constitute the EU are signatories.

Therefore, Herr Juncker can say what he likes: if the countries that are members of the EU sign a new EU treaty, there is nothing he can do about it.

chestnut

edmundintokyo said:

chestnut said:

NickPalmer said:

The YG weighting is to a period when the Labour lead was 0-1%. As that's been pretty typical of recent months, it seems reasonable to take it as a baseline. E.g. tonight's YG will show us the immediate impact of the Tory manifesto on a balanced group, and the following days will show if it lasts.

The number of respondents claiming to have watched the entire TV debate when YG sampled them really calls into question just how valid any sample of theirs is.

Alternatively it tells us that voters are full of shit.

There is that, of course.

rogerh

Just looked at the average LD drop in the nine Ashton Con /Lab marginals.You would expect this to be greater than the average national fall in LD share.In fact it is around 12% which is lees than the current national drop in LD support and suggests a national share of at least 10%.

Philip_Thompson

The problem YouGov have with their very narrow pool is that even if they have a pool of 100k (out of a voting pool of approximately 46million) then they're "randomly" sampling from 0.2% of the population.

If the 0.2% of the voting pool who have self-selected to join YouGov and repeatedly answer polls are not for some reason representative of the remaining 99.8% nation then will YouGov be able to catch that?

EG if the 0.2% are more "aware" of politics then now that the media has ramped up election talk if there is a late swing amongst some of the remaining 99.8% will YouGov catch that?

rcs1000

Hampstead Report

The only literature I've received has been from Simon Marcus, the Conservative candidate - and we've gotten about three or pieces (one personalised) from him.

There are exactly zero posters for any political parties anywhere in Hampstead, as far as I can tell.

Morris_Dancer

I'm not au fait with science, but this line confused me:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-32303622

"It [dark matter] makes up 85% of the total matter in the cosmos and comprises some 27% of the known Universe."

One could refer to mass and the other volume, which is fair enough, but it doesn't say that.

OblitusSumMe

America is a foreign country, part 37:

The Guardian said:

Clinton, they said, had chatted with a family at a gas station in Pennsylvania, and ordered guacamole, iced tea and a chicken burrito bowl during her stop at a Chipotle restaurant in Maumee, Ohio.

None of those details were released by accident.

They are part of a highly choreographed reinvention of Hillary Clinton for 2016 as a political veteran who can relate to everyday Americans and cares more about rebalancing the country’s economy than herself.

It is a strategy one senior campaign official said was intended to project “humility”.

Anyone else remember Mandelson and the mushy peas?

JosiasJessop

rcs1000 said:

Hampstead Report

The only literature I've received has been from Simon Marcus, the Conservative candidate - and we've gotten about three or pieces (one personalised) from him.

There are exactly zero posters for any political parties anywhere in Hampstead, as far as I can tell.

When I drove into Cambridge the other day, I saw just one sign for Labour. Nothing else. I was not in the area for the 2010 GE, but my perhaps faulty memory remembers many more for the 2005 and even locals. It surprised me considering Cambridge is a marginal.

I might take a long walk around the village later to see how many signs are out in this non-marginal.

anotherDave

edmundintokyo said:

chestnut said:

NickPalmer said:

The YG weighting is to a period when the Labour lead was 0-1%. As that's been pretty typical of recent months, it seems reasonable to take it as a baseline. E.g. tonight's YG will show us the immediate impact of the Tory manifesto on a balanced group, and the following days will show if it lasts.

The number of respondents claiming to have watched the entire TV debate when YG sampled them really calls into question just how valid any sample of theirs is.

Alternatively it tells us that voters are full of shit.

It could be how voters perceived the question.

Saw a clip of the debate on the news / Watched video highlights on YouTube / Watched the whole thing on telly.

rcs1000

JosiasJessop said:

rcs1000 said:

Hampstead Report

The only literature I've received has been from Simon Marcus, the Conservative candidate - and we've gotten about three or pieces (one personalised) from him.

There are exactly zero posters for any political parties anywhere in Hampstead, as far as I can tell.

When I drove into Cambridge the other day, I saw just one sign for Labour. Nothing else. I was not in the area for the 2010 GE, but my perhaps faulty memory remembers many more for the 2005 and even locals. It surprised me considering Cambridge is a marginal.

I might take a long walk around the village later to see how many signs are out in this non-marginal.

If Ashcroft is correct, Cambridge is not a marginal...

OblitusSumMe

Morris_Dancer said:

I'm not au fait with science, but this line confused me:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-32303622

"It [dark matter] makes up 85% of the total matter in the cosmos and comprises some 27% of the known Universe."

One could refer to mass and the other volume, which is fair enough, but it doesn't say that.

They may as well call it Vulcan matter, if you ask me, but I think they are sort of counting "dark energy" in the calculation of what constitutes the known universe.

Pulpstar

antifrank said:

Morning all, here are the latest Labour constituency seat markets, ranked by odds of them winning:

http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-labour-battleground-in-april-2015.html

I'll be going through each of the parties in turn this week for the final run-up to the election.

Excellent analysis as ever.

9-4 in the 326th seat and yet 40s+ for a majority ?!

Lol....

Anyway I've added Newcastle under Lyme @ 2-7 to the constituency portfolio.

Philip_Thompson

Morris_Dancer said:

I'm not au fait with science, but this line confused me:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-32303622

"It [dark matter] makes up 85% of the total matter in the cosmos and comprises some 27% of the known Universe."

One could refer to mass and the other volume, which is fair enough, but it doesn't say that.

One refers solely to matter the other includes energy.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Me, ah. But... dark energy isn't the same as dark matter. I'm sure you know that, but it would make sense as an explanation of the rather unclear sentence.

Mr. Thompson, aye, seems to be the case. Cheers to both of you.

TheScreamingEagles

antifrank said:

Morning all, here are the latest Labour constituency seat markets, ranked by odds of them winning:

http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-labour-battleground-in-april-2015.html

I'll be going through each of the parties in turn this week for the final run-up to the election.

Cheers

Bond_James_Bond

Slackbladder said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Apologies for linking to Guido but

@GuidoFawkes: LOL at the Moment Miliband Realises Tory Has Made Fool of Him [VIDEO] http://t.co/hgkptECa2y http://t.co/CblkcWVtrm

Suprised they let anyone unvetted that close to Miliband.

I guess the asumption that they made was anyone ethnic must automatically be a labour voter...

That said I find the 'getting the x vote for us' distateful. Everyone is an individual.

But it handily demonstrates, straight from the horse's mouth, that Labour categorically does not see everyone as an individual. It sees their race, their sex and their class and it thinks that's all it needs to know.

Miliband looked at the bloke and saw an Asian who's exactly like all other Asians because he's Asian. There's probably a special Asian version of the manifesto containing special Asian policies for generic identical Asian clones like him.

Pulpstar

chestnut said:

NickPalmer said:

The YG weighting is to a period when the Labour lead was 0-1%. As that's been pretty typical of recent months, it seems reasonable to take it as a baseline. E.g. tonight's YG will show us the immediate impact of the Tory manifesto on a balanced group, and the following days will show if it lasts.

The number of respondents claiming to have watched the entire TV debate when YG sampled them really calls into question just how valid any sample of theirs is.

Surely the bods who watch debates are more likely to be in panels ?