People clinging to "1992" fantasies are completely ignoring the fact that the polling industry was re-invented post '92.
Because the polling industry got the Israel vote spot on a couple of week ago.... oh wait!
No obviously it didn't. However I could give you a much longer list of where it did get things right.
The polls *could* be wrong, however there is a strong vein of wish fulfillment / confirmation bias among people who hope they are wrong, convincing themselves of it, without any evidence.
People clinging to "1992" fantasies are completely ignoring the fact that the polling industry was re-invented post '92.
Because the polling industry got the Israel vote spot on a couple of week ago.... oh wait!
IIUC Israeli polls have a long, consistent history of fail, unlike the British ones that have been pretty good since 1992. Not sure if polling Israel is hard or if the pollsters there just aren't very good.
Regarding the debate audience. I can sort of believe they might have been selected for political party identification, but presumably they didn't drive in from all around the country to attend the debate, and so would at very least have been a highly metropolitan audience.
A metropolitan audience is never going to be very pro-kipper regardless of the supposed political make-up, in the same way that you can't put a cigarette paper between Cameron and Miliband on just about all social issues, and probably almost anything else that isn't the economy, but neither of them a representative of whole swathes of the countries outside the big cities.
Audiences suffer from the same problem as on-line questionnaires, they are "balanced" but not representative, how many WWC would have been in that audience last night, how many shire Tories, how many west country liberals, how many people from council estates in Northern marginals, how many from heavy industry vs working in the media or public service ?
Morning all and I know Survation is trying desperately to establish itself as the irrelevant pollster, their post debate poll last night has to be the most hopeless piece of political fiction in many years. Ed Miliband was totally marginalised and the more the debate continued, rogered by the 3 Celtic witches.
I agreed with Farage that even by BBC standards, the audience was overwhelmingly left wing.
Now that the TV nonsense is over, let's see them get on with real politics for 3 weeks.
With 3 days left to register, I wonder how many million Labour and Green voters have failed to register.
Morning all and I know Survation is trying desperately to establish itself as the irrelevant pollster, their post debate poll last night has to be the most hopeless piece of political fiction in many years. Ed Miliband was totally marginalised and the more the debate continued, rogered by the 3 Celtic witches.
I agreed with Farage that even by BBC standards, the audience was overwhelmingly left wing.
Now that the TV nonsense is over, let's see them get on with real politics for 3 weeks.
With 3 days left to register, I wonder how many million Labour and Green voters have failed to register.
Obviously, that has always been the Tory strategy. To deny as many people as possible their right to vote by creating artificial hurdles !
In their latest forecast, Chris Hanretty's 2015 UK Parliamentary Election Forecast shows Labour to be within three seats of the Tories, where 277 plays 280. Slowly but inexorably the Tories are losing this election, no doubt about it. Sad to say they have been lacklustre and seemingly on the defensive throughout. There will probably more bad news for them from Stephen Fisher's updated GE projection in the morning.
I am surprised at you writing such utter tosh. The polls are neck and neck even with ludicrous Survation and until yesterday Panelbase numbers. Out in the country with a few exceptions, reports are that Labour is not making any headway and we see the LibDems imploding in the south-west. Cameron needs 23 seats for a majority. Miliband needs almost 100 (assuming the SNP takes 30). Miliband shows no signs of winning more than 20, 30 at best. I expect Labour to lose seats. As for the polls, making the usual sort of adjustment Tories +1% and Labour -2% and suddenly the stuck 34/34 becomes 36/33.
Normally as a politcs anorak I'd watch all the debates. This year I've bought Game of Thrones seasons 1-4 and it's much better TV. Following the election as a normal voter you quickly see how much guff the spinners pump out and how much they kid themselves.
People clinging to "1992" fantasies are completely ignoring the fact that the polling industry was re-invented post '92.
It's very probable there was no late swing to the tories in '92, they probably led all along
Tories desperately hoping that the polling is wrong ! It has to be, you see, they are entitled by right to rule !
I take it we wont be seeing you on PB for a month or two after the election if Labour don't end up forming the government, it will take that long to wash all the egg off.
G'day from a very sunny, boozy, mosquitoey and prosperous Darwin, Aus.
From this long distance perspective the election looks very much as you were. Miliband is heading for a plurality, as some of us have been saying for yonks. e.g me.
I fail to see what the Tories can now do to steer the ship around. The Tories totally fecked up the Debates. Cameron acted like the favourite who didn't want to give the underdog a chance to change the game, so he refused to do debate mano a mano with Miliband. But why? Why did he think this? Etonian arrogance? Posho laziness?
There hasn't been a single consistent run of polls in YEARS which have pointed to a decisive Tory victory, most have implied a Labour win, many have implied a Labour majority.
Therefore Cameron needed the debates more than Miliband. It was Cameron who NEEDED the gamechanger, not Miliband.
Cammo's main hope now is to offer a one-on-one debate with Miliband. Ed cannot refuse. The Tories have nothing to lose as they are, right now, headed for Opposition.
It is kind of odd, Cameron gives the impression he doesn't care which way the election goes.
Which is probably more in tune with the majority of voters as they don't appear to care either.
This has to be the most low key passionless political fight I can remember; bar Scotland it's the shoulder shrug election.
I would prefer to have a Labour majority than a Labour government dependant on the SNP.
I rather worryingly had a similar thought tonight. Which makes me wonder about the dangers of the current Conservative messaging imagine Ed in the pocket of Nicola trying to run the country.
Weird, isn't it? "My opponent may not quite get enough votes, which will be disastrous for Britain!" Maybe it's aimed at boosting the SNP in Scotland at Labour's expense?
It's aimed at defectors to UKIP as an appeal to return to the Conservatives.
I would prefer to have a Labour majority than a Labour government dependant on the SNP.
I rather worryingly had a similar thought tonight. Which makes me wonder about the dangers of the current Conservative messaging imagine Ed in the pocket of Nicola trying to run the country.
Weird, isn't it? "My opponent may not quite get enough votes, which will be disastrous for Britain!" Maybe it's aimed at boosting the SNP in Scotland at Labour's expense?
It's aimed at defectors to UKIP as an appeal to return to the Conservatives.
Lol, so all those people he went out of his way to insult, would they kindly now vote for him ?
Cammo's main hope now is to offer a one-on-one debate with Miliband. Ed cannot refuse. The Tories have nothing to lose as they are, right now, headed for Opposition.
Its getting to the stage where people wont be able to tell the difference anyway, Cameron is standing on the "a little bit less crap than Ed" ticket, which isn't going to wow many voters. Otherwise you have two parties with essentially identical social policies, increasingly similar economic policies (now that Cameron has embraced the Magic Money Tree and Miliband it all guns blazing for "cuddly cuts") both lead by posh metropolitan Oxbridge PPE millionaires.... and we wonder why the polls for the parties are so similar, and why the voters are so disengaged.
G'day from a very sunny, boozy, mosquitoey and prosperous Darwin, Aus.
From this long distance perspective the election looks very much as you were. Miliband is heading for a plurality, as some of us have been saying for yonks. e.g me.
I fail to see what the Tories can now do to steer the ship around. The Tories totally fecked up the Debates. Cameron acted like the favourite who didn't want to give the underdog a chance to change the game, so he refused to do debate mano a mano with Miliband. But why? Why did he think this? Etonian arrogance? Posho laziness?
There hasn't been a single consistent run of polls in YEARS which have pointed to a decisive Tory victory, most have implied a Labour win, many have implied a Labour majority.
Therefore Cameron needed the debates more than Miliband. It was Cameron who NEEDED the gamechanger, not Miliband.
Cammo's main hope now is to offer a one-on-one debate with Miliband. Ed cannot refuse. The Tories have nothing to lose as they are, right now, headed for Opposition.
This is the apathy election. Little interest, hardly any window posters and little conversation on the subject, at least in the Midlands. Not even many PBers tuned in for last nights debate.
Campaigns do tend to be score draws, but Ed needs to gain 50 odd seats just to make headway against Scottish losses. The LDs will be in the teens and UKIP on 2 or 3.. i cannot see a viable government on that, even with SNP support. Ed struggles to build a coalition even within his own party let alone with others.
The low turnout, individual registration and voter churn is going to make for interesting results. There are 3 weeks to go and everything to play for.
Why are the establishment political parties so proud of the NHS's overreliance on foreign workers to prop it up. The biggest scandal is why they have failed to train sufficient doctors and nurses for so long.
It is far cheaper to import doctors and nurses than to train them.
Does the NHS/UK deliberately not train enough doctors and nurses?
One thing that has not happened in this election that the Tories were counting on is an EdM implosion. I expected it too and it could still happen, I suppose. But so far Ed has not proved to be the recruiting tool that the Tories were expecting him to be. Like the Labour left with Thatcher this could be an example of how human beings sometimes project their own loathing and assume everyone else shares it.
Morning all and I know Survation is trying desperately to establish itself as the irrelevant pollster, their post debate poll last night has to be the most hopeless piece of political fiction in many years. Ed Miliband was totally marginalised and the more the debate continued, rogered by the 3 Celtic witches.
I agreed with Farage that even by BBC standards, the audience was overwhelmingly left wing.
Now that the TV nonsense is over, let's see them get on with real politics for 3 weeks.
With 3 days left to register, I wonder how many million Labour and Green voters have failed to register.
Obviously, that has always been the Tory strategy. To deny as many people as possible their right to vote by creating artificial hurdles !
Why are the establishment political parties so proud of the NHS's overreliance on foreign workers to prop it up. The biggest scandal is why they have failed to train sufficient doctors and nurses for so long.
It is far cheaper to import doctors and nurses than to train them.
Does the NHS/UK deliberately not train enough doctors and nurses?
There are 8 000 doctors and 20 000 nurses trained each year. Each is about 50-60% of the requirement, so I would say yes. There are enough domestic applicants to fill twice the places.
G'day from a very sunny, boozy, mosquitoey and prosperous Darwin, Aus.
From this long distance perspective the election looks very much as you were. Miliband is heading for a plurality, as some of us have been saying for yonks. e.g me.
I fail to see what the Tories can now do to steer the ship around. The Tories totally fecked up the Debates. Cameron acted like the favourite who didn't want to give the underdog a chance to change the game, so he refused to do debate mano a mano with Miliband. But why? Why did he think this? Etonian arrogance? Posho laziness?
There hasn't been a single consistent run of polls in YEARS which have pointed to a decisive Tory victory, most have implied a Labour win, many have implied a Labour majority.
Therefore Cameron needed the debates more than Miliband. It was Cameron who NEEDED the gamechanger, not Miliband.
Cammo's main hope now is to offer a one-on-one debate with Miliband. Ed cannot refuse. The Tories have nothing to lose as they are, right now, headed for Opposition.
but Ed needs to gain 50 odd seats just to make headway against Scottish losses.
This is the key point that people seem determined to get wrong on purpose. The truth is, no he doesn't.
There are no Scottish losses, doesn't matter if there are 50 SNP MPs or 6. They'll all be voting to put him into Downing St. In fact, a stronger SNP that's taking 6 Scottish Lib Dems out of play is great for Ed. That's 6 presently coalition MPS that will be supporting PM Miliband.
Scotland may be great show business, but it has zero impact on who gets to be in power.
The largest party doesn't get to govern. This is a fact.
It may be I am misremembering, but the last election wasn't that much of a humdinger either, with sharp exchanges of ideas and people standing on street corners discussing possible outcomes. The 92 and 97 elections were the last real old time affairs with hustings, mass canvasses, posters all over the place and real engagement, and the latter was a foregone conclusion so maybe doesn't count.
One thing that has not happened in this election that the Tories were counting on is an EdM implosion. I expected it too and it could still happen, I suppose. But so far Ed has not proved to be the recruiting tool that the Tories were expecting him to be. Like the Labour left with Thatcher this could be an example of how human beings sometimes project their own loathing and assume everyone else shares it.
You're the one projecting. No-one I know (on right or left) actively "loathes" Miliband. At worst they fear he is a genuinely quasi-Marxist ideologue who will, despite good intentions, screw the economy. But most people just regard him as a fairly useless dork, who will possibly screw the economy, especially if he is reliant on Sturgeon.
The polls support this analysis (even now).
The problem for Tories is that mild contempt for Miliband is not enough to win a general election for the Conservatives, due to voter apathy, the rise of UKIP, and anti-Tory bias in FPTP.
You may have missed the coverage of EdM the Tory press has provided. It is clearly aimed at provoking a visceral reaction. Cameron cannot even bring himself to say that Ed is a decent man. The contempt and loathing is clear. But the problem is as you say: out in the real world people see him as Meh or a bit of a tit, at worst. Anyone who regards him as a quasi-Marxist ideologue is clearly a little bit touched.
One thing that has not happened in this election that the Tories were counting on is an EdM implosion. I expected it too and it could still happen, I suppose. But so far Ed has not proved to be the recruiting tool that the Tories were expecting him to be. Like the Labour left with Thatcher this could be an example of how human beings sometimes project their own loathing and assume everyone else shares it.
One thing that has not happened in this election that the Tories were counting on is an EdM implosion. I expected it too and it could still happen, I suppose. But so far Ed has not proved to be the recruiting tool that the Tories were expecting him to be. Like the Labour left with Thatcher this could be an example of how human beings sometimes project their own loathing and assume everyone else shares it.
This is one stat that has moved during the campaign - all others remaining where they started. Ed's approval rating has improved markedly.
One thing that has not happened in this election that the Tories were counting on is an EdM implosion. I expected it too and it could still happen, I suppose. But so far Ed has not proved to be the recruiting tool that the Tories were expecting him to be. Like the Labour left with Thatcher this could be an example of how human beings sometimes project their own loathing and assume everyone else shares it.
You're the one projecting. No-one I know (on right or left) actively "loathes" Miliband. At worst they fear he is a genuinely quasi-Marxist ideologue who will, despite good intentions, screw the economy. But most people just regard him as a fairly useless dork, who will possibly screw the economy, especially if he is reliant on Sturgeon.
The polls support this analysis (even now).
The problem for Tories is that mild contempt for Miliband is not enough to win a general election for the Conservatives, due to voter apathy, the rise of UKIP, and anti-Tory bias in FPTP.
It's not just that. It's his ultra-Marxist social policy. The man thinks the next James Bond should be a woman, wants positive discrimination and released a separate manifesto for those of a different skin colour.
I expect the next Labour government to be obsessed with box-ticking equality, special interests, victim culture, and diversity bureaucracy, and have a total tin ear against anyone else who says otherwise.
It may be I am misremembering, but the last election wasn't that much of a humdinger either, with sharp exchanges of ideas and people standing on street corners discussing possible outcomes. The 92 and 97 elections were the last real old time affairs with hustings, mass canvasses, posters all over the place and real engagement, and the latter was a foregone conclusion so maybe doesn't count.
I don't remember 1979 being that exciting either, but it changed the country forever.
General Elections are just not that exciting, no matter how important or close. Referendums on breaking up the country ARE exciting, as we all know. Far too exciting, to my mind.
Besides, why are pb-ers complaining about an Electiom which is, in so many ways, the most imponderable any of us can remember, with all manner of possible outcomes? Sure, Miliband will likely scrape home, but his party could be wiped out in its Homeland, we could see the Liberals relegate to fourth for the first time in Parliamentary history. Etc etc. Enough moaning!
I completely agree. My point was that those moaning about this one seem to have forgotten the last one and the one before that. Elections used to be a lot more visible because they were fought out in the open much more. There did used to be posters in a lot more windows, there were more hustings and there was much more door-knocking. But that's because the parties were far less sophisticated, had more members and the internet and the 24 hour TV news cycle did not exist.
One thing that has not happened in this election that the Tories were counting on is an EdM implosion. I expected it too and it could still happen, I suppose. But so far Ed has not proved to be the recruiting tool that the Tories were expecting him to be. Like the Labour left with Thatcher this could be an example of how human beings sometimes project their own loathing and assume everyone else shares it.
You're the one projecting. No-one I know (on right or left) actively "loathes" Miliband. At worst they fear he is a genuinely quasi-Marxist ideologue who will, despite good intentions, screw the economy. But most people just regard him as a fairly useless dork, who will possibly screw the economy, especially if he is reliant on Sturgeon.
The polls support this analysis (even now).
The problem for Tories is that mild contempt for Miliband is not enough to win a general election for the Conservatives, due to voter apathy, the rise of UKIP, and anti-Tory bias in FPTP.
It's not just that. It's his ultra-Marxist social policy. The man thinks the next James Bond should be a woman, wants positive discrimination and released a separate manifesto for those of a different skin colour.
I expect the next Labour government to be obsessed with box-ticking equality, special interests, victim culture, and diversity bureaucracy, and have a total tin ear against anyone else who says otherwise.
One thing that has not happened in this election that the Tories were counting on is an EdM implosion. I expected it too and it could still happen, I suppose. But so far Ed has not proved to be the recruiting tool that the Tories were expecting him to be. Like the Labour left with Thatcher this could be an example of how human beings sometimes project their own loathing and assume everyone else shares it.
You're the one projecting. No-one I know (on right or left) actively "loathes" Miliband. At worst they fear he is a genuinely quasi-Marxist ideologue who will, despite good intentions, screw the economy. But most people just regard him as a fairly useless dork, who will possibly screw the economy, especially if he is reliant on Sturgeon.
The polls support this analysis (even now).
The problem for Tories is that mild contempt for Miliband is not enough to win a general election for the Conservatives, due to voter apathy, the rise of UKIP, and anti-Tory bias in FPTP.
It's not just that. It's his ultra-Marxist social policy. The man thinks the next James Bond should be a woman, wants positive discrimination and released a separate manifesto for those of a different skin colour.
I expect the next Labour government to be obsessed with box-ticking equality, special interests, victim culture, and diversity bureaucracy, and have a total tin ear against anyone else who says otherwise.
The mistake is to play the man and not the ball. Foot and Kinnock were just as implausible potential PMs as Miliband, but Thacher and Major went for them on policy, not personality. 'Keep going when there's light at the end of the tunnel' is a perfectly serviceable election theme, instead of bipolar swinging from grim austerity to the good life.
One thing that has not happened in this election that the Tories were counting on is an EdM implosion. I expected it too and it could still happen, I suppose. But so far Ed has not proved to be the recruiting tool that the Tories were expecting him to be. Like the Labour left with Thatcher this could be an example of how human beings sometimes project their own loathing and assume everyone else shares it.
You're the one projecting. No-one I know (on right or left) actively "loathes" Miliband. At worst they fear he is a genuinely quasi-Marxist ideologue who will, despite good intentions, screw the economy. But most people just regard him as a fairly useless dork, who will possibly screw the economy, especially if he is reliant on Sturgeon.
The polls support this analysis (even now).
The problem for Tories is that mild contempt for Miliband is not enough to win a general election for the Conservatives, due to voter apathy, the rise of UKIP, and anti-Tory bias in FPTP.
It's not just that. It's his ultra-Marxist social policy. The man thinks the next James Bond should be a woman, wants positive discrimination and released a separate manifesto for those of a different skin colour.
I expect the next Labour government to be obsessed with box-ticking equality, special interests, victim culture, and diversity bureaucracy, and have a total tin ear against anyone else who says otherwise.
I'm no fan of Miliband (what, you didn't know?), but it is a bit odd to say his social policy is 'ultra-Marxist'. I don't agree with a lot of it, and it seems to be policy targeting by a limited set of tick-boxes, but it's not ultra-Marxist.
G'day from a very sunny, boozy, mosquitoey and prosperous Darwin, Aus.
From this long distance perspective the election looks very much as you were. Miliband is heading for a plurality, as some of us have been saying for yonks. e.g me.
I fail to see what the Tories can now do to steer the ship around. The Tories totally fecked up the Debates. Cameron acted like the favourite who didn't want to give the underdog a chance to change the game, so he refused to do debate mano a mano with Miliband. But why? Why did he think this? Etonian arrogance? Posho laziness?
There hasn't been a single consistent run of polls in YEARS which have pointed to a decisive Tory victory, most have implied a Labour win, many have implied a Labour majority.
Therefore Cameron needed the debates more than Miliband. It was Cameron who NEEDED the gamechanger, not Miliband.
Cammo's main hope now is to offer a one-on-one debate with Miliband. Ed cannot refuse. The Tories have nothing to lose as they are, right now, headed for Opposition.
but Ed needs to gain 50 odd seats just to make headway against Scottish losses.
This is the key point that people seem determined to get wrong on purpose. The truth is, no he doesn't.
There are no Scottish losses, doesn't matter if there are 50 SNP MPs or 6. They'll all be voting to put him into Downing St. In fact, a stronger SNP that's taking 6 Scottish Lib Dems out of play is great for Ed. That's 6 presently coalition MPS that will be supporting PM Miliband.
Scotland may be great show business, but it has zero impact on who gets to be in power.
The largest party doesn't get to govern. This is a fact.
Indeed - this is why I' be bent my book to low Labour seats, bought EdM rather than Lab seats and followed Stephen Fisher's model where the Lab largest party lay Dave/back Ed was an implied 1.33/ 2.5 lay / back
One thing that has not happened in this election that the Tories were counting on is an EdM implosion. I expected it too and it could still happen, I suppose. But so far Ed has not proved to be the recruiting tool that the Tories were expecting him to be. Like the Labour left with Thatcher this could be an example of how human beings sometimes project their own loathing and assume everyone else shares it.
You're the one projecting. No-one I know (on right or left) actively "loathes" Miliband. At worst they fear he is a genuinely quasi-Marxist ideologue who will, despite good intentions, screw the economy. But most people just regard him as a fairly useless dork, who will possibly screw the economy, especially if he is reliant on Sturgeon.
The polls support this analysis (even now).
The problem for Tories is that mild contempt for Miliband is not enough to win a general election for the Conservatives, due to voter apathy, the rise of UKIP, and anti-Tory bias in FPTP.
It's not just that. It's his ultra-Marxist social policy. The man thinks the next James Bond should be a woman, wants positive discrimination and released a separate manifesto for those of a different skin colour.
I expect the next Labour government to be obsessed with box-ticking equality, special interests, victim culture, and diversity bureaucracy, and have a total tin ear against anyone else who says otherwise.
Marxism is a deeply flawed, very nineteenth century, class-based analysis of history, which states that the triumph of the proletariat is inevitable. It has nothing to say about quotas, box-ticking and positive discrimination. That's come from somewhere else - the US probably, where "progressive" politics has tended to focus on building alliances of grievance, maybe because Marxism never worked as a theory there. And as the working class has declined in size on this side of the Atlantic, so many on the left here have assumed that the only route to power is to follow the US example. I think they are profoundly wrong.
It may be I am misremembering, but the last election wasn't that much of a humdinger either, with sharp exchanges of ideas and people standing on street corners discussing possible outcomes. The 92 and 97 elections were the last real old time affairs with hustings, mass canvasses, posters all over the place and real engagement, and the latter was a foregone conclusion so maybe doesn't count.
I don't remember 1979 being that exciting either, but it changed the country forever.
General Elections are just not that exciting, no matter how important or close. Referendums on breaking up the country ARE exciting, as we all know. Far too exciting, to my mind.
Besides, why are pb-ers complaining about an Electiom which is, in so many ways, the most imponderable any of us can remember, with all manner of possible outcomes? Sure, Miliband will likely scrape home, but his party could be wiped out in its Homeland, we could see the Liberals relegate to fourth for the first time in Parliamentary history. Etc etc. Enough moaning!
I completely agree. My point was that those moaning about this one seem to have forgotten the last one and the one before that. Elections used to be a lot more visible because they were fought out in the open much more. There did used to be posters in a lot more windows, there were more hustings and there was much more door-knocking. But that's because the parties were far less sophisticated, had more members and the internet and the 24 hour TV news cycle did not exist.
Also the level of stage management and spin control means nothing interesting is said, everything is triangulated an panel tested to death, and worst of all everything is done before a vetted, invited audience. The upshot of this is its a giant snooze - anodyne words spoken before invited audiences with no chance of a gaff or anything controversial (or even interesting) being said. ZZZZzzzz.
I think that's the whole point, SPIN is still predicting Labour + SNP > Cons + LibDem.
Get over your fixation with Con vs Labour gap. You need to add the SNP numbers onto Labour. They've made it very clear that's what they'll support.
Those SNP numbers do not close the gap much. Lab on 257 at present. Subtract 35 and add to SNP means that Lab need 40 gains in E and W just to reach the SPIN line and have a bare majority combined. That is not a viable government even if the entirety of the SNP and Lab wanted it to work.
How could SLAB campaign for the 2016 Holyrood in those circumstances for example.
I am fairly neutral on Dave vs Ed as PM. Both will be crap in differing ways, my taxes would be higher under Ed but my job would be better. Defence would be worse under Ed but not having a Euro ref would be a relief. I am fairly neutral overall.
People clinging to "1992" fantasies are completely ignoring the fact that the polling industry was re-invented post '92.
It's very probable there was no late swing to the tories in '92, they probably led all along
Tories desperately hoping that the polling is wrong ! It has to be, you see, they are entitled by right to rule !
The problem is that literally no one on my Facebook mentioned debates. More like star wars trailer frenzy.
So no matter how much political panorama on here or on tv go on about every nuance of the election it just doesn't cut through. Even pro Labour or Labour inclined swing voters I have spoken to roll their eyes and groan bout Edm. The main positive for Labour is that they wish davidm had become leader.
The fact is that this election is about a Labour party that people generally like hindered by an awful leader against a generally liked Cameron hindered by party. This has been picked up by the polls but I don't think that this has been tested in an election. The polls could be to right but it could be about more than voting intention
One thing that has not happened in this election that the Tories were counting on is an EdM implosion. I expected it too and it could still happen, I suppose. But so far Ed has not proved to be the recruiting tool that the Tories were expecting him to be. Like the Labour left with Thatcher this could be an example of how human beings sometimes project their own loathing and assume everyone else shares it.
You're the one projecting. No-one I know (on right or left) actively "loathes" Miliband. At worst they fear he is a genuinely quasi-Marxist ideologue who will, despite good intentions, screw the economy. But most people just regard him as a fairly useless dork, who will possibly screw the economy, especially if he is reliant on Sturgeon.
The polls support this analysis (even now).
The problem for Tories is that mild contempt for Miliband is not enough to win a general election for the Conservatives, due to voter apathy, the rise of UKIP, and anti-Tory bias in FPTP.
It's not just that. It's his ultra-Marxist social policy. The man thinks the next James Bond should be a woman, wants positive discrimination and released a separate manifesto for those of a different skin colour.
I expect the next Labour government to be obsessed with box-ticking equality, special interests, victim culture, and diversity bureaucracy, and have a total tin ear against anyone else who says otherwise.
Marxism is a deeply flawed, very nineteenth century, class-based analysis of history, which states that the triumph of the proletariat is inevitable. It has nothing to say about quotas, box-ticking and positive discrimination. That's come from somewhere else - the US probably, where "progressive" politics has tended to focus on building alliances of grievance, maybe because Marxism never worked as a theory there. And as the working class has declined in size on this side of the Atlantic, so many on the left here have assumed that the only route to power is to follow the US example. I think they are profoundly wrong.
Trotsky. Gramsci. Frankfurt School of Social Research.
Stalin was an entirely orthodox Marxist and was necessarily hated by the Trotskyist new left.
People clinging to "1992" fantasies are completely ignoring the fact that the polling industry was re-invented post '92.
It's very probable there was no late swing to the tories in '92, they probably led all along
Tories desperately hoping that the polling is wrong ! It has to be, you see, they are entitled by right to rule !
The problem is that literally no one on my Facebook mentioned debates. More like star wars trailer frenzy.
So no matter how much political panorama on here or on tv go on about every nuance of the election it just doesn't cut through. Even pro Labour or Labour inclined swing voters I have spoken to roll their eyes and groan bout Edm. The main positive for Labour is that they wish davidm had become leader.
The fact is that this election is about a Labour party that people generally like hindered by an awful leader against a generally liked Cameron hindered by party. This has been picked up by the polls but I don't think that this has been tested in an election. The polls could be to right but it could be about more than voting intention
The only Facebook comment on my feed last night was from a Labour member GP in Cumbria who posted a lookalike of Farage and Parker from Thunderbirds. It wasn't even a good lookalike. Hohum.
Miliband should have been attacked for his record in the last government and his policies, him being a bit of a dweeb is self evident and comes across as nasty for highlighting.
When this campaign started the immovable object was that Ed couldn't be a Prime Minister.
If Cameron had ignored him and spent the campaign boring everyone with deficit reduction and austerity they would now be romping home.
Instead he's achieved the impossible. By insisting on seven at the debates he's not only made Ed look Prime Ministerial but also the leader of a nation wide centre left revival with three very impressive female leaders vying for his favours.
Dave of all people should understand the value of a USP so why he threw his away with an anti austerity manifesto and engineered one for Ed is a mystery.
When this campaign started the immovable object was that Ed couldn't be a Prime Minister.
If Cameron had ignored him and spent the campaign boring everyone with deficit reduction and austerity they would now be romping home.
Instead he's achieved the impossible. By insisting on seven at the debates he's not only made Ed look Prime Ministerial but also the leader of a nation wide centre left revival with three very impressive female leaders vying for his favours.
Dave of all people should understand the value of a USP so why he threw his away with an anti austerity manifesto and engineered one for Ed is a mystery.
But he is surrounded by back slapping public schoolboys who think politics is a jolly jape.
Witness the crowing on here when the new debate formats were announced. "Game, set and match to Cameron" they said "Miliband has been outplayed" they said
Same mentality as led to a botched coup attempt against Bercow on the last day of parliament.
One thing that has not happened in this election that the Tories were counting on is an EdM implosion. I expected it too and it could still happen, I suppose. But so far Ed has not proved to be the recruiting tool that the Tories were expecting him to be. Like the Labour left with Thatcher this could be an example of how human beings sometimes project their own loathing and assume everyone else shares it.
You're the one projecting. No-one I know (on right or left) actively "loathes" Miliband. At worst they fear he is a genuinely quasi-Marxist ideologue who will, despite good intentions, screw the economy. But most people just regard him as a fairly useless dork, who will possibly screw the economy, especially if he is reliant on Sturgeon.
The polls support this analysis (even now).
The problem for Tories is that mild contempt for Miliband is not enough to win a general election for the Conservatives, due to voter apathy, the rise of UKIP, and anti-Tory bias in FPTP.
It's not just that. It's his ultra-Marxist social policy. The man thinks the next James Bond should be a woman, wants positive discrimination and released a separate manifesto for those of a different skin colour.
I expect the next Labour government to be obsessed with box-ticking equality, special interests, victim culture, and diversity bureaucracy, and have a total tin ear against anyone else who says otherwise.
I'm no fan of Miliband (what, you didn't know?), but it is a bit odd to say his social policy is 'ultra-Marxist'. I don't agree with a lot of it, and it seems to be policy targeting by a limited set of tick-boxes, but it's not ultra-Marxist.
One thing that has not happened in this election that the Tories were counting on is an EdM implosion. I expected it too and it could still happen, I suppose. But so far Ed has not proved to be the recruiting tool that the Tories were expecting him to be. Like the Labour left with Thatcher this could be an example of how human beings sometimes project their own loathing and assume everyone else shares it.
You're the one projecting. No-one I know (on right or left) actively "loathes" Miliband. At worst they fear he is a genuinely quasi-Marxist ideologue who will, despite good intentions, screw the economy. But most people just regard him as a fairly useless dork, who will possibly screw the economy, especially if he is reliant on Sturgeon.
The polls support this analysis (even now).
The problem for Tories is that mild contempt for Miliband is not enough to win a general election for the Conservatives, due to voter apathy, the rise of UKIP, and anti-Tory bias in FPTP.
It's not just that. It's his ultra-Marxist social policy. The man thinks the next James Bond should be a woman, wants positive discrimination and released a separate manifesto for those of a different skin colour.
I expect the next Labour government to be obsessed with box-ticking equality, special interests, victim culture, and diversity bureaucracy, and have a total tin ear against anyone else who says otherwise.
Marxism is a deeply flawed, very nineteenth century, class-based analysis of history, which states that the triumph of the proletariat is inevitable. It has nothing to say about quotas, box-ticking and positive discrimination. That's come from somewhere else - the US probably, where "progressive" politics has tended to focus on building alliances of grievance, maybe because Marxism never worked as a theory there. And as the working class has declined in size on this side of the Atlantic, so many on the left here have assumed that the only route to power is to follow the US example. I think they are profoundly wrong.
I fear we'll end up with polarised socio-cultural values politics here soon, as in the US.
One thing that has not happened in this election that the Tories were counting on is an EdM implosion. I expected it too and it could still happen, I suppose. But so far Ed has not proved to be the recruiting tool that the Tories were expecting him to be. Like the Labour left with Thatcher this could be an example of how human beings sometimes project their own loathing and assume everyone else shares it.
You're the one projecting. No-one I know (on right or left) actively "loathes" Miliband. At worst they fear he is a genuinely quasi-Marxist ideologue who will, despite good intentions, screw the economy. But most people just regard him as a fairly useless dork, who will possibly screw the economy, especially if he is reliant on Sturgeon.
The polls support this analysis (even now).
The problem for Tories is that mild contempt for Miliband is not enough to win a general election for the Conservatives, due to voter apathy, the rise of UKIP, and anti-Tory bias in FPTP.
It's not just that. It's his ultra-Marxist social policy. The man thinks the next James Bond should be a woman, wants positive discrimination and released a separate manifesto for those of a different skin colour.
I expect the next Labour government to be obsessed with box-ticking equality, special interests, victim culture, and diversity bureaucracy, and have a total tin ear against anyone else who says otherwise.
I'm no fan of Miliband (what, you didn't know?), but it is a bit odd to say his social policy is 'ultra-Marxist'. I don't agree with a lot of it, and it seems to be policy targeting by a limited set of tick-boxes, but it's not ultra-Marxist.
It seems when even the politically engaged are finding it hard to get excited about the microscopic differences between EdM and Cameron there is a problem. People mostly don't believe the hyperbole, the actually amount of power leaders have to really screw things up is relatively limited due to their existing on someone else's money, and international treaties and obligations. A lot of right-leaners know Ed is crap, but probably isn't as crap as people think, they also think Dave is going to be crap, partly because of he appears to have given up, but critically because of his recent conversion to the magic money tree. We appear to be reduced to shades of crapness, and hence the electorate is not that inspired.
People clinging to "1992" fantasies are completely ignoring the fact that the polling industry was re-invented post '92.
Because the polling industry got the Israel vote spot on a couple of week ago.... oh wait!
Not to mention those on here telling us how Romney was going to sweep into POTUS because all the polls are wrong!
The polls are generally much better than 20 years ago. At the moment I am sure they have it at about right, too close to call. I still think there could be a late switch to the Tories but as the days tick by I wouldn't bet on it.
However I have been correct on one issue in that I always felt that when EM got air-time and people actually listened to him he would do a lot better than expected. The Tories and their media allies overplayed their rubbishing of EM and some on here have so bought into the propaganda from the Mail, Telegraph, Sun etc that they cannot conceive of any sensible person voting for him. The nasty personal attacks have backfired and only reinforced the nasty-party image of the Cons.
By any objective measure I ought to be a Tory voter and some of Cameron's actions have gone down well with me, particularly his social liberalism. However I won't vote Conservative - I only have to see Grant Shapps or spend a few minutes reading the comments from Tory PBers to remind myself why I can't.
Morning all and I know Survation is trying desperately to establish itself as the irrelevant pollster, their post debate poll last night has to be the most hopeless piece of political fiction in many years. Ed Miliband was totally marginalised and the more the debate continued, rogered by the 3 Celtic witches.
I agreed with Farage that even by BBC standards, the audience was overwhelmingly left wing.
Now that the TV nonsense is over, let's see them get on with real politics for 3 weeks.
With 3 days left to register, I wonder how many million Labour and Green voters have failed to register.
I suspect for people like you & Farage the Conservative Party and the Church of England are hopelessly left wing
Comments
The polls *could* be wrong, however there is a strong vein of wish fulfillment / confirmation bias among people who hope they are wrong, convincing themselves of it, without any evidence.
We shall know in 3 weeks time whether they have got it right this time.
A metropolitan audience is never going to be very pro-kipper regardless of the supposed political make-up, in the same way that you can't put a cigarette paper between Cameron and Miliband on just about all social issues, and probably almost anything else that isn't the economy, but neither of them a representative of whole swathes of the countries outside the big cities.
Audiences suffer from the same problem as on-line questionnaires, they are "balanced" but not representative, how many WWC would have been in that audience last night, how many shire Tories, how many west country liberals, how many people from council estates in Northern marginals, how many from heavy industry vs working in the media or public service ?
I agreed with Farage that even by BBC standards, the audience was overwhelmingly left wing.
Now that the TV nonsense is over, let's see them get on with real politics for 3 weeks.
With 3 days left to register, I wonder how many million Labour and Green voters have failed to register.
Voting should be compulsory !
Everything to play for seat by seat.
That is based on scientific evidence or biased gut feeling ?
Which is probably more in tune with the majority of voters as they don't appear to care either.
This has to be the most low key passionless political fight I can remember; bar Scotland it's the shoulder shrug election.
Campaigns do tend to be score draws, but Ed needs to gain 50 odd seats just to make headway against Scottish losses. The LDs will be in the teens and UKIP on 2 or 3.. i cannot see a viable government on that, even with SNP support. Ed struggles to build a coalition even within his own party let alone with others.
The low turnout, individual registration and voter churn is going to make for interesting results. There are 3 weeks to go and everything to play for.
There are no Scottish losses, doesn't matter if there are 50 SNP MPs or 6. They'll all be voting to put him into Downing St. In fact, a stronger SNP that's taking 6 Scottish Lib Dems out of play is great for Ed. That's 6 presently coalition MPS that will be supporting PM Miliband.
Scotland may be great show business, but it has zero impact on who gets to be in power.
The largest party doesn't get to govern. This is a fact.
Meanwhile ....
SPIN markets unmoved - Con +15
I expect the next Labour government to be obsessed with box-ticking equality, special interests, victim culture, and diversity bureaucracy, and have a total tin ear against anyone else who says otherwise.
Get over your fixation with Con vs Labour gap. You need to add the SNP numbers onto Labour. They've made it very clear that's what they'll support.
'Prove it,debate me one on one'
Cameron can either debate Ed one on one or get questioned in every interview hereafter about it.
Silly, yes. Misandric, yes. Ultra-marxist, no.
SPIN isn't about gaps but assessing value in the market and punting accordingly.
25 hours 25 minutes 25 seconds
How could SLAB campaign for the 2016 Holyrood in those circumstances for example.
I am fairly neutral on Dave vs Ed as PM. Both will be crap in differing ways, my taxes would be higher under Ed but my job would be better. Defence would be worse under Ed but not having a Euro ref would be a relief. I am fairly neutral overall.
So no matter how much political panorama on here or on tv go on about every nuance of the election it just doesn't cut through. Even pro Labour or Labour inclined swing voters I have spoken to roll their eyes and groan bout Edm. The main positive for Labour is that they wish davidm had become leader.
The fact is that this election is about a Labour party that people generally like hindered by an awful leader against a generally liked Cameron hindered by party. This has been picked up by the polls but I don't think that this has been tested in an election. The polls could be to right but it could be about more than voting intention
Gramsci.
Frankfurt School of Social Research.
Stalin was an entirely orthodox Marxist and was necessarily hated by the Trotskyist new left.
If Cameron had ignored him and spent the campaign boring everyone with deficit reduction and austerity they would now be romping home.
Instead he's achieved the impossible. By insisting on seven at the debates he's not only made Ed look Prime Ministerial but also the leader of a nation wide centre left revival with three very impressive female leaders vying for his favours.
Dave of all people should understand the value of a USP so why he threw his away with an anti austerity manifesto and engineered one for Ed is a mystery.
Opinium - Con+2
TNS - Con+2
ComRes - Con+1
Yougov - Tie
Ashcroft - Tie
Populus - Tie
Panelbase - Lab +1
Ipsos - Lab +2
Survation- Lab +4
Witness the crowing on here when the new debate formats were announced.
"Game, set and match to Cameron" they said
"Miliband has been outplayed" they said
Same mentality as led to a botched coup attempt against Bercow on the last day of parliament.
There is a "Question Time" style program with Ed, Nick, and Dave to come.
The three of them I believe, but as individuals answering questions, and not the usual panel format. (3 separate slots)
The polls are generally much better than 20 years ago. At the moment I am sure they have it at about right, too close to call. I still think there could be a late switch to the Tories but as the days tick by I wouldn't bet on it.
However I have been correct on one issue in that I always felt that when EM got air-time and people actually listened to him he would do a lot better than expected. The Tories and their media allies overplayed their rubbishing of EM and some on here have so bought into the propaganda from the Mail, Telegraph, Sun etc that they cannot conceive of any sensible person voting for him. The nasty personal attacks have backfired and only reinforced the nasty-party image of the Cons.
By any objective measure I ought to be a Tory voter and some of Cameron's actions have gone down well with me, particularly his social liberalism. However I won't vote Conservative - I only have to see Grant Shapps or spend a few minutes reading the comments from Tory PBers to remind myself why I can't.