Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The polls have the battle broadly tied – the spread betting

SystemSystem Posts: 12,217
edited April 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The polls have the battle broadly tied – the spread betting markets have a CON 19 seat lead

The week's national polling in fieldwork date order from http://t.co/zulWdj61nG pic.twitter.com/uL8ERlMPKn

Read the full story here


«134567

Comments

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,484
    edited April 2015
    Firsty?

    Edit: "Can we expect a proper cross-over in the final 17 days?"

    I think that depends on how you define 'proper cross-over'. At this stage I would favour every pollster showing a lead for one party or the other, with no polls showing a contrary lead. And with Lab-Con apparently so close, and some pollsters only doing a few polls between now and then, I'd say that's unlikely.

    So I guess we'll be going into the GE with the situation pretty much as it is.

    It would not surprise me if one or more pollsters are very embarrassed after the GE. The question is knowing which one(s)... ;-)
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,653
    Discussion FPT A 900-seat House of Commons would not be more proportional or lead to fewer safe seats for life. If anything, the similarity of proximate areas would render seats more homogenous and less diverse, competitive and interesting. Remembering the Greek rules of rhetoric, I'll choose an example that appeals to the average PB reader's ethos and pathos, as well as logos: The SNP would still win almost all the seats in Scotland if Scotland had 85 rather than 59 seats. You don't like the SNP, do you?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Fpt:

    MaxPB said:

    Speedy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.

    Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.

    What chance of a few Tory gains coming through the middle in WWC Labour-held areas, due to a combination of low Labour turnout and UKIP splitting the WWC vote?
    Zero chance.
    Labour will take in more LD votes than loses to UKIP or the Greens.
    So there will still be a swing to Labour from Tory in Labour seats.

    I'm not so sure about the first line of that. There is a lot of anger at Labour's metropolitan elite up North. Lots of people feel like they have been taken for granted by Labour's leadership just like Scottish people did. Just like there was no outlet for that in Scotland before the SNP, there has not been any outlet for that in the North until UKIP came along speaking their language of less immigration.

    I really think there is a big shy UKIP effect in the North that polling companies have missed in C2DEs.
    More likely they will simply not turn out. My tip for the election is low turnout everywhere bar Scotland. I think Jacks ARSE is optimistic at forecasting 67%.
    They've already 'not turned out'. 1997-2010 are the lowest turnout elections since WW2.

    http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

    The emergence of the Greens and UKIP should draw some of those voters back for 2015.
    UKIP will do well where the BNP did well in 2010.
    The BNP got 1.9% of the vote in 2010. UKIP is currently polling ~14%.
    If you look at where BNP got 6% or more in 2010 you see the same seats as UKIP prospects. I agree that UKIP is not the BNP, it is far more palatable than that. It does combine appeal to the BNP demographic with that of the Monday club.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091

    Fpt:

    MaxPB said:

    Speedy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.

    Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.

    What chance of a few Tory gains coming through the middle in WWC Labour-held areas, due to a combination of low Labour turnout and UKIP splitting the WWC vote?
    Zero chance.
    Labour will take in more LD votes than loses to UKIP or the Greens.
    So there will still be a swing to Labour from Tory in Labour seats.

    I'm not so sure about the first line of that. There is a lot of anger at Labour's metropolitan elite up North. Lots of people feel like they have been taken for granted by Labour's leadership just like Scottish people did. Just like there was no outlet for that in Scotland before the SNP, there has not been any outlet for that in the North until UKIP came along speaking their language of less immigration.

    I really think there is a big shy UKIP effect in the North that polling companies have missed in C2DEs.
    More likely they will simply not turn out. My tip for the election is low turnout everywhere bar Scotland. I think Jacks ARSE is optimistic at forecasting 67%.
    They've already 'not turned out'. 1997-2010 are the lowest turnout elections since WW2.

    http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

    The emergence of the Greens and UKIP should draw some of those voters back for 2015.
    UKIP will do well where the BNP did well in 2010.
    The BNP got 1.9% of the vote in 2010. UKIP is currently polling ~14%.
    If you look at where BNP got 6% or more in 2010 you see the same seats as UKIP prospects. I agree that UKIP is not the BNP, it is far more palatable than that. It does combine appeal to the BNP demographic with that of the Monday club.
    Don't forget to factor in demographics, though. Barking and Dagenham were among the best BNP performances last time, but I doubt they'll be close to the best UKIP performances this time because the WWC population has fallen.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Fpt:

    MaxPB said:

    Speedy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.

    Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.

    What chance of a few Tory gains coming through the middle in WWC Labour-held areas, due to a combination of low Labour turnout and UKIP splitting the WWC vote?
    Zero chance.
    Labour will take in more LD votes than loses to UKIP or the Greens.
    So there will still be a swing to Labour from Tory in Labour seats.

    I'm not so sure about the first line of that. There is a lot of anger at Labour's metropolitan elite up North. Lots of people feel like they have been taken for granted by Labour's leadership just like Scottish people did. Just like there was no outlet for that in Scotland before the SNP, there has not been any outlet for that in the North until UKIP came along speaking their language of less immigration.

    I really think there is a big shy UKIP effect in the North that polling companies have missed in C2DEs.
    More likely they will simply not turn out. My tip for the election is low turnout everywhere bar Scotland. I think Jacks ARSE is optimistic at forecasting 67%.
    They've already 'not turned out'. 1997-2010 are the lowest turnout elections since WW2.

    http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

    The emergence of the Greens and UKIP should draw some of those voters back for 2015.
    UKIP will do well where the BNP did well in 2010.
    The BNP got 1.9% of the vote in 2010. UKIP is currently polling ~14%.
    If you look at where BNP got 6% or more in 2010 you see the same seats as UKIP prospects. I agree that UKIP is not the BNP, it is far more palatable than that. It does combine appeal to the BNP demographic with that of the Monday club.
    UKIP are not the BNP but they have by and large absorbed BNP voters, which need to be considered when thinking of UKIP's starting point.

    Sort of like the old remark about how 'not all animals are dogs, but all dogs are animals'. 'Not all UKIP voters are former BNP, but (largely) former BNP are UKIP voters.'
  • compouter2compouter2 Posts: 2,371
    Whatever happened to the January crossover, the February pulling away and the March consistant Tory majority winning leads?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,406
    FPT @ydothur, @kle4

    Regarding crowding in a 900MP commons: stick 'em in Westminster Hall. It's in the same building, it's only 100 feet from the existing chamber, and can hold thousands.


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17444950
    http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/building/palace/westminsterhall/
    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/202301/response/500605/attach/html/14/foiextract20140404-14870-1ur9dup-0-154_1.jpg
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Whatever happened to the January crossover, the February pulling away and the March consistant Tory majority winning leads?

    Probably the same thing that happened to the lack of crossover and consistent Lab leads ...
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    FPT
    Life_ina_market_town said:
    "The effect of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 should not be exaggerated. There is nothing whatever to stop the Prime Minister of a minority government proposing the motion "[t]hat this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", ordering his party to vote for it and waiting fourteen days, whereupon the Crown has the power by Royal Proclamation to appoint a new polling day and dissolve Parliament. The only things which could prevent this contrivance are (1) the opposition parties choosing to vote against a motion of no-confidence, or (2) the Crown unilaterally sacking its Government. Neither seem particularly likely.

    It is worth remembering that to achieve an early general election via the other method set out in the Act is much more difficult. A motion that "[t]hat there shall be an early parliamentary general election" must pass, either nemine dissentiente, or on division with the support of 434 MPs."


    The FTPA is ambiguous. The wording implies surely that after a vote of no-confidence, another government should be given the opportunity to pass a vote of confidence in itself, and only in the event of another failure of confidence would an election ensue...

    Ergo, a PM could either try to reconstitute his own government, or resign and pass the government to the Opposition. Doing neither seems not to be an option.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382

    Whatever happened to the January crossover, the February pulling away and the March consistant Tory majority winning leads?

    It has been postponed to May 7th 2015.

    This saves having a wobbly Thursday in the run up.

    Having said that Labour have their resident jonah on here every day Danny 565.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    I followed my own advice and made a weekly polling average which includes only the 4 pollsters that produce regular weekly polls for consistency:

    Weeks ending Apr.1, Apr.8, Apr.15
    LAB 34, 33.5, 33.5
    CON 35, 33.5, 33.5
    LD 7.5, 8, 8
    UKIP 12.5, 13, 13
    GRN 6, 5, 5.5

    A very stable picture.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173

    Whatever happened to the January crossover, the February pulling away and the March consistant Tory majority winning leads?

    Ironically, because of Scotland it may be rather less necessary. So much is going to depend now on regional swing variations - they could favour one side or the other and, in doing so, seriously embarass: YG/ICM/CR, etc - delete as appropriate. Or, we end up as is more likely with a Parliament not just hung, but put out to dry! The latter, along with any SNP/LAB combo would be seriously bad for UKPLC.
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,550
    Lib Dem posters up in St Albans. Also Labour have been spotted.

    During this week we have received another Labour double A3 glossy, a Conservative double A4 glossy and a single A3 colourful, but not glossy, Lib Dem. Still awaiting a Green leaflet.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173
    edited April 2015
    Yorkcity said:

    Whatever happened to the January crossover, the February pulling away and the March consistant Tory majority winning leads?

    It has been postponed to May 7th 2015.

    This saves having a wobbly Thursday in the run up.

    Having said that Labour have their resident jonah on here every day Danny 565.
    I seriously disagree with Danny 565 on politics but he's the only honest Labour poster on here.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,406
    EPG said:

    Discussion FPT A 900-seat House of Commons would not be more proportional or lead to fewer safe seats for life.

    I must respectfully disagree. Consider a 1-seat commons (would have been CON for what, 70 years out of the 20th century,and we wouldn't have had a LAB MP until 1997) versus a 65-million seat commons (exactly proportional). Proportionality increases with number.
    EPG said:

    Remembering the Greek rules of rhetoric, I'll choose an example that appeals to the average PB reader's ethos and pathos, as well as logos: The SNP would still win almost all the seats in Scotland if Scotland had 85 rather than 59 seats. You don't like the SNP, do you?

    I don't want them to be in power, whether directly or indirectly and i thought their conduct during the referendum was morally wrong. But that should not prevent them being represented in the House in accordance with their electorate's wishes. If the Scottish electorate wish to be represented by 89 SNP MPs, then 89 SNP MPs they shall have, and I'l make sure they have a packed lunch for the journey.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Speedy said:

    I followed my own advice and made a weekly polling average which includes only the 4 pollsters that produce regular weekly polls for consistency:

    Weeks ending Apr.1, Apr.8, Apr.15
    LAB 34, 33.5, 33.5
    CON 35, 33.5, 33.5
    LD 7.5, 8, 8
    UKIP 12.5, 13, 13
    GRN 6, 5, 5.5

    A very stable picture.

    It'll be interesting to compare the election result with past polls. How far back will you have to go before the result differs from margin of error?
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    RodCrosby said:

    FPT
    Life_ina_market_town said:
    "The effect of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 should not be exaggerated. There is nothing whatever to stop the Prime Minister of a minority government proposing the motion "[t]hat this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", ordering his party to vote for it and waiting fourteen days, whereupon the Crown has the power by Royal Proclamation to appoint a new polling day and dissolve Parliament. The only things which could prevent this contrivance are (1) the opposition parties choosing to vote against a motion of no-confidence, or (2) the Crown unilaterally sacking its Government. Neither seem particularly likely.

    It is worth remembering that to achieve an early general election via the other method set out in the Act is much more difficult. A motion that "[t]hat there shall be an early parliamentary general election" must pass, either nemine dissentiente, or on division with the support of 434 MPs."


    The FTPA is ambiguous. The wording implies surely that after a vote of no-confidence, another government should be given the opportunity to pass a vote of confidence in itself, and only in the event of another failure of confidence would an election ensue...

    Ergo, a PM could either try to reconstitute his own government, or resign and pass the government to the Opposition. Doing neither seems not to be an option.

    The Cabinet Manual offers "guidance".

    "2.19 Under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, if a government is defeated on a motion that ‘this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government’, there is then a 14-day period during which an alternative government can be formed from the House of Commons as presently constituted, or the incumbent government can seek to regain the confidence of the House. If no government can secure the confidence of the House of Commons during that period, through the approval of a motion that ‘this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government’, a general election will take place. Other decisions of the House of Commons which have previously been regarded as expressing ‘no confidence’ in the government no longer enable or require the Prime Minister to hold a general election. The Prime Minister is expected to resign where it is clear that he or she does not have the confidence of the House of Commons and that an alternative government does have the confidence.
    2.20 Where a range of different administrations could be formed, discussions may take place between political parties on who should form the next government..."

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,947
    I don't know how far his spreads, but down here in the South-west, the ONLY thing which has fired up the voters passion is the considerable antipathy to the idea of an SNP tail wagging a Labour Downing Street dog.

    It's a really big positive for the Blues on the doorstep. If the extent we are seeing translates into people voting accordingly, then Labour are in trouble.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,079
    Lots of Lib Dem posters up in Cheadle. Haven't seen a single poster from another party. This is just based on the drive from my house to my parents', which only covers the northern half of the constituency, but still looking healthier than might be expected for Mark Hunter. Meanwhile, no posters at all in the Sale East half of Wythenshawe and Sale East.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,406

    Speedy said:

    I followed my own advice and made a weekly polling average which includes only the 4 pollsters that produce regular weekly polls for consistency:

    Weeks ending Apr.1, Apr.8, Apr.15
    LAB 34, 33.5, 33.5
    CON 35, 33.5, 33.5
    LD 7.5, 8, 8
    UKIP 12.5, 13, 13
    GRN 6, 5, 5.5

    A very stable picture.

    It'll be interesting to compare the election result with past polls. How far back will you have to go before the result differs from margin of error?
    You tell me the final result, and I'll answer that question...

    (Incidentally, what figure do you have for the margin of error, and do you have a source?)
  • Dan hodges tweets on vote registration are serious ly lol. What a guy!!!!!!
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    The spreadex index is again doing it's usual stuff.
    That result of CON 286, LAB 267, SNP 47, LD 24, UKIP 4-5 and GRN 1 seat, would mean 30 Tory loses to Labour, 4 Tory loses to UKIP and Labour holding to 10 seats in scotland and the LD losing 14 to the Tories, 9 to LAB and 10 to the SNP.

    Workable only under three unlikely conditions:
    1. The swing in England & Wales in Tory seats to be only 2.3% to Labour (very unlikely)
    2. Labour would hold 10 seats in scotland (very unlikely)
    3. No tactical voting in LD-Tory seats. (unlikely)
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    felix said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Whatever happened to the January crossover, the February pulling away and the March consistant Tory majority winning leads?

    It has been postponed to May 7th 2015.

    This saves having a wobbly Thursday in the run up.

    Having said that Labour have their resident jonah on here every day Danny 565.
    I seriously disagree with Danny 565 on politics but he's the only honest Labour poster on here.
    Says it all , he has stockholm syndrome as he is on here to much.
  • frpenkridgefrpenkridge Posts: 670
    [Somewhat less than an anecdote post.] "Tail wagging dog". I wonder if this is a farming thing. I've heard that some Scots have made themselves unpopular on the agricultural show circuit.
  • DennisBetsDennisBets Posts: 244
    Danny565 said:

    Fpt:



    Don't forget to factor in demographics, though. Barking and Dagenham were among the best BNP performances last time, but I doubt they'll be close to the best UKIP performances this time because the WWC population has fallen.

    They've moved in much part to Thurrock, this is why Thurrock is a 2 way shoot out between LAB and UKIP
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    The problem that arises is that the Motion of Confidence must be in HMG, not in a hypothetical HMG. So if Cammo were to lose a VoC, his options would seem to be

    i) try to form another government, possibly including resignation as PM to allow another Tory to try.

    ii) handing the baton to Miliband to try.

    [It's not clear also whether each or either of these options could only be tried once in the 14 day period]

    Only in the event of no-one obtaining a VoC within the 14 days does a second election ensue.

    The nightmare scenario is Miliband, rejected at the polls in the first election and rejected by the House in a VoC, assuming the Premiership nevertheless, and leading the country into a second general election...
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    Dair said:

    weejonnie said:

    Dair said:

    WTF - Diane James on Murnaghan saying "in Heywood and Middleton if the 3000 Conservative voters switch to UKIP then UKIP win the seat" and MURNAGHAN DOES NOT STOP HER.

    WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.

    Maybe the headlines last night about UKIP sending in Lawyers about political bias has given them the willies.
    What Diane James did on Sky is a criminal offence!
    No it isn't and the shame is that you are too thick to realise that. There is no purdah for TV companies, only the requirement for overall balance.

    On the same subject UKIP are stupid to be trying to use lawyers against the BBC. But their idiocy doesn't excuse yours.
    Any guest invited as a party representative cannot discuss or talk about a specific constituency because the segment will not offer other candidates of major parties the right to reply or a listing of all candidates in the seat.

    AIUI this isn't even an Ofcom regulated thing - its an electoral law thing.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173
    Speedy said:

    The spreadex index is again doing it's usual stuff.
    That result of CON 286, LAB 267, SNP 47, LD 24, UKIP 4-5 and GRN 1 seat, would mean 30 Tory loses to Labour, 4 Tory loses to UKIP and Labour holding to 10 seats in scotland and the LD losing 14 to the Tories, 9 to LAB and 10 to the SNP.

    Workable only under three unlikely conditions:
    1. The swing in England & Wales in Tory seats to be only 2.3% to Labour (very unlikely)
    2. Labour would hold 10 seats in scotland (very unlikely)
    3. No tactical voting in LD-Tory seats. (unlikely)

    I think you're assuming too much on UNS - RNS could change everything in lost of different directions
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    viewcode said:

    Speedy said:

    I followed my own advice and made a weekly polling average which includes only the 4 pollsters that produce regular weekly polls for consistency:

    Weeks ending Apr.1, Apr.8, Apr.15
    LAB 34, 33.5, 33.5
    CON 35, 33.5, 33.5
    LD 7.5, 8, 8
    UKIP 12.5, 13, 13
    GRN 6, 5, 5.5

    A very stable picture.

    It'll be interesting to compare the election result with past polls. How far back will you have to go before the result differs from margin of error?
    You tell me the final result, and I'll answer that question...

    (Incidentally, what figure do you have for the margin of error, and do you have a source?)
    I always assume +/- 3 points. Although I believe it's tied to sample size.


    "Most polling companies quote a margin of error of around about plus or minus 3 points. Technically this is based on a pure random sample of 1000 and doesn’t account for other factors like design and degree of weighting, but it is generally a good rule of thumb. What it means is that 19 times out of 20 the figure in a poll will be within 3 percentage points of what the “true” figure would be if you’d surveyed the entire population."

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/5717
  • DennisBetsDennisBets Posts: 244
    Danny565 said:

    Fpt:

    MaxPB said:

    Speedy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.

    Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.

    What chance of a few Tory gains coming through the middle in WWC Labour-held areas, due to a combination of low Labour turnout and UKIP splitting the WWC vote?
    Zero chance.
    Labour will take in more LD votes than loses to UKIP or the Greens.
    So there will still be a swing to Labour from Tory in Labour seats.

    I'm not so sure about the first line of that. There is a lot of anger at Labour's metropolitan elite up North. Lots of people feel like they have been taken for granted by Labour's leadership just like Scottish people did. Just like there was no outlet for that in Scotland before the SNP, there has not been any outlet for that in the North until UKIP came along speaking their language of less immigration.

    I really think there is a big shy UKIP effect in the North that polling companies have missed in C2DEs.
    More likely they will simply not turn out. My tip for the election is low turnout everywhere bar Scotland. I think Jacks ARSE is optimistic at forecasting 67%.
    They've already 'not turned out'. 1997-2010 are the lowest turnout elections since WW2.

    http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

    The emergence of the Greens and UKIP should draw some of those voters back for 2015.
    UKIP will do well where the BNP did well in 2010.
    The BNP got 1.9% of the vote in 2010. UKIP is currently polling ~14%.
    If you look at where BNP got 6% or more in 2010 you see the same seats as UKIP prospects. I agree that UKIP is not the BNP, it is far more palatable than that. It does combine appeal to the BNP demographic with that of the Monday club.
    Don't forget to factor in demographics, though. Barking and Dagenham were among the best BNP performances last time, but I doubt they'll be close to the best UKIP performances this time because the WWC population has fallen.
    They've moved in much part to Thurrock, this is why Thurrock is a 2 way shoot out between LAB and UKIP

    apologies for formatting error in last post. Incidently I agree Labour might edge UK there
  • Firsty?


    It would not surprise me if one or more pollsters are very embarrassed after the GE. The question is knowing which one(s)... ;-)

    YouGov - you heard it here first.
  • Firsty?


    It would not surprise me if one or more pollsters are very embarrassed after the GE. The question is knowing which one(s)... ;-)

    YouGov - you heard it here first.
    And Populus - although they are an embarrassment already.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173
    Yorkcity said:

    felix said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Whatever happened to the January crossover, the February pulling away and the March consistant Tory majority winning leads?

    It has been postponed to May 7th 2015.

    This saves having a wobbly Thursday in the run up.

    Having said that Labour have their resident jonah on here every day Danny 565.
    I seriously disagree with Danny 565 on politics but he's the only honest Labour poster on here.
    Says it all , he has stockholm syndrome as he is on here to much.
    Lol - seriously rude - Danny 565 is a good bloke. Maybe suffering from glass half-empty syndrome if anything. His biggest problem is that he is way to the left and forced to support Labour as lesser evil.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited April 2015
    Cookie said:

    Lots of Lib Dem posters up in Cheadle. Haven't seen a single poster from another party. This is just based on the drive from my house to my parents', which only covers the northern half of the constituency, but still looking healthier than might be expected for Mark Hunter. Meanwhile, no posters at all in the Sale East half of Wythenshawe and Sale East.

    Given that the LDs want democratic accountability of state power diluted/removed, just participating in elections must feel a bit odd.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,406

    viewcode said:

    Speedy said:

    I followed my own advice and made a weekly polling average which includes only the 4 pollsters that produce regular weekly polls for consistency:

    Weeks ending Apr.1, Apr.8, Apr.15
    LAB 34, 33.5, 33.5
    CON 35, 33.5, 33.5
    LD 7.5, 8, 8
    UKIP 12.5, 13, 13
    GRN 6, 5, 5.5

    A very stable picture.

    It'll be interesting to compare the election result with past polls. How far back will you have to go before the result differs from margin of error?
    You tell me the final result, and I'll answer that question...

    (Incidentally, what figure do you have for the margin of error, and do you have a source?)
    I always assume +/- 3 points. Although I believe it's tied to sample size.


    "Most polling companies quote a margin of error of around about plus or minus 3 points. Technically this is based on a pure random sample of 1000 and doesn’t account for other factors like design and degree of weighting, but it is generally a good rule of thumb. What it means is that 19 times out of 20 the figure in a poll will be within 3 percentage points of what the “true” figure would be if you’d surveyed the entire population."

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/5717
    Thank you, that's very helpful

  • EastwingerEastwinger Posts: 354
    viewcode said:

    EPG said:

    Discussion FPT A 900-seat House of Commons would not be more proportional or lead to fewer safe seats for life.

    I must respectfully disagree. Consider a 1-seat commons (would have been CON for what, 70 years out of the 20th century,and we wouldn't have had a LAB MP until 1997) versus a 65-million seat commons (exactly proportional). Proportionality increases with number.
    EPG said:

    Remembering the Greek rules of rhetoric, I'll choose an example that appeals to the average PB reader's ethos and pathos, as well as logos: The SNP would still win almost all the seats in Scotland if Scotland had 85 rather than 59 seats. You don't like the SNP, do you?

    I don't want them to be in power, whether directly or indirectly and i thought their conduct during the referendum was morally wrong. But that should not prevent them being represented in the House in accordance with their electorate's wishes. If the Scottish electorate wish to be represented by 89 SNP MPs, then 89 SNP MPs they shall have, and I'l make sure they have a packed lunch for the journey.

    Unless they are standing in England as well they can't get more than 59.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,644

    Cookie said:

    Lots of Lib Dem posters up in Cheadle. Haven't seen a single poster from another party. This is just based on the drive from my house to my parents', which only covers the northern half of the constituency, but still looking healthier than might be expected for Mark Hunter. Meanwhile, no posters at all in the Sale East half of Wythenshawe and Sale East.

    Given that the LDs want democratic accountability of state power diluted/removed, just participating in elections must feel a bit odd.
    What is it about UKIP supporters and the LibDems?

    Sometimes I think that you'd be happier with UKIP 5%, LibDems 1%, rather than UKIP 15%, LibDems 15%.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    viewcode said:

    EPG said:

    Discussion FPT A 900-seat House of Commons would not be more proportional or lead to fewer safe seats for life.

    I must respectfully disagree. Consider a 1-seat commons (would have been CON for what, 70 years out of the 20th century,and we wouldn't have had a LAB MP until 1997) versus a 65-million seat commons (exactly proportional). Proportionality increases with number.

    Exactly. The Micro-Mega Rule. In terms of House size the small will prefer the large, and the large will prefer the small...
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,688
    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    weejonnie said:

    Dair said:

    WTF - Diane James on Murnaghan saying "in Heywood and Middleton if the 3000 Conservative voters switch to UKIP then UKIP win the seat" and MURNAGHAN DOES NOT STOP HER.

    WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.

    Maybe the headlines last night about UKIP sending in Lawyers about political bias has given them the willies.
    What Diane James did on Sky is a criminal offence!
    No it isn't and the shame is that you are too thick to realise that. There is no purdah for TV companies, only the requirement for overall balance.

    On the same subject UKIP are stupid to be trying to use lawyers against the BBC. But their idiocy doesn't excuse yours.
    Any guest invited as a party representative cannot discuss or talk about a specific constituency because the segment will not offer other candidates of major parties the right to reply or a listing of all candidates in the seat.

    AIUI this isn't even an Ofcom regulated thing - its an electoral law thing.
    Wrong.

    The relevant rule says:

    "6.12 Where a candidate is taking part in a programme on any matter, after the election has been called, s/he must not be given the opportunity to make constituency points, or electoral area points about the constituency or electoral area in which s/he is standing, when no other candidates will be given a similar opportunity."

    Diane James is not standing in Heywood and Middleton. In fact she is not standing in any constituency and as such she is at liberty to say exactly what she said.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    edited April 2015

    viewcode said:

    Speedy said:

    I followed my own advice and made a weekly polling average which includes only the 4 pollsters that produce regular weekly polls for consistency:

    Weeks ending Apr.1, Apr.8, Apr.15
    LAB 34, 33.5, 33.5
    CON 35, 33.5, 33.5
    LD 7.5, 8, 8
    UKIP 12.5, 13, 13
    GRN 6, 5, 5.5

    A very stable picture.

    It'll be interesting to compare the election result with past polls. How far back will you have to go before the result differs from margin of error?
    You tell me the final result, and I'll answer that question...

    (Incidentally, what figure do you have for the margin of error, and do you have a source?)
    I always assume +/- 3 points. Although I believe it's tied to sample size.


    "Most polling companies quote a margin of error of around about plus or minus 3 points. Technically this is based on a pure random sample of 1000 and doesn’t account for other factors like design and degree of weighting, but it is generally a good rule of thumb. What it means is that 19 times out of 20 the figure in a poll will be within 3 percentage points of what the “true” figure would be if you’d surveyed the entire population."

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/5717
    As I have posted before , the Margin Of Error also varies with the actual VI of a party .
    For a party at 50% , if the M of E of a poll is stated as plus/minus 3 then that party's M of E is also plus/minus 3 . For a party at x% the M of E varies as to the formula
    x times ( 100 - x ) divided by ( 50 x 50 ) times the M of E
    Therefore for example a party with a vote share of 10% will have a M of E of
    10 times 90 equals 900 divided by 2500 times 3 ie just over plus or minus 1%
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,644
    RodCrosby said:

    viewcode said:

    EPG said:

    Discussion FPT A 900-seat House of Commons would not be more proportional or lead to fewer safe seats for life.

    I must respectfully disagree. Consider a 1-seat commons (would have been CON for what, 70 years out of the 20th century,and we wouldn't have had a LAB MP until 1997) versus a 65-million seat commons (exactly proportional). Proportionality increases with number.

    Exactly. The Micro-Mega Rule. In terms of House size the small will prefer the large, and the large will prefer the small...
    I think we should change our electoral system so that every day there is a one-in-60 million chance that you become an MP. And everybody elected is an MP for 18 months.

    Should ensure things are entertaining, at least. Although betting opportunities might be limited.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    weejonnie said:

    Dair said:

    WTF - Diane James on Murnaghan saying "in Heywood and Middleton if the 3000 Conservative voters switch to UKIP then UKIP win the seat" and MURNAGHAN DOES NOT STOP HER.

    WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.

    Maybe the headlines last night about UKIP sending in Lawyers about political bias has given them the willies.
    What Diane James did on Sky is a criminal offence!
    No it isn't and the shame is that you are too thick to realise that. There is no purdah for TV companies, only the requirement for overall balance.

    On the same subject UKIP are stupid to be trying to use lawyers against the BBC. But their idiocy doesn't excuse yours.
    Any guest invited as a party representative cannot discuss or talk about a specific constituency because the segment will not offer other candidates of major parties the right to reply or a listing of all candidates in the seat.

    AIUI this isn't even an Ofcom regulated thing - its an electoral law thing.
    Wrong.

    The relevant rule says:

    "6.12 Where a candidate is taking part in a programme on any matter, after the election has been called, s/he must not be given the opportunity to make constituency points, or electoral area points about the constituency or electoral area in which s/he is standing, when no other candidates will be given a similar opportunity."

    Diane James is not standing in Heywood and Middleton. In fact she is not standing in any constituency and as such she is at liberty to say exactly what she said.
    On This Week on Thursday night Diane James made a constituency remark and Andrew Neil said "you know you're not allowed to speak about specific constituencies" to which she apologised and moved on.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    felix said:

    Yorkcity said:

    felix said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Whatever happened to the January crossover, the February pulling away and the March consistant Tory majority winning leads?

    It has been postponed to May 7th 2015.

    This saves having a wobbly Thursday in the run up.

    Having said that Labour have their resident jonah on here every day Danny 565.
    I seriously disagree with Danny 565 on politics but he's the only honest Labour poster on here.
    Says it all , he has stockholm syndrome as he is on here to much.
    Lol - seriously rude - Danny 565 is a good bloke. Maybe suffering from glass half-empty syndrome if anything. His biggest problem is that he is way to the left and forced to support Labour as lesser evil.
    Felix to be fair he is.

    When you are from the Utopian Left , you always prefer opposition.
    Then you do not have to compromise your principles.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,644

    viewcode said:

    Speedy said:

    I followed my own advice and made a weekly polling average which includes only the 4 pollsters that produce regular weekly polls for consistency:

    Weeks ending Apr.1, Apr.8, Apr.15
    LAB 34, 33.5, 33.5
    CON 35, 33.5, 33.5
    LD 7.5, 8, 8
    UKIP 12.5, 13, 13
    GRN 6, 5, 5.5

    A very stable picture.

    It'll be interesting to compare the election result with past polls. How far back will you have to go before the result differs from margin of error?
    You tell me the final result, and I'll answer that question...

    (Incidentally, what figure do you have for the margin of error, and do you have a source?)
    I always assume +/- 3 points. Although I believe it's tied to sample size.


    "Most polling companies quote a margin of error of around about plus or minus 3 points. Technically this is based on a pure random sample of 1000 and doesn’t account for other factors like design and degree of weighting, but it is generally a good rule of thumb. What it means is that 19 times out of 20 the figure in a poll will be within 3 percentage points of what the “true” figure would be if you’d surveyed the entire population."

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/5717
    As I have posted before , the Margin Of Error also varies with the actual VI of a party .
    For a party at 50% , if the M of E of a poll is stated as plus/minus 3 then that party's M of E is also plus/minus 3 . For a party at x% the M of E varies as to the formula
    x times ( 100 - x ) divided by ( 50 x 50 ) times the M of E
    Therefore for example a party with a vote share of 10% will have a M of E of
    10 times 90 equals 900 divided by 2500 times 3 ie just over plus or minus 1%
    Thank you :-)

    As an aside, that means some people's methodology in respect of UKIP is going to look very silly.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Danny565 said:

    Fpt:

    MaxPB said:

    Speedy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Still no Labour posters seen here in my village. Whilst it'll be Labour forever, NE Derbyshire is a longshot Tory hope. None to be seen in Rother Valley either.

    Labour may have real problems getting the WWC vote out tbh.

    What chance of a few Tory gains coming through the middle in WWC Labour-held areas, due to a combination of low Labour turnout and UKIP splitting the WWC vote?
    Zero chance.
    Labour will take in more LD votes than loses to UKIP or the Greens.
    So there will still be a swing to Labour from Tory in Labour seats.

    I'm not so sure about the first line of that. There is a lot of anger at Labour's metropolitan elite up North. Lots of people feel like they have been taken for granted by Labour's leadership just like Scottish people did. Just like there was no outlet for that in Scotland before the SNP, there has not been any outlet for that in the North until UKIP came along speaking their language of less immigration.

    I really think there is a big shy UKIP effect in the North that polling companies have missed in C2DEs.
    More likely they will simply not turn out. My tip for the election is low turnout everywhere bar Scotland. I think Jacks ARSE is optimistic at forecasting 67%.
    They've already 'not turned out'. 1997-2010 are the lowest turnout elections since WW2.

    http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

    The emergence of the Greens and UKIP should draw some of those voters back for 2015.
    UKIP will do well where the BNP did well in 2010.
    The BNP got 1.9% of the vote in 2010. UKIP is currently polling ~14%.
    If you look at where BNP got 6% or more in 2010 you see the same seats as UKIP prospects. I agree that UKIP is not the BNP, it is far more palatable than that. It does combine appeal to the BNP demographic with that of the Monday club.
    Don't forget to factor in demographics, though. Barking and Dagenham were among the best BNP performances last time, but I doubt they'll be close to the best UKIP performances this time because the WWC population has fallen.
    I agree, demographic movements (Sunil did some good work on this a few years back) and boundary changes make a lot of difference, but the pattern is there.

    I think UKIP will poll well in the same areas, but stand by my assertion that they will not poll more than 20% in a dozen or so.
  • compouter2compouter2 Posts: 2,371
    Yorkcity said:

    Whatever happened to the January crossover, the February pulling away and the March consistant Tory majority winning leads?

    It has been postponed to May 7th 2015.

    This saves having a wobbly Thursday in the run up.

    Having said that Labour have their resident jonah on here every day Danny 565.
    Wobly Thursday, Swingback Sunday and Coalition Crossover, pollsters, election predictors, Monte Carlo permutations.... this election could lay waste to many a reputation on here.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,688
    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    Lots of Lib Dem posters up in Cheadle. Haven't seen a single poster from another party. This is just based on the drive from my house to my parents', which only covers the northern half of the constituency, but still looking healthier than might be expected for Mark Hunter. Meanwhile, no posters at all in the Sale East half of Wythenshawe and Sale East.

    Given that the LDs want democratic accountability of state power diluted/removed, just participating in elections must feel a bit odd.
    What is it about UKIP supporters and the LibDems?

    Sometimes I think that you'd be happier with UKIP 5%, LibDems 1%, rather than UKIP 15%, LibDems 15%.
    The LibDems - more than any other of the main parties - support ideas which are anti-democratic and increase the power of the centralised elite. EU membership, PR and reform of the Lords as another elected chamber are all examples of this. At the same time they oppose those principles that are designed to improve democracy such as boundary reform. Worse still they pretend that in doing this they are trying to improve democracy. In an ideal world they would disappear entirely.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,688

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    weejonnie said:

    Dair said:

    WTF - Diane James on Murnaghan saying "in Heywood and Middleton if the 3000 Conservative voters switch to UKIP then UKIP win the seat" and MURNAGHAN DOES NOT STOP HER.

    WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.

    Maybe the headlines last night about UKIP sending in Lawyers about political bias has given them the willies.
    What Diane James did on Sky is a criminal offence!
    No it isn't and the shame is that you are too thick to realise that. There is no purdah for TV companies, only the requirement for overall balance.

    On the same subject UKIP are stupid to be trying to use lawyers against the BBC. But their idiocy doesn't excuse yours.
    Any guest invited as a party representative cannot discuss or talk about a specific constituency because the segment will not offer other candidates of major parties the right to reply or a listing of all candidates in the seat.

    AIUI this isn't even an Ofcom regulated thing - its an electoral law thing.
    Wrong.

    The relevant rule says:

    "6.12 Where a candidate is taking part in a programme on any matter, after the election has been called, s/he must not be given the opportunity to make constituency points, or electoral area points about the constituency or electoral area in which s/he is standing, when no other candidates will be given a similar opportunity."

    Diane James is not standing in Heywood and Middleton. In fact she is not standing in any constituency and as such she is at liberty to say exactly what she said.
    On This Week on Thursday night Diane James made a constituency remark and Andrew Neil said "you know you're not allowed to speak about specific constituencies" to which she apologised and moved on.
    That is not what the rules say - as I just quoted. Dair claiming she has broken some sort of law is just plain wrong.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited April 2015
    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    Speedy said:

    I followed my own advice and made a weekly polling average which includes only the 4 pollsters that produce regular weekly polls for consistency:

    Weeks ending Apr.1, Apr.8, Apr.15
    LAB 34, 33.5, 33.5
    CON 35, 33.5, 33.5
    LD 7.5, 8, 8
    UKIP 12.5, 13, 13
    GRN 6, 5, 5.5

    A very stable picture.

    It'll be interesting to compare the election result with past polls. How far back will you have to go before the result differs from margin of error?
    You tell me the final result, and I'll answer that question...

    (Incidentally, what figure do you have for the margin of error, and do you have a source?)
    I always assume +/- 3 points. Although I believe it's tied to sample size.


    "Most polling companies quote a margin of error of around about plus or minus 3 points. Technically this is based on a pure random sample of 1000 and doesn’t account for other factors like design and degree of weighting, but it is generally a good rule of thumb. What it means is that 19 times out of 20 the figure in a poll will be within 3 percentage points of what the “true” figure would be if you’d surveyed the entire population."

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/5717
    As I have posted before , the Margin Of Error also varies with the actual VI of a party .
    For a party at 50% , if the M of E of a poll is stated as plus/minus 3 then that party's M of E is also plus/minus 3 . For a party at x% the M of E varies as to the formula
    x times ( 100 - x ) divided by ( 50 x 50 ) times the M of E
    Therefore for example a party with a vote share of 10% will have a M of E of
    10 times 90 equals 900 divided by 2500 times 3 ie just over plus or minus 1%
    Thank you :-)

    As an aside, that means some people's methodology in respect of UKIP is going to look very silly.
    MoE is about random variation. The problems of non random variation (assumptions, past voting, certainty to vote, bias and non-random sampling) are in addition.

    I suppose we will know in just 3 weeks who is the real ARSE...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,644

    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    Lots of Lib Dem posters up in Cheadle. Haven't seen a single poster from another party. This is just based on the drive from my house to my parents', which only covers the northern half of the constituency, but still looking healthier than might be expected for Mark Hunter. Meanwhile, no posters at all in the Sale East half of Wythenshawe and Sale East.

    Given that the LDs want democratic accountability of state power diluted/removed, just participating in elections must feel a bit odd.
    What is it about UKIP supporters and the LibDems?

    Sometimes I think that you'd be happier with UKIP 5%, LibDems 1%, rather than UKIP 15%, LibDems 15%.
    The LibDems - more than any other of the main parties - support ideas which are anti-democratic and increase the power of the centralised elite. EU membership, PR and reform of the Lords as another elected chamber are all examples of this. At the same time they oppose those principles that are designed to improve democracy such as boundary reform. Worse still they pretend that in doing this they are trying to improve democracy. In an ideal world they would disappear entirely.
    Leaving aside the issue of the EU, your points are not particularly strong ones.

    Are countries with PR - such as Ireland, the Netherlands and Israel - inherently less democratic than the UK? I happen to like our system, but to claim that the way that other democracies organise themselves is undemocratic is ridiculous.

    And while *everybody* hated the House of Lords proposals as agreed in committee, I don't have any issue with an elected HoL in principle. Do you?

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    weejonnie said:

    Dair said:

    WTF - Diane James on Murnaghan saying "in Heywood and Middleton if the 3000 Conservative voters switch to UKIP then UKIP win the seat" and MURNAGHAN DOES NOT STOP HER.

    WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.

    Maybe the headlines last night about UKIP sending in Lawyers about political bias has given them the willies.
    What Diane James did on Sky is a criminal offence!
    No it isn't and the shame is that you are too thick to realise that. There is no purdah for TV companies, only the requirement for overall balance.

    On the same subject UKIP are stupid to be trying to use lawyers against the BBC. But their idiocy doesn't excuse yours.
    Any guest invited as a party representative cannot discuss or talk about a specific constituency because the segment will not offer other candidates of major parties the right to reply or a listing of all candidates in the seat.

    AIUI this isn't even an Ofcom regulated thing - its an electoral law thing.
    Wrong.

    The relevant rule says:

    "6.12 Where a candidate is taking part in a programme on any matter, after the election has been called, s/he must not be given the opportunity to make constituency points, or electoral area points about the constituency or electoral area in which s/he is standing, when no other candidates will be given a similar opportunity."

    Diane James is not standing in Heywood and Middleton. In fact she is not standing in any constituency and as such she is at liberty to say exactly what she said.
    On This Week on Thursday night Diane James made a constituency remark and Andrew Neil said "you know you're not allowed to speak about specific constituencies" to which she apologised and moved on.
    That is not what the rules say - as I just quoted. Dair claiming she has broken some sort of law is just plain wrong.
    I am not a lawyer and don't know if that is the only proviso that relates to it, or if there are other regulations elsewhere that are relevant. However what I do know is what I just said which is that when she tried to discuss a specific constituency on Thursday night Andrew Neil said it wasn't allowed - which she seemed to agree with and certainly didn't dispute at the time.

    Its possible of course that Andrew Neil was wrong, but not sure about that.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173
    One other OT thought. it remains possible that the very tightness of the race causes a build up of tension that leads to an even bigger squeeze on the minor parties in the last few days which allows a non-hung parliament. There are one or two signs that this may affect UKIP. I'm not saying it will happen, but if it did it's entirely possible that the polls miss it almost till the end.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    Speedy said:

    I followed my own advice and made a weekly polling average which includes only the 4 pollsters that produce regular weekly polls for consistency:

    Weeks ending Apr.1, Apr.8, Apr.15
    LAB 34, 33.5, 33.5
    CON 35, 33.5, 33.5
    LD 7.5, 8, 8
    UKIP 12.5, 13, 13
    GRN 6, 5, 5.5

    A very stable picture.

    It'll be interesting to compare the election result with past polls. How far back will you have to go before the result differs from margin of error?
    You tell me the final result, and I'll answer that question...

    (Incidentally, what figure do you have for the margin of error, and do you have a source?)
    I always assume +/- 3 points. Although I believe it's tied to sample size.


    "Most polling companies quote a margin of error of around about plus or minus 3 points. Technically this is based on a pure random sample of 1000 and doesn’t account for other factors like design and degree of weighting, but it is generally a good rule of thumb. What it means is that 19 times out of 20 the figure in a poll will be within 3 percentage points of what the “true” figure would be if you’d surveyed the entire population."

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/5717
    As I have posted before , the Margin Of Error also varies with the actual VI of a party .
    For a party at 50% , if the M of E of a poll is stated as plus/minus 3 then that party's M of E is also plus/minus 3 . For a party at x% the M of E varies as to the formula
    x times ( 100 - x ) divided by ( 50 x 50 ) times the M of E
    Therefore for example a party with a vote share of 10% will have a M of E of
    10 times 90 equals 900 divided by 2500 times 3 ie just over plus or minus 1%
    Thank you :-)

    As an aside, that means some people's methodology in respect of UKIP is going to look very silly.
    Indeed , there is no way that UKIP at 7% and 17% with differing pollsters are within M of E
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,644

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    weejonnie said:

    Dair said:

    WTF - Diane James on Murnaghan saying "in Heywood and Middleton if the 3000 Conservative voters switch to UKIP then UKIP win the seat" and MURNAGHAN DOES NOT STOP HER.

    WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.

    Maybe the headlines last night about UKIP sending in Lawyers about political bias has given them the willies.
    What Diane James did on Sky is a criminal offence!
    No it isn't and the shame is that you are too thick to realise that. There is no purdah for TV companies, only the requirement for overall balance.

    On the same subject UKIP are stupid to be trying to use lawyers against the BBC. But their idiocy doesn't excuse yours.
    Any guest invited as a party representative cannot discuss or talk about a specific constituency because the segment will not offer other candidates of major parties the right to reply or a listing of all candidates in the seat.

    AIUI this isn't even an Ofcom regulated thing - its an electoral law thing.
    Wrong.

    The relevant rule says:

    "6.12 Where a candidate is taking part in a programme on any matter, after the election has been called, s/he must not be given the opportunity to make constituency points, or electoral area points about the constituency or electoral area in which s/he is standing, when no other candidates will be given a similar opportunity."

    Diane James is not standing in Heywood and Middleton. In fact she is not standing in any constituency and as such she is at liberty to say exactly what she said.
    On This Week on Thursday night Diane James made a constituency remark and Andrew Neil said "you know you're not allowed to speak about specific constituencies" to which she apologised and moved on.
    That is not what the rules say - as I just quoted. Dair claiming she has broken some sort of law is just plain wrong.
    I am not a lawyer and don't know if that is the only proviso that relates to it, or if there are other regulations elsewhere that are relevant. However what I do know is what I just said which is that when she tried to discuss a specific constituency on Thursday night Andrew Neil said it wasn't allowed - which she seemed to agree with and certainly didn't dispute at the time.

    Its possible of course that Andrew Neil was wrong, but not sure about that.
    Andrew Neil may be referring to specific Sky guidelines, rather than to electoral law.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    rcs1000 said:

    On This Week on Thursday night Diane James made a constituency remark and Andrew Neil said "you know you're not allowed to speak about specific constituencies" to which she apologised and moved on.

    That is not what the rules say - as I just quoted. Dair claiming she has broken some sort of law is just plain wrong.
    I am not a lawyer and don't know if that is the only proviso that relates to it, or if there are other regulations elsewhere that are relevant. However what I do know is what I just said which is that when she tried to discuss a specific constituency on Thursday night Andrew Neil said it wasn't allowed - which she seemed to agree with and certainly didn't dispute at the time.

    Its possible of course that Andrew Neil was wrong, but not sure about that.
    Andrew Neil may be referring to specific Sky guidelines, rather than to electoral law.
    BBC. It was during This Week (on BBC 1 after Question Time) that this happened.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,644

    rcs1000 said:

    On This Week on Thursday night Diane James made a constituency remark and Andrew Neil said "you know you're not allowed to speak about specific constituencies" to which she apologised and moved on.

    That is not what the rules say - as I just quoted. Dair claiming she has broken some sort of law is just plain wrong.
    I am not a lawyer and don't know if that is the only proviso that relates to it, or if there are other regulations elsewhere that are relevant. However what I do know is what I just said which is that when she tried to discuss a specific constituency on Thursday night Andrew Neil said it wasn't allowed - which she seemed to agree with and certainly didn't dispute at the time.

    Its possible of course that Andrew Neil was wrong, but not sure about that.
    Andrew Neil may be referring to specific Sky guidelines, rather than to electoral law.
    BBC. It was during This Week (on BBC 1 after Question Time) that this happened.
    See: it's a good thing you're here :-)
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,406

    The LibDems - more than any other of the main parties - support ideas which are anti-democratic and increase the power of the centralised elite. EU membership, PR and reform of the Lords as another elected chamber are all examples of this.

    If PR and reform of the Lords would increase the power of the centralised elite, they wouldn't have fought so hard and so successfuly to prevent them.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited April 2015
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    On This Week on Thursday night Diane James made a constituency remark and Andrew Neil said "you know you're not allowed to speak about specific constituencies" to which she apologised and moved on.

    That is not what the rules say - as I just quoted. Dair claiming she has broken some sort of law is just plain wrong.
    I am not a lawyer and don't know if that is the only proviso that relates to it, or if there are other regulations elsewhere that are relevant. However what I do know is what I just said which is that when she tried to discuss a specific constituency on Thursday night Andrew Neil said it wasn't allowed - which she seemed to agree with and certainly didn't dispute at the time.

    Its possible of course that Andrew Neil was wrong, but not sure about that.
    Andrew Neil may be referring to specific Sky guidelines, rather than to electoral law.
    BBC. It was during This Week (on BBC 1 after Question Time) that this happened.
    See: it's a good thing you're here :-)
    LOL.

    Its entirely possible what I mentioned was due to a BBC rule rather than due to Ofcom.

    Richard may be right in his claim that its wrong for specific candidates only to mention a constituency but its perfectly OK for party representatives representing the candidate's party to discuss the constituency [edit - phew sounds like something Sir Humphrey would say] ... but either way it seems to be a "letter but not spirit of the law" claim.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,406
    While I'm here jabbering to you fine people, can anybody remember a post about how the percentage of people who simply haven't made their minds up yet? It was either here or on UKPR but I'm up to my eyelids.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,406
    edited April 2015
    THIS IS A USEFUL POST ABOUT MOE: LET ME PUT THIS SENTENCE HERE SO I CAN FIND IT LATER

    viewcode said:

    Speedy said:

    I followed my own advice and made a weekly polling average which includes only the 4 pollsters that produce regular weekly polls for consistency:

    Weeks ending Apr.1, Apr.8, Apr.15
    LAB 34, 33.5, 33.5
    CON 35, 33.5, 33.5
    LD 7.5, 8, 8
    UKIP 12.5, 13, 13
    GRN 6, 5, 5.5

    A very stable picture.

    It'll be interesting to compare the election result with past polls. How far back will you have to go before the result differs from margin of error?
    You tell me the final result, and I'll answer that question...

    (Incidentally, what figure do you have for the margin of error, and do you have a source?)
    I always assume +/- 3 points. Although I believe it's tied to sample size.


    "Most polling companies quote a margin of error of around about plus or minus 3 points. Technically this is based on a pure random sample of 1000 and doesn’t account for other factors like design and degree of weighting, but it is generally a good rule of thumb. What it means is that 19 times out of 20 the figure in a poll will be within 3 percentage points of what the “true” figure would be if you’d surveyed the entire population."

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/5717
    As I have posted before , the Margin Of Error also varies with the actual VI of a party .
    For a party at 50% , if the M of E of a poll is stated as plus/minus 3 then that party's M of E is also plus/minus 3 . For a party at x% the M of E varies as to the formula
    x times ( 100 - x ) divided by ( 50 x 50 ) times the M of E
    Therefore for example a party with a vote share of 10% will have a M of E of
    10 times 90 equals 900 divided by 2500 times 3 ie just over plus or minus 1%
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    edited April 2015

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    weejonnie said:

    Dair said:

    WTF - Diane James on Murnaghan saying "in Heywood and Middleton if the 3000 Conservative voters switch to UKIP then UKIP win the seat" and MURNAGHAN DOES NOT STOP HER.

    WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.

    Maybe the headlines last night about UKIP sending in Lawyers about political bias has given them the willies.
    What Diane James did on Sky is a criminal offence!
    No it isn't and the shame is that you are too thick to realise that. There is no purdah for TV companies, only the requirement for overall balance.

    On the same subject UKIP are stupid to be trying to use lawyers against the BBC. But their idiocy doesn't excuse yours.
    Any guest invited as a party representative cannot discuss or talk about a specific constituency because the segment will not offer other candidates of major parties the right to reply or a listing of all candidates in the seat.

    AIUI this isn't even an Ofcom regulated thing - its an electoral law thing.
    Wrong.

    The relevant rule says:

    "6.12 Where a candidate is taking part in a programme on any matter, after the election has been called, s/he must not be given the opportunity to make constituency points, or electoral area points about the constituency or electoral area in which s/he is standing, when no other candidates will be given a similar opportunity."

    Diane James is not standing in Heywood and Middleton. In fact she is not standing in any constituency and as such she is at liberty to say exactly what she said.
    It comes under section 6.8

    6.8 Due impartiality must be strictly maintained in a constituency report or discussion and in an electoral area report or discussion.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,406
    rcs1000 said:

    RodCrosby said:

    viewcode said:

    EPG said:

    Discussion FPT A 900-seat House of Commons would not be more proportional or lead to fewer safe seats for life.

    I must respectfully disagree. Consider a 1-seat commons (would have been CON for what, 70 years out of the 20th century,and we wouldn't have had a LAB MP until 1997) versus a 65-million seat commons (exactly proportional). Proportionality increases with number.

    Exactly. The Micro-Mega Rule. In terms of House size the small will prefer the large, and the large will prefer the small...
    I think we should change our electoral system so that every day there is a one-in-60 million chance that you become an MP. And everybody elected is an MP for 18 months.

    Should ensure things are entertaining, at least. Although betting opportunities might be limited.
    +1

  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    edited April 2015
    rcs1000 said:

    Andrew Neil may be referring to specific Sky guidelines, rather than to electoral law.

    The programme was on BBC, not Sky - so nothing to do with Sky.

    He was obviously worried about the electoral law whereby if one candidate in a constituency is named then all the other candidates must be named.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,406

    viewcode said:

    Speedy said:

    I followed my own advice and made a weekly polling average which includes only the 4 pollsters that produce regular weekly polls for consistency:

    Weeks ending Apr.1, Apr.8, Apr.15
    LAB 34, 33.5, 33.5
    CON 35, 33.5, 33.5
    LD 7.5, 8, 8
    UKIP 12.5, 13, 13
    GRN 6, 5, 5.5

    A very stable picture.

    It'll be interesting to compare the election result with past polls. How far back will you have to go before the result differs from margin of error?
    You tell me the final result, and I'll answer that question...

    (Incidentally, what figure do you have for the margin of error, and do you have a source?)
    I always assume +/- 3 points. Although I believe it's tied to sample size.


    "Most polling companies quote a margin of error of around about plus or minus 3 points. Technically this is based on a pure random sample of 1000 and doesn’t account for other factors like design and degree of weighting, but it is generally a good rule of thumb. What it means is that 19 times out of 20 the figure in a poll will be within 3 percentage points of what the “true” figure would be if you’d surveyed the entire population."

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/5717
    As I have posted before , the Margin Of Error also varies with the actual VI of a party .
    For a party at 50% , if the M of E of a poll is stated as plus/minus 3 then that party's M of E is also plus/minus 3 . For a party at x% the M of E varies as to the formula
    x times ( 100 - x ) divided by ( 50 x 50 ) times the M of E
    Therefore for example a party with a vote share of 10% will have a M of E of
    10 times 90 equals 900 divided by 2500 times 3 ie just over plus or minus 1%
    Link?

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    I don't know how far his spreads, but down here in the South-west, the ONLY thing which has fired up the voters passion is the considerable antipathy to the idea of an SNP tail wagging a Labour Downing Street dog.

    It's a really big positive for the Blues on the doorstep. If the extent we are seeing translates into people voting accordingly, then Labour are in trouble.

    This will be the message every day
    Labour has confirmed of the first time it would speak to the SNP after the election to try and get Ed Miliband into Downing Street.

    Angela Eagle, the shadow leader of the Commons said that if Labour is the largest party after May 7, it would speak to any other party represented in the Commons to “try and build a majority” for its Queen’s Speech.
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4416239.ece
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    felix said:

    One other OT thought. it remains possible that the very tightness of the race causes a build up of tension that leads to an even bigger squeeze on the minor parties in the last few days which allows a non-hung parliament. There are one or two signs that this may affect UKIP. I'm not saying it will happen, but if it did it's entirely possible that the polls miss it almost till the end.

    I think you are correct, there are currently more UKIP to squeeze back to the Conservatives than back to Labour.

    However they already know that Labour are not offering an EU referendum, so what will now be the major squeeze factor ?
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    weejonnie said:

    Dair said:

    WTF - Diane James on Murnaghan saying "in Heywood and Middleton if the 3000 Conservative voters switch to UKIP then UKIP win the seat" and MURNAGHAN DOES NOT STOP HER.

    WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.

    Maybe the headlines last night about UKIP sending in Lawyers about political bias has given them the willies.
    What Diane James did on Sky is a criminal offence!
    No it isn't and the shame is that you are too thick to realise that. There is no purdah for TV companies, only the requirement for overall balance.

    On the same subject UKIP are stupid to be trying to use lawyers against the BBC. But their idiocy doesn't excuse yours.
    Any guest invited as a party representative cannot discuss or talk about a specific constituency because the segment will not offer other candidates of major parties the right to reply or a listing of all candidates in the seat.

    AIUI this isn't even an Ofcom regulated thing - its an electoral law thing.
    Wrong.

    The relevant rule says:

    "6.12 Where a candidate is taking part in a programme on any matter, after the election has been called, s/he must not be given the opportunity to make constituency points, or electoral area points about the constituency or electoral area in which s/he is standing, when no other candidates will be given a similar opportunity."

    Diane James is not standing in Heywood and Middleton. In fact she is not standing in any constituency and as such she is at liberty to say exactly what she said.
    On This Week on Thursday night Diane James made a constituency remark and Andrew Neil said "you know you're not allowed to speak about specific constituencies" to which she apologised and moved on.
    Seems to be a clear decision by James to do this then, Margaret Curran also appears to think the law applies to other people as she twice made constituency specific remarks when interviewed on the Daily Politics last week.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    weejonnie said:

    Dair said:

    WTF - Diane James on Murnaghan saying "in Heywood and Middleton if the 3000 Conservative voters switch to UKIP then UKIP win the seat" and MURNAGHAN DOES NOT STOP HER.

    WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.

    Maybe the headlines last night about UKIP sending in Lawyers about political bias has given them the willies.
    What Diane James did on Sky is a criminal offence!
    No it isn't and the shame is that you are too thick to realise that. There is no purdah for TV companies, only the requirement for overall balance.

    On the same subject UKIP are stupid to be trying to use lawyers against the BBC. But their idiocy doesn't excuse yours.
    Any guest invited as a party representative cannot discuss or talk about a specific constituency because the segment will not offer other candidates of major parties the right to reply or a listing of all candidates in the seat.

    AIUI this isn't even an Ofcom regulated thing - its an electoral law thing.
    Wrong.

    The relevant rule says:

    "6.12 Where a candidate is taking part in a programme on any matter, after the election has been called, s/he must not be given the opportunity to make constituency points, or electoral area points about the constituency or electoral area in which s/he is standing, when no other candidates will be given a similar opportunity."

    Diane James is not standing in Heywood and Middleton. In fact she is not standing in any constituency and as such she is at liberty to say exactly what she said.
    On This Week on Thursday night Diane James made a constituency remark and Andrew Neil said "you know you're not allowed to speak about specific constituencies" to which she apologised and moved on.
    That is not what the rules say - as I just quoted. Dair claiming she has broken some sort of law is just plain wrong.
    Failing to follow broadcast rules set by Ofcom or the BBC is an offence under the Representation of the People Act.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    rcs1000 said:

    RodCrosby said:

    viewcode said:

    EPG said:

    Discussion FPT A 900-seat House of Commons would not be more proportional or lead to fewer safe seats for life.

    I must respectfully disagree. Consider a 1-seat commons (would have been CON for what, 70 years out of the 20th century,and we wouldn't have had a LAB MP until 1997) versus a 65-million seat commons (exactly proportional). Proportionality increases with number.

    Exactly. The Micro-Mega Rule. In terms of House size the small will prefer the large, and the large will prefer the small...
    I think we should change our electoral system so that every day there is a one-in-60 million chance that you become an MP. And everybody elected is an MP for 18 months.

    Should ensure things are entertaining, at least. Although betting opportunities might be limited.
    Hmm I can really support that.

    It would be like the national lottery but the winner becomes an MP, everyone would have equal chances of being selected regardless of class or sex or colour, it would be really a representative sample of the population.
    However parliament would never vote for its own abolishment, the only way it could pass would be to make an extra chamber and make it a 3 chamber parliament with a House of Lords, a House of Commons, and a House of People.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,463

    Whatever happened to the January crossover, the February pulling away and the March consistant Tory majority winning leads?

    Isn't that pretty much what the phone polls have been showing? There was that Comres thing last week- if only I'd worked out how to link from this phone.

  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    Of course Diane James didn't break the law.

    The issue was that having named Aker in Thurrock that the BBC would then have had to name all other Thurrock candidates.

    Given that the programme was live and they would not have been prepared to do that - ie they wouldn't have had a graphic ready and nobody in place to produce a graphic on the spot then potentially the BBC could have been in breach of the law.

    I suspect they just took the view it was a very minor breach at midnight in a programme with a small audience so they decided they could get away with it.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    Lots of Lib Dem posters up in Cheadle. Haven't seen a single poster from another party. This is just based on the drive from my house to my parents', which only covers the northern half of the constituency, but still looking healthier than might be expected for Mark Hunter. Meanwhile, no posters at all in the Sale East half of Wythenshawe and Sale East.

    Given that the LDs want democratic accountability of state power diluted/removed, just participating in elections must feel a bit odd.
    What is it about UKIP supporters and the LibDems?

    Sometimes I think that you'd be happier with UKIP 5%, LibDems 1%, rather than UKIP 15%, LibDems 15%.
    The LibDems - more than any other of the main parties - support ideas which are anti-democratic and increase the power of the centralised elite. EU membership, PR and reform of the Lords as another elected chamber are all examples of this. At the same time they oppose those principles that are designed to improve democracy such as boundary reform. Worse still they pretend that in doing this they are trying to improve democracy. In an ideal world they would disappear entirely.
    Leaving aside the issue of the EU, your points are not particularly strong ones.

    Are countries with PR - such as Ireland, the Netherlands and Israel - inherently less democratic than the UK? I happen to like our system, but to claim that the way that other democracies organise themselves is undemocratic is ridiculous.

    And while *everybody* hated the House of Lords proposals as agreed in committee, I don't have any issue with an elected HoL in principle. Do you?

    None of the systems that you mentioned are really democratic though: through the aggregation of power to parties rather than the electorate means the tend towards bring elected oligarchies instead.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited April 2015
    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    weejonnie said:

    Dair said:

    WTF - Diane James on Murnaghan saying "in Heywood and Middleton if the 3000 Conservative voters switch to UKIP then UKIP win the seat" and MURNAGHAN DOES NOT STOP HER.

    WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.

    Maybe the headlines last night about UKIP sending in Lawyers about political bias has given them the willies.
    What Diane James did on Sky is a criminal offence!
    No it isn't and the shame is that you are too thick to realise that. There is no purdah for TV companies, only the requirement for overall balance.

    On the same subject UKIP are stupid to be trying to use lawyers against the BBC. But their idiocy doesn't excuse yours.
    Any guest invited as a party representative cannot discuss or talk about a specific constituency because the segment will not offer other candidates of major parties the right to reply or a listing of all candidates in the seat.

    AIUI this isn't even an Ofcom regulated thing - its an electoral law thing.
    Wrong.

    The relevant rule says:

    "6.12 Where a candidate is taking part in a programme on any matter, after the election has been called, s/he must not be given the opportunity to make constituency points, or electoral area points about the constituency or electoral area in which s/he is standing, when no other candidates will be given a similar opportunity."

    Diane James is not standing in Heywood and Middleton. In fact she is not standing in any constituency and as such she is at liberty to say exactly what she said.
    On This Week on Thursday night Diane James made a constituency remark and Andrew Neil said "you know you're not allowed to speak about specific constituencies" to which she apologised and moved on.
    That is not what the rules say - as I just quoted. Dair claiming she has broken some sort of law is just plain wrong.
    Failing to follow broadcast rules set by Ofcom or the BBC is an offence under the Representation of the People Act.
    It's a conspiracy I tell you.
    Only the glorious SNP has the right to win Heywood, Thurrock blah blah blah.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,688
    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    weejonnie said:

    Dair said:

    WTF - Diane James on Murnaghan saying "in Heywood and Middleton if the 3000 Conservative voters switch to UKIP then UKIP win the seat" and MURNAGHAN DOES NOT STOP HER.

    WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.

    Maybe the headlines last night about UKIP sending in Lawyers about political bias has given them the willies.
    What Diane James did on Sky is a criminal offence!
    No it isn't and the shame is that you are too thick to realise that. There is no purdah for TV companies, only the requirement for overall balance.

    On the same subject UKIP are stupid to be trying to use lawyers against the BBC. But their idiocy doesn't excuse yours.
    Any guest invited as a party representative cannot discuss or talk about a specific constituency because the segment will not offer other candidates of major parties the right to reply or a listing of all candidates in the seat.

    AIUI this isn't even an Ofcom regulated thing - its an electoral law thing.
    Wrong.

    The relevant rule says:

    "6.12 Where a candidate is taking part in a programme on any matter, after the election has been called, s/he must not be given the opportunity to make constituency points, or electoral area points about the constituency or electoral area in which s/he is standing, when no other candidates will be given a similar opportunity."

    Diane James is not standing in Heywood and Middleton. In fact she is not standing in any constituency and as such she is at liberty to say exactly what she said.
    On This Week on Thursday night Diane James made a constituency remark and Andrew Neil said "you know you're not allowed to speak about specific constituencies" to which she apologised and moved on.
    Seems to be a clear decision by James to do this then, Margaret Curran also appears to think the law applies to other people as she twice made constituency specific remarks when interviewed on the Daily Politics last week.
    The alternative and far more likely explanation being that you are wrong.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,653
    edited April 2015
    RodCrosby said:

    viewcode said:

    EPG said:

    Discussion FPT A 900-seat House of Commons would not be more proportional or lead to fewer safe seats for life.

    I must respectfully disagree. Consider a 1-seat commons (would have been CON for what, 70 years out of the 20th century,and we wouldn't have had a LAB MP until 1997) versus a 65-million seat commons (exactly proportional). Proportionality increases with number.

    Exactly. The Micro-Mega Rule. In terms of House size the small will prefer the large, and the large will prefer the small...
    This would be a reliable rule if party support were distributed in a fractal manner. Since party support is in fact regionally or locally concentrated, size doesn't matter much within a realistic range of House of Commons seat numbers.

    For instance, Ukip and the Greens combined would still win just a handful of seats even if their strongest seats were split in two. In fact, they could win less if the seats were split in a manner that favours a different party in each half, like the Lib Dems in Oxford. For another instance, on any feasible number of Scottish FPTP seats and the current vote distribution as per polls, the SNP is going to win the vast bulk, with little concession to proportionality. You could perhaps get more proportionality if you dialled Scotland up to an unrealistic figure of seats - two hundred? - but even so, a bias will exist toward parties that can regionally-concentrate their support, i.e. more for the Scottish Lib Dems and less for the Conservatives.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382

    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    Lots of Lib Dem posters up in Cheadle. Haven't seen a single poster from another party. This is just based on the drive from my house to my parents', which only covers the northern half of the constituency, but still looking healthier than might be expected for Mark Hunter. Meanwhile, no posters at all in the Sale East half of Wythenshawe and Sale East.

    Given that the LDs want democratic accountability of state power diluted/removed, just participating in elections must feel a bit odd.
    What is it about UKIP supporters and the LibDems?

    Sometimes I think that you'd be happier with UKIP 5%, LibDems 1%, rather than UKIP 15%, LibDems 15%.
    The LibDems - more than any other of the main parties - support ideas which are anti-democratic and increase the power of the centralised elite. EU membership, PR and reform of the Lords as another elected chamber are all examples of this. At the same time they oppose those principles that are designed to improve democracy such as boundary reform. Worse still they pretend that in doing this they are trying to improve democracy. In an ideal world they would disappear entirely.
    Strong stuff Richard.

    Any chance of putting a yellow diamond sign in your garden. ?
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    edited April 2015
    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    weejonnie said:

    Dair said:

    WTF - Diane James on Murnaghan saying "in Heywood and Middleton if the 3000 Conservative voters switch to UKIP then UKIP win the seat" and MURNAGHAN DOES NOT STOP HER.

    WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.

    Maybe the headlines last night about UKIP sending in Lawyers about political bias has given them the willies.
    What Diane James did on Sky is a criminal offence!
    No it isn't and the shame is that you are too thick to realise that. There is no purdah for TV companies, only the requirement for overall balance.

    On the same subject UKIP are stupid to be trying to use lawyers against the BBC. But their idiocy doesn't excuse yours.
    Any guest invited as a party representative cannot discuss or talk about a specific constituency because the segment will not offer other candidates of major parties the right to reply or a listing of all candidates in the seat.

    AIUI this isn't even an Ofcom regulated thing - its an electoral law thing.
    Wrong.

    The relevant rule says:

    "6.12 Where a candidate is taking part in a programme on any matter, after the election has been called, s/he must not be given the opportunity to make constituency points, or electoral area points about the constituency or electoral area in which s/he is standing, when no other candidates will be given a similar opportunity."

    Diane James is not standing in Heywood and Middleton. In fact she is not standing in any constituency and as such she is at liberty to say exactly what she said.
    On This Week on Thursday night Diane James made a constituency remark and Andrew Neil said "you know you're not allowed to speak about specific constituencies" to which she apologised and moved on.
    Seems to be a clear decision by James to do this then, Margaret Curran also appears to think the law applies to other people as she twice made constituency specific remarks when interviewed on the Daily Politics last week.
    Do you really not understand - it's incredibly simple.

    You CAN make a constituency point - candidates in individual constituencies can be interviewed and featured.

    The issue is that IF this happens the BROADCASTER has to then put up a list of all candidates in that constituency.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,688
    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    weejonnie said:

    Dair said:

    WTF - Diane James on Murnaghan saying "in Heywood and Middleton if the 3000 Conservative voters switch to UKIP then UKIP win the seat" and MURNAGHAN DOES NOT STOP HER.

    WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.

    Maybe the headlines last night about UKIP sending in Lawyers about political bias has given them the willies.
    What Diane James did on Sky is a criminal offence!
    No it isn't and the shame is that you are too thick to realise that. There is no purdah for TV companies, only the requirement for overall balance.

    On the same subject UKIP are stupid to be trying to use lawyers against the BBC. But their idiocy doesn't excuse yours.
    Any guest invited as a party representative cannot discuss or talk about a specific constituency because the segment will not offer other candidates of major parties the right to reply or a listing of all candidates in the seat.

    AIUI this isn't even an Ofcom regulated thing - its an electoral law thing.
    Wrong.

    The relevant rule says:

    "6.12 Where a candidate is taking part in a programme on any matter, after the election has been called, s/he must not be given the opportunity to make constituency points, or electoral area points about the constituency or electoral area in which s/he is standing, when no other candidates will be given a similar opportunity."

    Diane James is not standing in Heywood and Middleton. In fact she is not standing in any constituency and as such she is at liberty to say exactly what she said.
    It comes under section 6.8

    6.8 Due impartiality must be strictly maintained in a constituency report or discussion and in an electoral area report or discussion.
    It was not a constituency report or discussion. It was mentioned in passing and if there had been a loss of balance it would then be up to the programme themselves to correct that by mentioning the other candidates. Which ever way you look at it - and particularly given that James did not mention the candidate by name - she broke no laws and you are trying to make something out of nothing.

  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    Lots of Lib Dem posters up in Cheadle. Haven't seen a single poster from another party. This is just based on the drive from my house to my parents', which only covers the northern half of the constituency, but still looking healthier than might be expected for Mark Hunter. Meanwhile, no posters at all in the Sale East half of Wythenshawe and Sale East.

    Given that the LDs want democratic accountability of state power diluted/removed, just participating in elections must feel a bit odd.
    What is it about UKIP supporters and the LibDems?

    Sometimes I think that you'd be happier with UKIP 5%, LibDems 1%, rather than UKIP 15%, LibDems 15%.
    The LibDems - more than any other of the main parties - support ideas which are anti-democratic and increase the power of the centralised elite. EU membership, PR and reform of the Lords as another elected chamber are all examples of this. At the same time they oppose those principles that are designed to improve democracy such as boundary reform. Worse still they pretend that in doing this they are trying to improve democracy. In an ideal world they would disappear entirely.
    Leaving aside the issue of the EU, your points are not particularly strong ones.

    Are countries with PR - such as Ireland, the Netherlands and Israel - inherently less democratic than the UK? I happen to like our system, but to claim that the way that other democracies organise themselves is undemocratic is ridiculous.

    And while *everybody* hated the House of Lords proposals as agreed in committee, I don't have any issue with an elected HoL in principle. Do you?

    None of the systems that you mentioned are really democratic though: through the aggregation of power to parties rather than the electorate means the tend towards bring elected oligarchies instead.
    Get real. Nothing is more centralist than FPTP, with its closed-list-of-one, Duvergerian agenda, safe seats for life, AWS and parachutists from Central Office, etc...
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    weejonnie said:

    Dair said:

    WTF - Diane James on Murnaghan saying "in Heywood and Middleton if the 3000 Conservative voters switch to UKIP then UKIP win the seat" and MURNAGHAN DOES NOT STOP HER.

    WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.

    Maybe the headlines last night about UKIP sending in Lawyers about political bias has given them the willies.
    What Diane James did on Sky is a criminal offence!
    No it isn't and the shame is that you are too thick to realise that. There is no purdah for TV companies, only the requirement for overall balance.

    On the same subject UKIP are stupid to be trying to use lawyers against the BBC. But their idiocy doesn't excuse yours.
    Any guest invited as a party representative cannot discuss or talk about a specific constituency because the segment will not offer other candidates of major parties the right to reply or a listing of all candidates in the seat.

    AIUI this isn't even an Ofcom regulated thing - its an electoral law thing.
    Wrong.

    The relevant rule says:

    "6.12 Where a candidate is taking part in a programme on any matter, after the election has been called, s/he must not be given the opportunity to make constituency points, or electoral area points about the constituency or electoral area in which s/he is standing, when no other candidates will be given a similar opportunity."

    Diane James is not standing in Heywood and Middleton. In fact she is not standing in any constituency and as such she is at liberty to say exactly what she said.
    It comes under section 6.8

    6.8 Due impartiality must be strictly maintained in a constituency report or discussion and in an electoral area report or discussion.
    It was not a constituency report or discussion. It was mentioned in passing and if there had been a loss of balance it would then be up to the programme themselves to correct that by mentioning the other candidates. Which ever way you look at it - and particularly given that James did not mention the candidate by name - she broke no laws and you are trying to make something out of nothing.

    6.8 Due impartiality must be strictly maintained in a constituency report or discussion and in an electoral area report or discussion.

    National is an "electoral area".
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    Speedy said:

    I followed my own advice and made a weekly polling average which includes only the 4 pollsters that produce regular weekly polls for consistency:

    Weeks ending Apr.1, Apr.8, Apr.15
    LAB 34, 33.5, 33.5
    CON 35, 33.5, 33.5
    LD 7.5, 8, 8
    UKIP 12.5, 13, 13
    GRN 6, 5, 5.5

    A very stable picture.

    It'll be interesting to compare the election result with past polls. How far back will you have to go before the result differs from margin of error?
    You tell me the final result, and I'll answer that question...

    (Incidentally, what figure do you have for the margin of error, and do you have a source?)
    I always assume +/- 3 points. Although I believe it's tied to sample size.


    "Most polling companies quote a margin of error of around about plus or minus 3 points. Technically this is based on a pure random sample of 1000 and doesn’t account for other factors like design and degree of weighting, but it is generally a good rule of thumb. What it means is that 19 times out of 20 the figure in a poll will be within 3 percentage points of what the “true” figure would be if you’d surveyed the entire population."

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/5717
    As I have posted before , the Margin Of Error also varies with the actual VI of a party .
    For a party at 50% , if the M of E of a poll is stated as plus/minus 3 then that party's M of E is also plus/minus 3 . For a party at x% the M of E varies as to the formula
    x times ( 100 - x ) divided by ( 50 x 50 ) times the M of E
    Therefore for example a party with a vote share of 10% will have a M of E of
    10 times 90 equals 900 divided by 2500 times 3 ie just over plus or minus 1%
    Link?

    Any good book on statistics
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    edited April 2015

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    weejonnie said:

    Dair said:

    WTF - Diane James on Murnaghan saying "in Heywood and Middleton if the 3000 Conservative voters switch to UKIP then UKIP win the seat" and MURNAGHAN DOES NOT STOP HER.

    WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.

    Maybe the headlines last night about UKIP sending in Lawyers about political bias has given them the willies.
    What Diane James did on Sky is a criminal offence!
    No it isn't and the shame is that you are too thick to realise that. There is no purdah for TV companies, only the requirement for overall balance.

    On the same subject UKIP are stupid to be trying to use lawyers against the BBC. But their idiocy doesn't excuse yours.
    Any guest invited as a party representative cannot discuss or talk about a specific constituency because the segment will not offer other candidates of major parties the right to reply or a listing of all candidates in the seat.

    AIUI this isn't even an Ofcom regulated thing - its an electoral law thing.
    Wrong.

    The relevant rule says:

    "6.12 Where a candidate is taking part in a programme on any matter, after the election has been called, s/he must not be given the opportunity to make constituency points, or electoral area points about the constituency or electoral area in which s/he is standing, when no other candidates will be given a similar opportunity."

    Diane James is not standing in Heywood and Middleton. In fact she is not standing in any constituency and as such she is at liberty to say exactly what she said.
    It comes under section 6.8

    6.8 Due impartiality must be strictly maintained in a constituency report or discussion and in an electoral area report or discussion.
    It was not a constituency report or discussion. It was mentioned in passing and if there had been a loss of balance it would then be up to the programme themselves to correct that by mentioning the other candidates. Which ever way you look at it - and particularly given that James did not mention the candidate by name - she broke no laws and you are trying to make something out of nothing.

    For the record Diane James could not have broken the law WHATEVER she said.

    The only organisation that could POTENTIALLY have broken the law was the BBC.

    But I agree with you - it was so brief and in passing and Andrew Neil cut her off after literally about two seconds so, in practice, it was reasonable to leave it there.


  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173
    Yorkcity said:

    felix said:

    One other OT thought. it remains possible that the very tightness of the race causes a build up of tension that leads to an even bigger squeeze on the minor parties in the last few days which allows a non-hung parliament. There are one or two signs that this may affect UKIP. I'm not saying it will happen, but if it did it's entirely possible that the polls miss it almost till the end.

    I think you are correct, there are currently more UKIP to squeeze back to the Conservatives than back to Labour.

    However they already know that Labour are not offering an EU referendum, so what will now be the major squeeze factor ?
    LAB/SNP deal.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,688
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    Lots of Lib Dem posters up in Cheadle. Haven't seen a single poster from another party. This is just based on the drive from my house to my parents', which only covers the northern half of the constituency, but still looking healthier than might be expected for Mark Hunter. Meanwhile, no posters at all in the Sale East half of Wythenshawe and Sale East.

    Given that the LDs want democratic accountability of state power diluted/removed, just participating in elections must feel a bit odd.
    What is it about UKIP supporters and the LibDems?

    Sometimes I think that you'd be happier with UKIP 5%, LibDems 1%, rather than UKIP 15%, LibDems 15%.
    The LibDems - more than any other of the main parties - support ideas which are anti-democratic and increase the power of the centralised elite. EU membership, PR and reform of the Lords as another elected chamber are all examples of this. At the same time they oppose those principles that are designed to improve democracy such as boundary reform. Worse still they pretend that in doing this they are trying to improve democracy. In an ideal world they would disappear entirely.
    Leaving aside the issue of the EU, your points are not particularly strong ones.

    Are countries with PR - such as Ireland, the Netherlands and Israel - inherently less democratic than the UK? I happen to like our system, but to claim that the way that other democracies organise themselves is undemocratic is ridiculous.

    And while *everybody* hated the House of Lords proposals as agreed in committee, I don't have any issue with an elected HoL in principle. Do you?

    Yes I would contend they are. My interpretation of democracy - and I will obviously concede interpretations differ - is based on the election of a representative for the people of a given constituency. As such anything that promotes answerability to the party over answerability to the electorate is a reduction in democracy. They may not be undemocratic as such but if the electoral system allows the party to exert pressure on the representative they they are less democratic.

    And of course that applies in the UK as well. The system we have now is increasingly undemocratic as the parties have way too much power - one reason why so many people are turned off politics entirely. But a PR system - crystallising the idea that power should be proportional for the parties and so legitimising their claims and their abilities to bully MPs - would only make that worse.

    As for the HoL the only way I wold accept it could be reformed into an elected chamber is if every vote was a free vote and whips were banned.
  • Finland

    For anyone that's interested, voting closes at 6pm UK time, links as follows:

    Results

    http://tulospalvelu.vaalit.fi/E-2015/en/index.html

    TV

    http://areena.yle.fi/tv/suora/tv1

    Govt formed after the 2011 election had 6 parties which puts the UK into context!

    Thanks and good luck to everyone who played the game, the next one out will be for Poland Presidential and then the UK.

    Great piece on Grand Coalitions from TSE - abroad they are the norm in Austria, occasional in Germany (both Merkel's 1st and current terms) and also in place in the Netherlands at present.

    Cheers,

    DC
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,644
    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    Lots of Lib Dem posters up in Cheadle. Haven't seen a single poster from another party. This is just based on the drive from my house to my parents', which only covers the northern half of the constituency, but still looking healthier than might be expected for Mark Hunter. Meanwhile, no posters at all in the Sale East half of Wythenshawe and Sale East.

    Given that the LDs want democratic accountability of state power diluted/removed, just participating in elections must feel a bit odd.
    What is it about UKIP supporters and the LibDems?

    Sometimes I think that you'd be happier with UKIP 5%, LibDems 1%, rather than UKIP 15%, LibDems 15%.
    The LibDems - more than any other of the main parties - support ideas which are anti-democratic and increase the power of the centralised elite. EU membership, PR and reform of the Lords as another elected chamber are all examples of this. At the same time they oppose those principles that are designed to improve democracy such as boundary reform. Worse still they pretend that in doing this they are trying to improve democracy. In an ideal world they would disappear entirely.
    Leaving aside the issue of the EU, your points are not particularly strong ones.

    Are countries with PR - such as Ireland, the Netherlands and Israel - inherently less democratic than the UK? I happen to like our system, but to claim that the way that other democracies organise themselves is undemocratic is ridiculous.

    And while *everybody* hated the House of Lords proposals as agreed in committee, I don't have any issue with an elected HoL in principle. Do you?

    None of the systems that you mentioned are really democratic though: through the aggregation of power to parties rather than the electorate means the tend towards bring elected oligarchies instead.
    Actually, I think that's unfair. In Israel and The Netherlands, for example, the incredibly proportional nature, with no hurdle, allows the creation of one man parties, and therefore decreases the power of the party executive somewhat. I think the least democratic system is a system like Germany's with the artificial 5% hurdle.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,653
    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    Lots of Lib Dem posters up in Cheadle. Haven't seen a single poster from another party. This is just based on the drive from my house to my parents', which only covers the northern half of the constituency, but still looking healthier than might be expected for Mark Hunter. Meanwhile, no posters at all in the Sale East half of Wythenshawe and Sale East.

    Given that the LDs want democratic accountability of state power diluted/removed, just participating in elections must feel a bit odd.
    What is it about UKIP supporters and the LibDems?

    Sometimes I think that you'd be happier with UKIP 5%, LibDems 1%, rather than UKIP 15%, LibDems 15%.
    The LibDems - more than any other of the main parties - support ideas which are anti-democratic and increase the power of the centralised elite. EU membership, PR and reform of the Lords as another elected chamber are all examples of this. At the same time they oppose those principles that are designed to improve democracy such as boundary reform. Worse still they pretend that in doing this they are trying to improve democracy. In an ideal world they would disappear entirely.
    Leaving aside the issue of the EU, your points are not particularly strong ones.

    Are countries with PR - such as Ireland, the Netherlands and Israel - inherently less democratic than the UK? I happen to like our system, but to claim that the way that other democracies organise themselves is undemocratic is ridiculous.

    And while *everybody* hated the House of Lords proposals as agreed in committee, I don't have any issue with an elected HoL in principle. Do you?

    None of the systems that you mentioned are really democratic though: through the aggregation of power to parties rather than the electorate means the tend towards bring elected oligarchies instead.
    With total respect, for I have no reason to think you do not deserve respect, I don't think you understand how the Irish or Dutch electoral systems work - there is a very significant role for voters to choose candidates in each, and in fact large parties have far less control over candidates in Ireland because each voter ranks multiple candidates in their constituencies; whereas as Mr Crosby notes, FPTP is a closed list of one appointed by, at best, a dwindling local party and, at worst, the drafter of an A-list in Central House.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Crossover?

    Comres last had a Labour phone lead in Dec 2014
    ICM last had one in Jan 2015
    Ashcroft has had 2 Labour leads in 13 phone polls since Christmas.
    Opinium have had six weeks of Tory leads or ties.

    Even TNS and Survation are putting up Tory leads.

    Yougov's assumption that Labour were one in front in January, which they've weighted into every poll since 6/7 April, appears courageous.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,688
    edited April 2015
    Yorkcity said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    Lots of Lib Dem posters up in Cheadle. Haven't seen a single poster from another party. This is just based on the drive from my house to my parents', which only covers the northern half of the constituency, but still looking healthier than might be expected for Mark Hunter. Meanwhile, no posters at all in the Sale East half of Wythenshawe and Sale East.

    Given that the LDs want democratic accountability of state power diluted/removed, just participating in elections must feel a bit odd.
    What is it about UKIP supporters and the LibDems?

    Sometimes I think that you'd be happier with UKIP 5%, LibDems 1%, rather than UKIP 15%, LibDems 15%.
    The LibDems - more than any other of the main parties - support ideas which are anti-democratic and increase the power of the centralised elite. EU membership, PR and reform of the Lords as another elected chamber are all examples of this. At the same time they oppose those principles that are designed to improve democracy such as boundary reform. Worse still they pretend that in doing this they are trying to improve democracy. In an ideal world they would disappear entirely.
    Strong stuff Richard.

    Any chance of putting a yellow diamond sign in your garden. ?
    LOL. As I said the other day, there is much in the Orange Booker's agenda I could agree with both on social and economic policy.But their constitutional positions on voting reform and the EU are an absolute killer for me. So sorry. No not this time round :-)
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    RodCrosby said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    Lots of Lib Dem posters up in Cheadle. Haven't seen a single poster from another party. This is just based on the drive from my house to my parents', which only covers the northern half of the constituency, but still looking healthier than might be expected for Mark Hunter. Meanwhile, no posters at all in the Sale East half of Wythenshawe and Sale East.

    Given that the LDs want democratic accountability of state power diluted/removed, just participating in elections must feel a bit odd.
    What is it about UKIP supporters and the LibDems?

    Sometimes I think that you'd be happier with UKIP 5%, LibDems 1%, rather than UKIP 15%, LibDems 15%.

    Leaving aside the issue of the EU, your points are not particularly strong ones.

    Are countries with PR - such as Ireland, the Netherlands and Israel - inherently less democratic than the UK? I happen to like our system, but to claim that the way that other democracies organise themselves is undemocratic is ridiculous.

    And while *everybody* hated the House of Lords proposals as agreed in committee, I don't have any issue with an elected HoL in principle. Do you?

    None of the systems that you mentioned are really democratic though: through the aggregation of power to parties rather than the electorate means the tend towards bring elected oligarchies instead.
    Get real. Nothing is more centralist than FPTP, with its closed-list-of-one, Duvergerian agenda, safe seats for life, AWS and parachutists from Central Office, etc...
    True, but are other electoral systems of western democracy better, or should we make our own original sytem?
    The best democracy is the swiss one but that's because they have constant referendums on anything small or big.

    Apart from Carswell no other MP has ever tried to thing outside the box on this issue, and that is because like on most things people don't care about things until push comes to shove and are forced to make a choice.

    The AV referendum was like that, people were forced to choose between 2 bad electoral systems and FPTP won because it was more simple and convenient than AV, I even had a bad joke at the time mixing STV & STD.
  • Ave_itAve_it Posts: 2,411
    Latest Ave It Projection #GE2015!

    CON 305
    LAB 256
    LD 34
    SNP 32
    PC 3
    GRN 1
    UKIP 1
    NI 18

    Watford CON hold!

    Say we are top of the league say we are top of the league!!
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,688
    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    Dair said:

    weejonnie said:

    Dair said:

    WTF - Diane James on Murnaghan saying "in Heywood and Middleton if the 3000 Conservative voters switch to UKIP then UKIP win the seat" and MURNAGHAN DOES NOT STOP HER.

    WTF - Sky really has given up on any idea of purdah.

    Maybe the headlines last night about UKIP sending in Lawyers about political bias has given them the willies.
    What Diane James did on Sky is a criminal offence!
    No it isn't and the shame is that you are too thick to realise that. There is no purdah for TV companies, only the requirement for overall balance.

    On the same subject UKIP are stupid to be trying to use lawyers against the BBC. But their idiocy doesn't excuse yours.
    Any guest invited as a party representative cannot discuss or talk about a specific constituency because the segment will not offer other candidates of major parties the right to reply or a listing of all candidates in the seat.

    AIUI this isn't even an Ofcom regulated thing - its an electoral law thing.
    Wrong.

    The relevant rule says:

    "6.12 Where a candidate is taking part in a programme on any matter, after the election has been called, s/he must not be given the opportunity to make constituency points, or electoral area points about the constituency or electoral area in which s/he is standing, when no other candidates will be given a similar opportunity."

    Diane James is not standing in Heywood and Middleton. In fact she is not standing in any constituency and as such she is at liberty to say exactly what she said.
    On This Week on Thursday night Diane James made a constituency remark and Andrew Neil said "you know you're not allowed to speak about specific constituencies" to which she apologised and moved on.
    That is not what the rules say - as I just quoted. Dair claiming she has broken some sort of law is just plain wrong.
    Failing to follow broadcast rules set by Ofcom or the BBC is an offence under the Representation of the People Act.
    The BBC rules are not criminal law and the Ofcom rules apply to the broadcasters not to their individual guests so - once again - you are wrong.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    EPG said:

    RodCrosby said:

    viewcode said:

    EPG said:

    Discussion FPT A 900-seat House of Commons would not be more proportional or lead to fewer safe seats for life.

    I must respectfully disagree. Consider a 1-seat commons (would have been CON for what, 70 years out of the 20th century,and we wouldn't have had a LAB MP until 1997) versus a 65-million seat commons (exactly proportional). Proportionality increases with number.

    Exactly. The Micro-Mega Rule. In terms of House size the small will prefer the large, and the large will prefer the small...
    This would be a reliable rule if party support were distributed in a fractal manner. Since party support is in fact regionally or locally concentrated, size doesn't matter much within a realistic range of House of Commons seat numbers.

    For instance, Ukip and the Greens combined would still win just a handful of seats even if their strongest seats were split in two. In fact, they could win less if the seats were split in a manner that favours a different party in each half, like the Lib Dems in Oxford. For another instance, on any feasible number of Scottish FPTP seats and the current vote distribution as per polls, the SNP is going to win the vast bulk, with little concession to proportionality. You could perhaps get more proportionality if you dialled Scotland up to an unrealistic figure of seats - two hundred? - but even so, a bias will exist toward parties that can regionally-concentrate their support, i.e. more for the Scottish Lib Dems and less for the Conservatives.
    It's a generalization. Smaller parties have a better chance of winning (more) seats the larger the house size. Of course you might contrive boundaries where that might not be so, but the generality of the rule is demonstrated in elections throughout the world.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Ave_it said:

    Latest Ave It Projection #GE2015!

    CON 305
    LAB 256
    LD 34
    SNP 32
    PC 3
    GRN 1
    UKIP 1
    NI 18

    Watford CON hold!

    Say we are top of the league say we are top of the league!!

    What kind of lengths did you go into in order for your result to be exactly the same as the 2010 one? Oh, and you forgot Galloway.
  • Ave_itAve_it Posts: 2,411
    Speedy said:

    Ave_it said:

    Latest Ave It Projection #GE2015!

    CON 305
    LAB 256
    LD 34
    SNP 32
    PC 3
    GRN 1
    UKIP 1
    NI 18

    Watford CON hold!

    Say we are top of the league say we are top of the league!!

    What kind of lengths did you go into in order for your result to be exactly the same as the 2010 one? Oh, and you forgot Galloway.
    I don't think SNP got 32 in 2010. And Bradford West = LAB GAIN
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,964
    Good evening, everyone.

    Odd start to the season.

    Every race, if you followed my tips, has been red. But if I get a 2/1 winner next time, I'm green overall. (Today was red by 50 pence, using my standard £10 stake comparison). I've had 3/7 tips right. So, not quite sure how to feel about that.

    Post-race piece will be up before 7pm. Probably.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,653
    rcs1000 said:

    Actually, I think that's unfair. In Israel and The Netherlands, for example, the incredibly proportional nature, with no hurdle, allows the creation of one man parties, and therefore decreases the power of the party executive somewhat. I think the least democratic system is a system like Germany's with the artificial 5% hurdle.

    At the last election, Israel dropped pure proportionality and introduced a 3.25 per cent threshold. Ironically, the main consequence was that the fractious pro-Arab parties united into the third-largest parliamentary bloc!

    The Dutch are still very close to pure-proportionality with their 0.67 per cent threshold. It's quite feasible for one-woman or one-man parties to get elected. The Irish system isn't really party-proportional at all, in fact it would operate fine if there were no parties whatsoever, but in practice it leads to fairly proportional outcomes while retaining the bias to parties concentrated geographically that is inherent in a candidate-, rather than party-based system.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited April 2015
    Ave_it said:

    Speedy said:

    Ave_it said:

    Latest Ave It Projection #GE2015!

    CON 305
    LAB 256
    LD 34
    SNP 32
    PC 3
    GRN 1
    UKIP 1
    NI 18

    Watford CON hold!

    Say we are top of the league say we are top of the league!!

    What kind of lengths did you go into in order for your result to be exactly the same as the 2010 one? Oh, and you forgot Galloway.
    I don't think SNP got 32 in 2010. And Bradford West = LAB GAIN
    2010 GE result: CON 306, LAB 258.
    Your prediction: CON 305, LAB 256.

    How did you manage?
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Mr Kellner:
    "YouGov research finds that up to Friday, Labour had contacted more voters locally than the Tories, in person, by phone, via leaflets and by email.

    I still expect a late shift to the Conservatives, with the safety of the status quo trumping the fear of change among voters who make up their minds late.

    Without that late swing, Labour would now be on course to be the largest party in the new House of Commons, despite facing huge losses in Scotland."

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/04/19/tories-are-losing-both-air-war-and-ground-war/
This discussion has been closed.