Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » These ICM sub-samples are very small but the detail of this
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » These ICM sub-samples are very small but the detail of this breakdown is fascinating
Inevitably when you have a 1,000 sample poll and then adjust for turnout after taking out the don’t knows the numbers you are left with can get very small. But I love the way ICM, in its general election datasets, is now breaking down constituencies by specific types.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The UKIP line is interesting too. The kippers are on 12%ish across all types of seats, including the tightest marginals. Few lost deposits but few seats either.
The marginals are tight. 38% Con and 40% Labour. Not many changing hands on those measures.
Currently total subsidies paid by Scotland to England average at around £10bn per annum. The goal of the SNP is to engineer a situation where FFA can be implemented with those subsidies being minimised, stopping Scotland having to bail out predominantly the London budget year after year.
It is working very well. We are damn close to that position now.
All the SNP has to do is position the UK so that they get the best deal, FFA without paying subsidies to Westminster and Independence will be inevitable as soon as the relative wealth flushes out. With the additional tax revenues (probably heightened by specific tax cuts) this will be an exponential growth.
And to achieve this, it is absolutely vital that the SNP position is not to make it clear to the media how broken the GERS numbers are. Their difficult goal (which so far they are achieving) is persuading Scotland that gerrymandered figures can be ignored without making it clear to England that they are partially reliant on the revenues from this gerrymander.
I think the expectations of LDs on 15 to 20 seats need a serious revision.
Downwards.
Though not at all convinced by this sort of subset analysis. Assuming Farron, Lamb, Huppert etc hang on then the others must be doing worse than average.
In Labour held seats, the gap is significantly higher , 22%. Remember , these seats currently have Labour majorities < 10%
The 2% for Lib Dems in tory held marginals suggests the "milliband lib dem" numbers are holding steady.
What would be really interesting would be to collate these numbers from the last election.
Does someone have all the results from the last election in an excel format ?
3 hours 3 minutes 3 seconds
Tiny numbers to interpret in this subset, but no indication of many net changes in Lab/Con marginals. These may depend on whether the kipper vote is solid, and on differential turnout. As Mike points out there are no LD left to squeeze here, and what kippers do will be critical.
The stories of the night will be Scotland and the destruction of the LibDems in England.
On average the LD vote was 23%. Now of course this includes some Con / LD marginals, which I forgot to account for when doing the numbers, but there aren't vast numbers of these.
Ld collapse appears very starkly
The polls are not budging, yet while PBers are glorying in the slaughter of SLAB, they are strangely quiet over the similar fate of the English and Welsh LDs. Clegg should have stepped down as leader after the autumn conference.
[I think the maths is Labour seats held by less than 10% are now held by 22%, while Tory seats held by less than 15% are now held by 14%]
There look to be a fair number of Lab (and Con) gains from LD but few from each other. Broxtowe may be an exception.
Clearly the LibDems will suffer considerable losses but some of the guff spouted on PB about their imminent total collapse gives new meaning to Farage's favourite self description of the UKIP 2010 manifesto - drivel.
Extrapolating tiny sub samples and regional unnamed candidate polling is a very poor guide to the yellow peril fortunes.
The better, but not best, guides are the Ashcroft constituency polls combined with a mix of "knowns" we are aware of such as their broader seat stickability, tactical voting and far greater financial clout this time.
Yesterday my senior Conservative source, not known for their pessimism, indicated six "in the bag" gains and double that of TCTC seats. This together with other information and intel coming my way from other sources seems a reasoned assessment.
In 2010 over optimism on PB had the LibDems riding high in terms of seats and in 2015 the reverse is the case. The latter will prove to be as inaccurate as the former.
- Labour's lead in its marginal is higher than that in its safe seats?!
- A very even UKIP spread, given the MoE.
- LD third in LD-held seats. So much for incumbency. Are we looking at the LDs reduced to a minibus again?
- SNP at 57%. I'm inclined the think LOL. But then I'm half-inclined to think whitewash (or yellowwash).
- The key seats are the Con-held ones given that if the result in Con-held ones is the same as last time then the Tories remain in power even if they don't take a single Labour seat. There, the Con lead appears to be up, substantially.
- But the Tories don't look like taking any seats (or hardly any) given that Labour's lead in its seats is also up.
On the basis of that poll, a Con majority is not out of the question. You would be looking at the Tories retaining the vast majority of their own seats while taking a lot from the Lib Dems. But it'd be a brave man to place a bet on the basis of such small sub-samples.
3% LD vote in the 100+ Lab/Con marrginals plus a similar vote in Scotland does make the 7/4 at PP on >200 LD deposit losses look good value.
But surely at some point there has to be hard evidence for the Liberals clinging on to more than half a dozen seats. The Ashcroft polling looks bad for them, the national polling looks terrible for them, the LD Held subsamples look abysmal for them and the SW Regional polling looks catastrophic for them.
All we have to believe that it might not be so bad is anecdotal "Libs have great personal votes" and other such woolly claims which the actual evidence continues to show is not nearly as strong as Liberals claim and, more importantly, Lib Dem MPs NEED.
If Scotland did not accept the debt it would lose all assets including those in Scotland. These include the roads, hospitals, RBS etc. Again a pointless discussion as it will never happen.
The big idea that the SNP used to have was to copy Ireland and cut corporate tax but this idea is no longer likely to work. The final idea is to stick up taxes on the rich and middle classes. This is already happening with housing stamp duty and business rates. Will it get 7bn? No way.
As a clinician you should know prevention is better than a cure. Turn away from the dark side before the most dreadful remedial action is required.
Could you please provide a link so that I can remind myself of the results? Thanks.
The SNP need and require England to think they subsidise Scotland (and as heavy as subsidy as possible) and for Scotland to think they are ripped off and subsidise England (and as heavy a subsidy as possible).
As things stand, they have achieved both of these.
Additionally I have found in the past that my well placed Conservative source has offered an excellent analysis of political fortunes. I value the information greatly.
Remember, the UK paid it's entire War Bond Debt from WW2 in a single payment three years ago. The entire domestic borrowing for the whole of WW2 in one payment.
Isn't it sovereign debt by HM Government on behalf of the UK?
Scotland is part of the UK. It has a share of debts and assets.
Please explain
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/full-fiscal-autonomy-for-dummies.html
* looks at another 10,000 glossy leaflets and thinks - what's the point.... *
In regard to the current Tory strategy, they seem more interested in creating fear about the prospect of Labour being backed by the SNP. Before the election it was going to be about the choice between Cameron and Miliband. Do the Tories now believe that Miliband is now more popular with the electorate and it would do them no good to continue attacking him ?
If it does insist on such a usurious settlement, which will, remember, be based on a voluntary remittance from Scotland, it is easy to see it being cancelled at any time by the first party to gain a popular mandate based on such an economic policy.
What does England do then. Invade? Lol.
* indeed the above table looks to vindicate your ARSE
For a little while.
But what's the point. You don't understand economics, or political reality.
1) stick with a plan that you were getting stick about because it wasn't working or
2) run with "the SNP will kill your first-born" thing that is the first idea in the entire campaign - from either the Tory or Labour side - that has got traction?
It's above my pay-grade, but I'd hazard a guess.....
Never mind the facts, political perception is all that matters. The objective is independence and if the people need to be lied to in order to achieve it, then so be it.
http://order-order.com/2015/04/20/och-jim-murphy-in-jock-cck-shock/#_@/xkqK2C3xeVzmew
The irrationality of the SNP's position would be positively funny if it was not so serious. I vaguely recall a Yogic flying party but other than that I struggle to think of any party whose policy positions were so detached from reality.
Thank you for the confirmation that you really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really don't know what you are talking about. Very time-saving.
If Dair's posts are symptomatic of it's long term effects I think I'll stop.
We need to look at a few of these to even start to tell us anything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=438UKM1Av1g
We're just as bad if not worse than many a banana republic....
There are a few other factors to throw in the mix :
1. Nationally there appears to be a small uptick in some polls for the LibDems.
2. Name recognition will add several points to incumbents.
3. The local campaign will be undertaking the "Winning Here"/ Bar Chart strategy to full effect.
4. The LibDems are not short of cash this time.
These factors will help the yellow peril tip the balance in several marginals.
They'd either ignore it, or smile and shrug it off otherwise.
Unfortunately noone (In the public domain at any rate) has done named candidate single question with no prior leading questions polling.
44 minutes 44 seconds
Except to our Nat posters, who believe the two are one and the same.
Con + LD = 315 is the absolute minima they need to carry on.
They are simply saying: we understand that you are voting for a party that will fight for the sole interests of the Scottish component of the UK. That's not in the interests of the rest of the UK.
He'll* probably find a reed-bed somewhere soon enough - that is where they are mostly seen these days. The days of them being a common bird of field and hedge seem long-gone.
*It will be a he - the females make a strange gurgling noise....