Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Marf’s Tuesday afternoon’s take and LAB move from a 2% defi
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Marf’s Tuesday afternoon’s take and LAB move from a 2% deficit to a 2% lead with TNS
LAB retakes the lead with TNS
LAB 34% (+2), CON 32% (-2), LD 8% (-1), UKIP 15% (+1), GREEN 5% (0), OTHER 6% (+1
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Opinium 4% Con Lead
Ashcroft 4% Con Lead
ICM 2% Con Lead
Survation 1% Con Lead
Com Res 1% Con Lead
Yougov 1% Lab Lead
Panelbase 1% Lab Lead
MORI 2% Lab Lead
TNS 2% Lab Lead
Populus 2% Lab Lead
Edit. Actually I fear it is worse than you say. They have been uninterested not just disinterested in mass child abuse.*
* Pedant star for the day? Tick.
Labour in mansion tax meltdown
http://www.mortgageintroducer.com/mortgages/252330/5/Industry_in_depth/Labour_in_mansion_tax_meltdown.htm
Part-ELBOW says Lab 33.9, Con 33.4
Take your pick!
Staggering to think that people are actually planning to vote for this party.
» show previous quotes
Look, if Ed is PM on 8th May I will be cheering very loudly at the demise of Cameron, Osborne and the post crash Tory junta that has done and is doing so much damage to the country. If Cameron is PM then I will be properly terrified. Then it really will be 1992 all over again - we'd be months away from a post Tory election victory, Osborne inspired, economic crash.
At least win the election before blaming your future failures on the last lot. ( or the bankers...or anyone else for that matter)
Coalition start point: 360
Seeing as the rest of parliament is basically to the left of Labour with the exception of the DUP - These are the seats that make Con, DUP, LD short of 323 according to Election Forecast:
Con/LD; SNP/Lab not important for this analysis:
LD losses to Labour according to Election forecast.
Bradford East
Brent Central
Manchester, Withington
Norwich South
Redcar
Burnley
Cardiff Central
Hornsey and Wood Green
Leeds North West
Bristol West
(10 losses to Lab)
Orkney is the 1 LD Hold against SNP (10 losses)
Con losses to Lab.
6 London (Hendon, Brentford Isleworth, Enfield North, Ealing Central Acton, Croydon Central)
8 NW (Lancaster, Fleetwood, Chester, Bury North, Wirral West, Morecambe, Warrington South)
3 East (Waveney, Bedford, Ipswich)
2 Yorkshire Humber (Dewsbury, Keighley)
3 West Mids (Wolves SW, North Warks, Nuneaton)
2 SW (Plymouth, Stroud)
2 SE (Hastings, Hove)
6 East Mids (Erewash, Amber Valley, Sherwood, Lincoln, Amber Valley, Broxtowe)
Coalition End point: 308.
Notable CON Holds according to their model:
Pudsey, Brighton Kemptown, Thurrock (They have a caveat on UKIP modelling mind), Stockton South, DCT, Rossendale and Darwen.
FPT: Mr. Jessop, pre-twentieth century? What era are we talking? Ancient Greek? Republican Rome?
If Cameron is PM then I will be properly terrified. Then it really will be 1992 all over again - we'd be months away from a post Tory election victory, Osborne inspired, economic crash.
Ok if ED is PM for at least 3 years than I will bet you £1000 that unemployment will be higher by the time he leaves office. You clearly think he is going to be a massive success, so how about it?
Part-ELBOW says 13.2%
Not to worry they can always use the bankers bonus tax....
Oh? I think I detect a slight fiscal flaw here.
On that subject, I have to work the day of the GE, then do the count, then back in to work the next morning, after which I imagine I will pass out - so if I am totally, laughably wrong, an absence in the immediate aftermath will not be down purely to embarrassment.
But every election is unique, past behaviour is no guarantee for future performance, as the small print says on most investments.
Its Laphroaig for preference, please, Doc.
ICM use 50% for all three parties.
There must be a residue of hard core Lib Dems in that seat.
In comparison hardly any signs seen, of any colour in York Outer & City of York.
Two questions. 1) Does anyone here think that that figure is stickier downwards than upwards? 2) How high might it go before Question Time on 30 April? I find it hard to believe that anyone in their right mind is going to bet a pound to a shilling on a hung parliament.
And another thing, lots of small breaks and small talk helps time pass, until the count is finished and the result declared.
When the Conservatives are 1/33 though.
One of those is a bit more likely than the other, but both are only slightly more likely than people listening to reasoned arguments about global warming on an internet comment thread.
"I find it hard to believe that anyone in their right mind is going to bet a pound to a shilling on a hung parliament." !!!!!!
What are the chances of a Tory or a Labour majority then?
"John Major and David Cameron have given up on the Scottish Conservative Party and are giving their all to the SNP.
The Tory Party no longer has its own independent campaign in Scotland but has become an active campaigner for the SNP. The Tories are making it clear by their words and their deeds today that David Cameron can only be saved by Scotland voting SNP.”
The funny thing about all of this focus on the SNP is that before the campaign started the SNPs biggest concern was probably that they were going to be side-lined by the MSM and Westminster parties !!
Nothing in the interim has caused me to think that was a poor assessment and I would now put the probability at 98%. You'd need a pretty big betting bank to make meaningful amounts at the current short odds, but if you have the cash I wouldn't discourage you. They are still generous.
EICIPM (Just with these)
It will be handy for toasting Alex Salmond as he walks smiling into Downing St to lay down the law to Ed.
September 2015. We have 1000 extra nurses. Only 4 months in and we are delivering on our manifesto promises. Great politics.
21.4.15 LAB 292 (292) CON 271(271) LD 31(31) UKIP 2(2) Others 54(54) (Ed is crap is PM)
Last weeks BJESUS in brackets
BJESUS (Big John Election Service Uniform Swing) BJESUS (Big John Election Service Uniform Swing)
Using current polling adjusted for 15 days left to go factor and using UKPR standard swingometer
Stop the search for a new Peter Ustinov! We have a winner!
As for Salmond walking into Downing Street to give Miliband his orders, well, if it comes to that we have much bigger problems to worry about. I should add that nothing Miliband is likely to do will affect me too much, it is my son's generation that I fear for.
The newspaper which outed this was the Sunday Herald last Sunday, I believe.
'According to one attendee on LBC this morning “he looked terrified, absolutely terrified. And he wouldn’t actually come off the bus. He was just kind of lingering on the steps, waving sort of tentatively.”'
(There's a recording for the hard of reading)
http://order-order.com/page/2/#_@/dTAmu_lpBr7Paw
The latter is quite clear. He'd have to be a member of one of the qualifying places in order to be leader. If he isn't, he is no longer able to be leader. I wonder what the punishment for breaking the rule is?
Con - start 307. Gain 10 LDs, lose 2 UKIP, 1 SNP and 47 Lab = 267
LDs - start 57 Lose 10 Con, 9 Lab, and 10 SNP = 28
Right wing Coalition 295
Lab - start 258. Gain 9 LDs and 47 Con. Lose 40 SNP = 274
SNP - start 6. Gain 1 Con, 40 Lab, 10 LD = 57
Left wing coalition 331 plus PC and Green
10 of the potential Lab gains from Con are on majorities of less than 1000. If 500 people in those 10 constituencies can be persuaded to switch from Lab to Con, then the figures are 305 versus 321. The 4.3 million UKIP voters are irrelevant to this. Funny old system!
It could easily be both of course, that initially the commotion caused tentativity, but they were happy with the selfie and high fives.
The labour /SNP strategy going well I see ;-)
The Labour rule book is not very helpful ...
"7. Election of the Leader of the Scottish Labour Party
A. The Leader of the Scottish Labour Party shall be
elected according to the procedural rules set out
by the Scottish Executive Committee."
page 17 on http://labourlist.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Rule-Book-2013.pdf
In any case, if it is merely a procedural/administrative issue, Mr M can easily change the rules, should he so wish [edit: subject to committee agreement]. That seems to be what happened when suddenly SLAB no longer published the actual numbers voting in the election which saw Mr Murphy appointed.
Who's not going to vote Labour now? Anyone?