@Felix - your point 3 is the crucial one. There are five more or less mainstream choices in England now, six in Wales, and big regional differences. Ecen if the pollsters get the percentages right, UNS is almost certainly dead in the water.
Yes, agreed and I cannot see how the pollsters can conceivably get the right handle on this - local polling may or may not be reliable although I'd have some faith in regional polling to get closer to the mark.
Yep. I am surprised we have not seen any polls for the Midlands. UKIP gains are intetesting, but it is here where the election will actually be decided and where, I believe, Labour will really struggle.
Who are tactical voters voting against (bearing in mind there aren't that many of them - 13% of the panel)
E&W: Con: 32 Lab: 48 LibD: 2 UKIP: 8
Scotland Con: 19 Lab: 18 LibD: 1 SNP: 59
So what tactical voting there is is anti-SNP in Scotland, and predominantly anti-Labour in England....
What happened to the 'anti-Tory majority'?
There is an anti anyone majority. But up to now anti-Tory voters have used their votes much more effectively than anti-Labour ones - in England at least. The Coalition and the demise of the LDs plus Clegg's clear preference for the Tories may change that.
This is one of the polling problems that UKIP throws up.
It's quite likely that much of the non-Labour vote will coalesce around UKIP in safe Labour seats. Whether they manage to get direct switchers from Labour is less certain. However, if the Tories are losing votes in places it does not matter, if the polls are right that means they are holding onto and even gaining votes where it does matter.
Colour me a bit sceptical. The evidence is that Tory voters are notoriously unlikely to vote tactically. If this were different then Danny Alexander would be likely to keep his seat. So would Clegg in Sheffield Hallam.
UKIP are not picking up tactical votes in Labour safe seats. I think that they are winning genuine converts there.
So, we'd expect Labour's vote to go down in its safe seats? Or maybe the LD switchers are making up for UKIP ones? If it's the former - and Labour does not lose any seats as a result - it's very good news for them in terms of this election.
The Mellon/Evans argument is that UKIP should win over ex-Labour voters that Labour has already pushed away 1997-2010.
That suggests 2005/2010 low turnout seats might be the surprises on election night.
Only if Tory voters vote tactically and turnout increases, surely. On that basis, the Sunderland seats could reveal quite a lot.
I do not know if Sunday Politics (Lincs and Humber) is on iplayer, but anyone interested in Great Grimsby should watch it. Victoria Ayling for UKIP is awful. The Labour candidate is personable and local. Easy win for Labour, UKIP could be 3rd.
I don't know anything about local politics here. On the face of it, I'd expect UKIP to win a huge share of the Conservative vote from 2010, a substantial share of the Lib Dem vote, most of the BNP vote, a small slice of the Labour vote, and some new and non-voters, taking them into five figures.
This is one of the polling problems that UKIP throws up.
It's quite likely that much of the non-Labour vote will coalesce around UKIP in safe Labour seats. Whether they manage to get direct switchers from Labour is less certain. However, if the Tories are losing votes in places it does not matter, if the polls are right that means they are holding onto and even gaining votes where it does matter.
Colour me a bit sceptical. The evidence is that Tory voters are notoriously unlikely to vote tactically. If this were different then Danny Alexander would be likely to keep his seat. So would Clegg in Sheffield Hallam.
UKIP are not picking up tactical votes in Labour safe seats. I think that they are winning genuine converts there.
So, we'd expect Labour's vote to go down in its safe seats? Or maybe the LD switchers are making up for UKIP ones? If it's the former - and Labour does not lose any seats as a result - it's very good news for them in terms of this election.
The Mellon/Evans argument is that UKIP should win over ex-Labour voters that Labour has already pushed away 1997-2010.
That suggests 2005/2010 low turnout seats might be the surprises on election night.
Only if Tory voters vote tactically and turnout increases, surely. On that basis, the Sunderland seats could reveal quite a lot.
I do not know if Sunday Politics (Lincs and Humber) is on iplayer, but anyone interested in Great Grimsby should watch it. Victoria Ayling for UKIP is awful. The Labour candidate is personable and local. Easy win for Labour, UKIP could be 3rd.
I don't know anything about local politics here. On the face of it, I'd expect UKIP to win a huge share of the Conservative vote from 2010, a substantial share of the Lib Dem vote, most of the BNP vote, a small slice of the Labour vote, and some new and non-voters, taking them into five figures.
It was last weeks Sunday politics main feature for H and L. I think that The Tory candidate will hold most of the 2010 Tory vote.
@Felix - your point 3 is the crucial one. There are five more or less mainstream choices in England now, six in Wales, and big regional differences. Ecen if the pollsters get the percentages right, UNS is almost certainly dead in the water.
Yes, agreed and I cannot see how the pollsters can conceivably get the right handle on this - local polling may or may not be reliable although I'd have some faith in regional polling to get closer to the mark.
Yep. I am surprised we have not seen any polls for the Midlands. UKIP gains are intetesting, but it is here where the election will actually be decided and where, I believe, Labour will really struggle.
Yes - that's where its going to be decided.
I think:
- The SNP won't do quite as well as expected - The Lib Dems won't do quite as badly as expected (I don't buy this "SW melt down", they're tenacious buggers) - Lab & Con will fight to the death in the Midlands. Mr Palmer's hubris optimism I find quietly encouraging.
Its also the 'Midlands' break outs I scan with interest (I know, I know), but straws in the wind - the Midlands has the lowest level (8) of tactical voting - half Scotland's (17) - for example. Looks like they've made their minds up. We just don't know how.....
Super rich bad: Rich good Eton bad: Minor public school good It's interesting where you draw the line and build the barricade, Roger.
A Rich person is always someone with more money than you.
Whilst I do believe that the seemingly insatiable greed of the super-rich is a global problem that no government here can do much about, there seems little doubt to me that the Tories suffer from being perceived as the party that puts the wealthy first. It also doesn't really matter how true that actually is. It does and will make it very difficult for the Tories to win an overall majority any time soon
For years people with genuine concerns about the way their lives have been affected by mass immigration have seen anyone who spoke about it called racist...
People who spoke about what was going on in Rotherham were called racist People who spoke about what was going on in Tower Hamlets were called racist People who saw what was happening to Victoria Climbie didn't speak for fear of being called racist
Most people with a family can't afford to tell the truth for fear if losing their job
Trevor Phillips freely admits that he created an atmosphere where people were afraid to say anything despite how obvious it seemed as they didnt need the aggro of being smeared ... He has apologised and seen the error if his ways, but many people who crave support for their party and see Ukip as a threat have cause to keep these smears and unjustified prejudice alive
I am an outspoken kipper amongst friends, but still don't mention it to people I don't know for fear of what they might think of me... Friends of mine who are voting Ukip say they would say 'don't know' if asked by a stranger or work colleague
@Felix - your point 3 is the crucial one. There are five more or less mainstream choices in England now, six in Wales, and big regional differences. Ecen if the pollsters get the percentages right, UNS is almost certainly dead in the water.
Yes, agreed and I cannot see how the pollsters can conceivably get the right handle on this - local polling may or may not be reliable although I'd have some faith in regional polling to get closer to the mark.
Yep. I am surprised we have not seen any polls for the Midlands. UKIP gains are intetesting, but it is here where the election will actually be decided and where, I believe, Labour will really struggle.
Yes - that's where its going to be decided.
I think:
- The SNP won't do quite as well as expected - The Lib Dems won't do quite as badly as expected (I don't buy this "SW melt down", they're tenacious buggers) - Lab & Con will fight to the death in the Midlands. Mr Palmer's hubris optimism I find quietly encouraging.
Its also the 'Midlands' break outs I scan with interest (I know, I know), but straws in the wind - the Midlands has the lowest level (8) of tactical voting - half Scotland's (17) - for example. Looks like they've made their minds up. We just don't know how.....
I actually disagree with your first 2 points. The SNP will get 50+ and the LDs may be in the low 20s and will do very badly in the SW although they may well persist [like Japanese knotweed?] in SW London.
Oh and agree on NPXMP - it would make my night if he loses.
For years people with genuine concerns about the way their lives have been affected by mass immigration have seen anyone who spoke about it called racist...
People who spoke about what was going on in Rotherham were called racist People who spoke about what was going on in Tower Hamlets were called racist People who saw what was happening to Victoria Climbie didn't speak for fear of being called racist
Most people with a family can't afford to tell the truth for fear if losing their job
Trevor Phillips freely admits that he created an atmosphere where people were afraid to say anything despite how obvious it seemed as they didnt need the aggro of being smeared ... He has apologised and seen the error if his ways, but many people who crave support for their party and see Ukip as a threat have cause to keep these smears and unjustified prejudice alive
I am an outspoken kipper amongst friends, but still don't mention it to people I don't know for fear of what they might think of me... Friends of mine who are voting Ukip say they would say 'don't know' if asked by a stranger or work colleague
And of course now with Ed's anti-Islamophobia law we'd go right back to square one with people unable to speak out their worries.
This is one of the polling problems that UKIP throws up.
It's quite likely that much of the non-Labour vote will coalesce around UKIP in safe Labour seats. Whether they manage to get direct switchers from Labour is less certain. However, if the Tories are losing votes in places it does not matter, if the polls are right that means they are holding onto and even gaining votes where it does matter.
Colour me a bit sceptical. The evidence is that Tory voters are notoriously unlikely to vote tactically. If this were different then Danny Alexander would be likely to keep his seat. So would Clegg in Sheffield Hallam.
UKIP are not picking up tactical votes in Labour safe seats. I think that they are winning genuine converts there.
So, we'd expect Labour's vote to go down in its safe seats? Or maybe the LD switchers are making up for UKIP ones? If it's the former - and Labour does not lose any seats as a result - it's very good news for them in terms of this election.
The Mellon/Evans argument is that UKIP should win over ex-Labour voters that Labour has already pushed away 1997-2010.
That suggests 2005/2010 low turnout seats might be the surprises on election night.
Only if Tory voters vote tactically and turnout increases, surely. On that basis, the Sunderland seats could reveal quite a lot.
I do not know if Sunday Politics (Lincs and Humber) is on iplayer, but anyone interested in Great Grimsby should watch it. Victoria Ayling for UKIP is awful. The Labour candidate is personable and local. Easy win for Labour, UKIP could be 3rd.
The woman was completely bonkers when she was a Tory but still nearly won it. I think us political obsessives overstate the electorates interest in picking up how mad some candidates are.
Its a cap on annual rent increases at inflation within a three year tenancy.
Landlords will be obliged to tell new tenants what the previous tenant paid - but there is no cap on what that will be.
Results?
Last night it was pointed out that a 3 year tenancy in E&W is a 'DEED' which will need a solicitor to draw up.
Not clear whether this also applies to social housing, which have seen greater increases in rent than private accommodation.
In summary a half cocked solution, with downsides, to the wrong problem.
That isn't true. The prohibition on creating interests in land by parol does not affect the creation of leases taking effect as an interest in possession for a term not exceeding three years at best rent (Law of Property Act 1925, s. 54(2), s. 52(2)(d)). A lease is not therefore void for a failure to create it by deed, falling outside LPA 1925, s. 52(1). A legal lease takes effect as an overriding interest whether or not the lessee is in discoverable actual occupation (Land Registration Act 2002, s. 29, schedule 3, para 1). In any event, Parliament could create a new form of tenancy which was exempt from the formality requirements as it has done before.
Interesting comments in this thread about who is better or worse off under this government.
I'll just throw my circumstances into the mix. I work in a low paid factory job which is above minimum but not a huge amount above it. I don't receive any benefits or tax credits whatsoever - true under both governments. So my only source of income has been my job.
Under the Brown government I struggled to make ends meet most weeks and was sometimes down to my last few pounds.
Under the Cameron government I am living relatively comfortably and have built up some savings.
The reasons? Under Brown I didn't receive any pay rises whatsoever and for much of that time I was reduced to working a 35 hour week due to the recession.
Under Cameron I have (with the exception of each January) been on at least the full 40 hour week and, mostly, a lot more than that. I usually do a 48 hour week these days. Plus I'm paying less income tax now, of course. Oh, and I've had some annual pay rises too.
So under the coalition in 2015 my take home income is upwards of 30% greater than what it was in 2010 under Labour.
Yet... why am I not a dead cert to vote Conservative again? I'm not sure I understand it myself!
This is one of the polling problems that UKIP throws up.
It's quite likely that much of the non-Labour vote will coalesce around UKIP in safe Labour seats. Whether they manage to get direct switchers from Labour is less certain. However, if the Tories are losing votes in places it does not matter, if the polls are right that means they are holding onto and even gaining votes where it does matter.
Colour me a bit sceptical. The evidence is that Tory voters are notoriously unlikely to vote tactically. If this were different then Danny Alexander would be likely to keep his seat. So would Clegg in Sheffield Hallam.
UKIP are not picking up tactical votes in Labour safe seats. I think that they are winning genuine converts there.
Re Danny, I think you have to remember that the SNP is going to get the "out" vote percentage, irrespective of tactical voting. This dooms Mr Alexander, as there Out percentage was 47% or so in Inverness.
Where you might see LibDems hold on in Scotland is where out was low, and they are the only credible unionist party.
Shy kippers? Seriously? In the, highly likely, event that Ed becomes PM, one of the very few things that will cheer me up, will be reading the comment pages of the like of the mail and telegraph. They are awash with loony liblabcon frothing now. It will be hilarious come May 8th.
THE SNP last night warned other parties not make the House of Lords a 'house of losers' after the election by elevating defeated MPs as a consolation prize.
The Nationalists, who refuse to have SNP peers and want to abolish the Lords, challenged their opponents not to give a "free pass" to MPs who retire or get kicked out by voters on May 7.
The call comes amid speculation that LibDem Danny Alexander, who is tipped to lose his Inverness seat to the SNP, could be elevated to the Lords after a defeat.
This would allow him to continue serving as Chief Secretary to the Treasury if there was a second Tory-LibDem coalition.
Other LibDems tipped for peerages include Charlie Kennedy, who is struggling to defend his Ross, Skye and Lochaber seat, and Sir Menzies Campbell, who is retiring.
For years people with genuine concerns about the way their lives have been affected by mass immigration have seen anyone who spoke about it called racist...
People who spoke about what was going on in Rotherham were called racist People who spoke about what was going on in Tower Hamlets were called racist People who saw what was happening to Victoria Climbie didn't speak for fear of being called racist
Most people with a family can't afford to tell the truth for fear if losing their job
Trevor Phillips freely admits that he created an atmosphere where people were afraid to say anything despite how obvious it seemed as they didnt need the aggro of being smeared ... He has apologised and seen the error if his ways, but many people who crave support for their party and see Ukip as a threat have cause to keep these smears and unjustified prejudice alive
I am an outspoken kipper amongst friends, but still don't mention it to people I don't know for fear of what they might think of me... Friends of mine who are voting Ukip say they would say 'don't know' if asked by a stranger or work colleague
And of course now with Ed's anti-Islamophobia law we'd go right back to square one with people unable to speak out their worries.
I realise that by elections are a different kettle of fish to a GE, but can anyone else justify the decision in the Ashcroft poll to treat R&S The same as any other seat weighting wise? Surely the fact Ukip won the seat should play some part in the methodology? Or does it make zero difference and was rightly ignored?
Apparently it is going to be a "blow" to Cameron that Q1 growth (on the first estimate of course) might collapse from 0.6% in Q4 to.....0.5%. Until they revise up construction yet again after the election.
No wonder so much of this election seems to be about Scotland. I may not like what is happening up here but at least it is indisputably interesting.
This is one of the polling problems that UKIP throws up.
It's quite likely that much of the non-Labour vote will coalesce around UKIP in safe Labour seats. Whether they manage to get direct switchers from Labour is less certain. However, if the Tories are losing votes in places it does not matter, if the polls are right that means they are holding onto and even gaining votes where it does matter.
Colour me a bit sceptical. The evidence is that Tory voters are notoriously unlikely to vote tactically. If this were different then Danny Alexander would be likely to keep his seat. So would Clegg in Sheffield Hallam.
UKIP are not picking up tactical votes in Labour safe seats. I think that they are winning genuine converts there.
Re Danny, I think you have to remember that the SNP is going to get the "out" vote percentage, irrespective of tactical voting. This dooms Mr Alexander, as there Out percentage was 47% or so in Inverness.
Where you might see LibDems hold on in Scotland is where out was low, and they are the only credible unionist party.
It wouldn't surprise me to see the Lib Dems end up with more seats in Scotland than Labour.
I think it's unlikely many of that 10,000 will vote UKIP. A combination of Tory tacticals and returning 2010 non-voters is what may do the job. Frankly, Labour deserves a kicking in its safe, working class English bastions, just as it does in Scotland. The only trouble is in England it will deliver right wing MPs that despise trade unions, social solidarity, the welfare state, the NHS and so on.
"The only trouble is in England it will deliver right wing MPs that despise trade unions, social solidarity, the welfare state, the NHS and so on."
You are being stupid. As has been happening too much recently.
1) 'Despise trade unions'. You may note that there is a certain amount of antipathy the other way. And where is the evidence for your contention that the new MPs will 'despise' unions?
2) 'Despise social solidarity'. Please clarify what you mean.
3) 'Despise the welfare state'. I can't say I've come across anyone who 'despises' the welfare state; they may think that some of the spending is barmy and wasteful, but that's a very different matter. But the whole welfare state is a necessary result of failure: it would be great if it was not needed. However we do not live in an ideal world. You should note that criticism of something does not equate to 'despising' it.
4) 'Despise the NHS'. Really? Again, criticism does not equate to despising it. However I find it interesting that the a supporter of the party of Burnham, Stafford and Furness says this: you could equally say that Labour despises patients as much as it loves the NHS.
It is becoming clear why you have turned your back on your McBride-inspired undertaking not to vote Labour. You are indeed taking on his mantle.
THE SNP last night warned other parties not make the House of Lords a 'house of losers' after the election by elevating defeated MPs as a consolation prize.
The Nationalists, who refuse to have SNP peers and want to abolish the Lords, challenged their opponents not to give a "free pass" to MPs who retire or get kicked out by voters on May 7.
The call comes amid speculation that LibDem Danny Alexander, who is tipped to lose his Inverness seat to the SNP, could be elevated to the Lords after a defeat.
This would allow him to continue serving as Chief Secretary to the Treasury if there was a second Tory-LibDem coalition.
Other LibDems tipped for peerages include Charlie Kennedy, who is struggling to defend his Ross, Skye and Lochaber seat, and Sir Menzies Campbell, who is retiring.
In this case, I throughly agree with the SNP. If I, a voter, decide to sack my MP, then the Executive should not subsequently go against my wishes and appoint him to a lifetime membership of the legislature. He should stay sacked. Similarly if an MP decides to stand down, if he wants to continue in public service he should be prepared to stand for an elective post. At the very least, MPs should have to wait out for a parliament before being allowed to be appointed to the Lords.
I know my optimism has become a bit irritating to many here, so I've largely muted it. But it's genuine nonetheless, for all sorts of local reasons. More generally, my impression is that the East Midlands are going to be much like UNS, neither better nor worse. (I don 't know anything about the West Midlands - less than I know about Scotland.)
On shy Kippers - I always make a point of friendly enquiry to people who seem to be shy in expressing their views, partly just to be civilised but also to get the information (in one case it turned out to be "I think Hitler was right", so perhaps shyness was appropriate in his case). Obviously the small minority of people who really are racists currently have UKIP as the least bad option, but that doesn't make a UKIP vote racist. I think the most common cause of UKIP support is simply unease about immigration - not hatred of it, but feeling it's too much and Something Should Be Done. The weakness of the party is that they're not perceived to say much more than that. This is partly journalistic laziness - nobody bothers to report on UKIP's views on the economy, for instance - but if Farage really wanted UKIP to be seen as a broad brush party, he's had enough opportunities to focus on other things.
But are there a lot of shy Kippers? To friends maybe, to an anoymous pollsters I doubt it, and I think it's balanced by the lower probability that all of them will vote in the end.
Shy kippers? Seriously? In the, highly likely, event that Ed becomes PM, one of the very few things that will cheer me up, will be reading the comment pages of the like of the mail and telegraph. They are awash with loony liblabcon frothing now. It will be hilarious come May 8th.
Yes, shy kippers.
People who may worry how it will affect their career or business, such as foster carers in Rotherham.
Shy kippers? Seriously? In the, highly likely, event that Ed becomes PM, one of the very few things that will cheer me up, will be reading the comment pages of the like of the mail and telegraph. They are awash with loony liblabcon frothing now. It will be hilarious come May 8th.
Yes, shy kippers.
People who may worry how it will affect their career or business, such as foster carers in Rotherham.
There are at least two newsagents in Castle Point with UKIP posters. One has a really big display!
If that is accurate, Emma Reynolds is lying, forgetful or playing semantic games. Labour Manifesto 2015:
"For the 11 million people who rent privately, we will legislate to make three-year tenancies the norm, with a ceiling on excessive rent rises. A ban on unfair letting agent fees will save renters over £600. We will drive standards up by creating a national register of private landlords. "
THE SNP last night warned other parties not make the House of Lords a 'house of losers' after the election by elevating defeated MPs as a consolation prize.
The Nationalists, who refuse to have SNP peers and want to abolish the Lords, challenged their opponents not to give a "free pass" to MPs who retire or get kicked out by voters on May 7.
The call comes amid speculation that LibDem Danny Alexander, who is tipped to lose his Inverness seat to the SNP, could be elevated to the Lords after a defeat.
This would allow him to continue serving as Chief Secretary to the Treasury if there was a second Tory-LibDem coalition.
Other LibDems tipped for peerages include Charlie Kennedy, who is struggling to defend his Ross, Skye and Lochaber seat, and Sir Menzies Campbell, who is retiring.
She appears to be insinuating that the UKIP candidate knew what the questions were going to be, but doesn't quite say that.
No she doesn't. She is clearly saying that the UKIP rep was the only one prepared to answer all the questions and that this was dreadfully wrong for the simple reason that the UKIP rep was competent and all the others weren't.
"I know my optimism has become a bit irritating to many here.................."
On the contrary. To many of us it's the only real proof that what we're seeing in the polls isn't a chimera. Don't be put off by the bitterness of the Tory posters. Their aggression only confirms what you are seeing
THE SNP last night warned other parties not make the House of Lords a 'house of losers' after the election by elevating defeated MPs as a consolation prize.
The Nationalists, who refuse to have SNP peers and want to abolish the Lords, challenged their opponents not to give a "free pass" to MPs who retire or get kicked out by voters on May 7.
The call comes amid speculation that LibDem Danny Alexander, who is tipped to lose his Inverness seat to the SNP, could be elevated to the Lords after a defeat.
This would allow him to continue serving as Chief Secretary to the Treasury if there was a second Tory-LibDem coalition.
Other LibDems tipped for peerages include Charlie Kennedy, who is struggling to defend his Ross, Skye and Lochaber seat, and Sir Menzies Campbell, who is retiring.
@DPJHodges: Ed Miliband problem very clear. He has no response on this. "It's not happening" is denial, not a line.
This is form. Miliband has repeatedly wished away problems he's not had solutions for, or produced asserted policy 'solutions' that quite simply won't / wouldn't have worked. It will be very different should he make it to No 10.
THE SNP last night warned other parties not make the House of Lords a 'house of losers' after the election by elevating defeated MPs as a consolation prize.
The Nationalists, who refuse to have SNP peers and want to abolish the Lords, challenged their opponents not to give a "free pass" to MPs who retire or get kicked out by voters on May 7.
The call comes amid speculation that LibDem Danny Alexander, who is tipped to lose his Inverness seat to the SNP, could be elevated to the Lords after a defeat.
This would allow him to continue serving as Chief Secretary to the Treasury if there was a second Tory-LibDem coalition.
Other LibDems tipped for peerages include Charlie Kennedy, who is struggling to defend his Ross, Skye and Lochaber seat, and Sir Menzies Campbell, who is retiring.
In this case, I throughly agree with the SNP. If I, a voter, decide to sack my MP, then the Executive should not subsequently go against my wishes and appoint him to a lifetime membership of the legislature. He should stay sacked. Similarly if an MP decides to stand down, if he wants to continue in public service he should be prepared to stand for an elective post. At the very least, MPs should have to wait out for a parliament before being allowed to be appointed to the Lords.
I half agree (but then as I support a near-fully elected upper chamber, I would).
There should be a minimum period IMO between a defeated MP losing his / her seat and their receiving a peerage. It's an affront to democracy to behave otherwise although governments of all stripes have done it. On the other hand, there's a long-standing practice of rewarding retiring MPs who have achieved distinction with a peerage and I don't have a problem with that. Given the Lords' role in revising legislation, their skills are useful and will be subject to decay if left for five years. Forcing them to wait would also make the Lords an even more geriatric chamber.
But as I say, I'd much rather that the Lords / Senate were fully elected with the exception of a small provision for Senators for Life.
I realise that by elections are a different kettle of fish to a GE, but can anyone else justify the decision in the Ashcroft poll to treat R&S The same as any other seat weighting wise? Surely the fact Ukip won the seat should play some part in the methodology? Or does it make zero difference and was rightly ignored?
You are clutching at straws. Just sit back and wait for the Ed Miliband minority government to come in. In the HoC will be 1 to 3 UKIP MPs. Oh, and no referendum on Europe because there were not enough Conservative MPs elected. That is what the polls are saying will happen.
@BBCLouise: Andrew Marr has to begin programme with an apology to @Number10gov for saying last week that fox hunting is PM's favourite sport #marrshow
Andrew Marr- sullying the PM's character in this way. His favourite sport is obviously stag hunting- much more elitist and befitting someone of his virtues.
This is one of the polling problems that UKIP throws up.
It's quite likely that much of the non-Labour vote will coalesce around UKIP in safe Labour seats. Whether they manage to get direct switchers from Labour is less certain. However, if the Tories are losing votes in places it does not matter, if the polls are right that means they are holding onto and even gaining votes where it does matter.
Colour me a bit sceptical. The evidence is that Tory voters are notoriously unlikely to vote tactically. If this were different then Danny Alexander would be likely to keep his seat. So would Clegg in Sheffield Hallam.
UKIP are not picking up tactical votes in Labour safe seats. I think that they are winning genuine converts there.
Re Danny, I think you have to remember that the SNP is going to get the "out" vote percentage, irrespective of tactical voting. This dooms Mr Alexander, as there Out percentage was 47% or so in Inverness.
Where you might see LibDems hold on in Scotland is where out was low, and they are the only credible unionist party.
It wouldn't surprise me to see the Lib Dems end up with more seats in Scotland than Labour.
It's not inconceivable that the Tories might end up with more seats than Labour in Scotland. It'd be an interesting market to price. Without knowing the detail to that great a degree, I'd suggest that 10/1 might be around the mark.
The Conservatives have a chance in a small number of seats that they either hold already, are close in or hold the Holyrood equivalent. Crucially, these are all seats where the SNP is at its weakest in the country (though that doesn't mean they can't win). By contrast, every Labour seat north of the border is vulnerable to a much bigger swing. However, offsetting that is the fact that at the extremes, the SNP would indeed need a massive swing to take the last few.
"I know my optimism has become a bit irritating to many here.................."
On the contrary. To many of us it's the only real proof that what we're seeing in the polls isn't a chimera. Don't be put off by the bitterness of the Tory posters. Their aggression only confirms what you are seeing
All candidates who post here are highly confident.
Nick has better reason than most. If he doesn't win, then it will be a terrible night for Labour. They'll be down to under 240 seats.
In 2010 we were in a deep recession (caused by the dysfunctional folk from 'Oop-Norff'). People may have had more time to expend their anger against the said 'troupe-of-clowns' as they were not employed usefully.
In 2015 we are doing not-so-bad; we are even approaching Lord Layard's 2.75% long-term growth-rate (thanks Maggie)! Filling YouGov surveys is less important then work, rest and play! [Ahem!]
All very negative on here today from resident conservatives. If conservatives win more seats, that's hardly a resounding victory for Miliband, nor real vindication of his policies or indeed his party. I'm assuming his mandate to govern will come solely from the so called anti Tory alliance in the HoC. All to play for, I think
Mr. Omnium, Labour have wibbled about the current account deficit [which I gather, from here, is the difference between exports and imports] recently, and running a surplus sounds good.
They've probably noticed the media don't have the first damned clue about the difference between debt and deficit, and are deciding to take advantage of that ignorance.
Why is Milliband saying he'll run a current account surplus? Simply not true is it?
Omnium- I don't want to shatter your world, it came hard to me last week when I found out that there wasn't a Father Christmas, but politicians can tell porkies.
In this case, I throughly agree with the SNP. If I, a voter, decide to sack my MP, then the Executive should not subsequently go against my wishes and appoint him to a lifetime membership of the legislature. He should stay sacked. Similarly if an MP decides to stand down, if he wants to continue in public service he should be prepared to stand for an elective post. At the very least, MPs should have to wait out for a parliament before being allowed to be appointed to the Lords.
I half agree (but then as I support a near-fully elected upper chamber, I would).
There should be a minimum period IMO between a defeated MP losing his / her seat and their receiving a peerage. It's an affront to democracy to behave otherwise although governments of all stripes have done it. On the other hand, there's a long-standing practice of rewarding retiring MPs who have achieved distinction with a peerage and I don't have a problem with that. Given the Lords' role in revising legislation, their skills are useful and will be subject to decay if left for five years. Forcing them to wait would also make the Lords an even more geriatric chamber.
But as I say, I'd much rather that the Lords / Senate were fully elected with the exception of a small provision for Senators for Life.
Indeed. I would go for the Australian model of an elected senate with pre-1911 House of Lords powers. In which case, if a retiring MP wanted to stand for it, he could.
I see no reason to have appointed Senators.
The problem with retiring MPs being appointed to the Lords is that it gives them another incentive to continue to grovel to their party leaders and/or the Executive, if they continue on the back benches after retiring from a ministerial career. It would be better if they could continue to use that skills and experience independently. So I would completely remove the opportunity for someone to appoint them to a sinecure for life.
In 2010 we were in a deep recession (caused by the dysfunctional folk from 'Oop-Norff'). People may have had more time to expend their anger against the said 'troupe-of-clowns' as they were not employed usefully.
In 2015 we are doing not-so-bad; we are even approaching Lord Layard's 2.75% long-term growth-rate (thanks Maggie)! Filling YouGov surveys is less important then work, rest and play! [Ahem!]
Of-course: Correlation =/= Causation. Hmm...!
It seems to me that the shift in Yougov's weightings three weeks ago is what has led to them giving Labour a small, but consistent, lead, after weeks of the parties being level-pegging.
This shift to Labour hasn't been picked up by the other pollsters.
Survation have 2.4% Con to Lab; Opinium 3.5%, Yougov 5%.
Yougov's Midlands/Wales segment is the most generous to Labour among all pollsters - and their Wales specific polling is picking up tiny shifts so the implied big switch is in the Midlands.
I realise that by elections are a different kettle of fish to a GE, but can anyone else justify the decision in the Ashcroft poll to treat R&S The same as any other seat weighting wise? Surely the fact Ukip won the seat should play some part in the methodology? Or does it make zero difference and was rightly ignored?
You are clutching at straws. Just sit back and wait for the Ed Miliband minority government to come in. In the HoC will be 1 to 3 UKIP MPs. Oh, and no referendum on Europe because there were not enough Conservative MPs elected. That is what the polls are saying will happen.
Can someone please explain the difference between the first and second graphs ?
Is it 20% of Labour supporters proud to tell their friends and family but 62% proud themselves ?
I am using Labour as an example because they are the highest in both. Why such a divergence ?
I can understand some people's reluctance to discuss politics in the workplace. Recently, in my company, I was asked which party I supported [ part of an election chat ]. I said Labour and I wish I could record the faces of some of the Managers.
Your next PM @nickeardley: Ed Miliband tells @MarrShow he thinks Labour can win the election in Scotland
The naivety of the man beggars belief. His premiership is going to be one long set of car crashes. Great for political observers but the economic pain may harm a generation.
THE SNP last night warned other parties not make the House of Lords a 'house of losers' after the election by elevating defeated MPs as a consolation prize.
The Nationalists, who refuse to have SNP peers and want to abolish the Lords, challenged their opponents not to give a "free pass" to MPs who retire or get kicked out by voters on May 7.
The call comes amid speculation that LibDem Danny Alexander, who is tipped to lose his Inverness seat to the SNP, could be elevated to the Lords after a defeat.
This would allow him to continue serving as Chief Secretary to the Treasury if there was a second Tory-LibDem coalition.
Other LibDems tipped for peerages include Charlie Kennedy, who is struggling to defend his Ross, Skye and Lochaber seat, and Sir Menzies Campbell, who is retiring.
I realise that by elections are a different kettle of fish to a GE, but can anyone else justify the decision in the Ashcroft poll to treat R&S The same as any other seat weighting wise? Surely the fact Ukip won the seat should play some part in the methodology? Or does it make zero difference and was rightly ignored?
Oh, and no referendum on Europe because there were not enough Conservative MPs elected. That is what the polls are saying will happen.
If Conservative MPs had voted in favour of an EU referendum in 2011 it would have passed. But Mr Cameron had a three line whip opposing the referendum, and the majority of the parliamentary Conservative Party happily voted it down.
Mr. Omnium, Labour have wibbled about the current account deficit [which I gather, from here, is the difference between exports and imports] recently, and running a surplus sounds good.
They've probably noticed the media don't have the first damned clue about the difference between debt and deficit, and are deciding to take advantage of that ignorance.
Sorry I mistyped - he said 'current budget'. And yes the 'current account' is usually used for something different - the trade balance (much as you describe).
What I think he's saying is that somehow the ongoing spending of the government will be in surplus, and as far as I can see that's a long, long way from the truth. Especially as he also mentioned repaying debt - as far as I know no Labour government has ever done that! (Tories did it only briefly)
You are clutching at straws. Just sit back and wait for the Ed Miliband minority government to come in. In the HoC will be 1 to 3 UKIP MPs. Oh, and no referendum on Europe because there were not enough Conservative MPs elected. That is what the polls are saying will happen.
Even assuming the Conservatives had a very good election and won 300-310 seats, it is open to doubt whether a Bill authorising a referendum on EU membership would carry. The Tories would have to rely on the DUP and a dwindling number of backbench Labour Eurosceptics to get it through. The rest of the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Scots would oppose en bloc. Unless they were prepared to devote the whole of a session to the Bill, it is difficult to see how it would pass.
Maybe yiou can answer the question I asked downthread. Why does the SNP's favourite webbsite 'Wings over Scotland' use a logo based on the Waffen SS? It's not that I mind just that every time I read one of your or Scotslass's posts I start humming the Horst-Wessel
Why is Milliband saying he'll run a current account surplus? Simply not true is it?
But that is the Labour policy isn't it all along ? Labour has been saying that they will move to a surplus on "current spending" but not overall expenditure as Labour plans to invest in the "capital account". So I am not sure he is saying anything different.
Comments
"Ed was scared of the Chester Hens; a young Mick would have dived right in."
Like a rat up a drainpipe
"LibDems
Wants to be a head or heart...
... But still an arse."
Most accurate and succinct comment of the day
Landlords will be obliged to tell new tenants what the previous tenant paid - but there is no cap on what that will be.
Results?
Last night it was pointed out that a 3 year tenancy in E&W is a 'DEED' which will need a solicitor to draw up.
Not clear whether this also applies to social housing, which have seen greater increases in rent than private accommodation.
In summary a half cocked solution, with downsides, to the wrong problem.
I think:
- The SNP won't do quite as well as expected
- The Lib Dems won't do quite as badly as expected (I don't buy this "SW melt down", they're tenacious buggers)
- Lab & Con will fight to the death in the Midlands. Mr Palmer's hubris optimism I find quietly encouraging.
Its also the 'Midlands' break outs I scan with interest (I know, I know), but straws in the wind - the Midlands has the lowest level (8) of tactical voting - half Scotland's (17) - for example. Looks like they've made their minds up. We just don't know how.....
WATCH: Labour's Shadow Housing Minister @EmmaReynoldsMP "I dont think rent control's going to work in practice"
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/thanet/news/activists-threatened-by-far-right-35806/
A carefully worded, joint statement by LAB and CON, seem to link UKIP to the far right.
For years people with genuine concerns about the way their lives have been affected by mass immigration have seen anyone who spoke about it called racist...
People who spoke about what was going on in Rotherham were called racist
People who spoke about what was going on in Tower Hamlets were called racist
People who saw what was happening to Victoria Climbie didn't speak for fear of being called racist
Most people with a family can't afford to tell the truth for fear if losing their job
Trevor Phillips freely admits that he created an atmosphere where people were afraid to say anything despite how obvious it seemed as they didnt need the aggro of being smeared ... He has apologised and seen the error if his ways, but many people who crave support for their party and see Ukip as a threat have cause to keep these smears and unjustified prejudice alive
I am an outspoken kipper amongst friends, but still don't mention it to people I don't know for fear of what they might think of me... Friends of mine who are voting Ukip say they would say 'don't know' if asked by a stranger or work colleague
Oh and agree on NPXMP - it would make my night if he loses.
"@Roger Was it the Third Dreich Eagle?"
Is that like Lynton Crosby's dog-wessel?
I'll just throw my circumstances into the mix. I work in a low paid factory job which is above minimum but not a huge amount above it. I don't receive any benefits or tax credits whatsoever - true under both governments. So my only source of income has been my job.
Under the Brown government I struggled to make ends meet most weeks and was sometimes down to my last few pounds.
Under the Cameron government I am living relatively comfortably and have built up some savings.
The reasons? Under Brown I didn't receive any pay rises whatsoever and for much of that time I was reduced to working a 35 hour week due to the recession.
Under Cameron I have (with the exception of each January) been on at least the full 40 hour week and, mostly, a lot more than that. I usually do a 48 hour week these days. Plus I'm paying less income tax now, of course. Oh, and I've had some annual pay rises too.
So under the coalition in 2015 my take home income is upwards of 30% greater than what it was in 2010 under Labour.
Yet... why am I not a dead cert to vote Conservative again? I'm not sure I understand it myself!
Where you might see LibDems hold on in Scotland is where out was low, and they are the only credible unionist party.
ComRes C32 L28 LD31
YouGov C34 L28 LD30
ICM C33 L28 LD30
Rotherham and Rahman prove we need more freedom of speech, not less.
THE SNP last night warned other parties not make the House of Lords a 'house of losers' after the election by elevating defeated MPs as a consolation prize.
The Nationalists, who refuse to have SNP peers and want to abolish the Lords, challenged their opponents not to give a "free pass" to MPs who retire or get kicked out by voters on May 7.
The call comes amid speculation that LibDem Danny Alexander, who is tipped to lose his Inverness seat to the SNP, could be elevated to the Lords after a defeat.
This would allow him to continue serving as Chief Secretary to the Treasury if there was a second Tory-LibDem coalition.
Other LibDems tipped for peerages include Charlie Kennedy, who is struggling to defend his Ross, Skye and Lochaber seat, and Sir Menzies Campbell, who is retiring.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/snp-urge-other-parties-to-rule-out-house-of-losers.124286220
Apparently it is going to be a "blow" to Cameron that Q1 growth (on the first estimate of course) might collapse from 0.6% in Q4 to.....0.5%. Until they revise up construction yet again after the election.
No wonder so much of this election seems to be about Scotland. I may not like what is happening up here but at least it is indisputably interesting.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/572961/Bigoted-language-shame-would-be-SNP-MP
candidate was last night forced to make a grovelling apology after the Sunday Express revealed he repeatedly used football-related sectarian slurs.
Brendan O’Hara, who is the favourite to win the crucial marginal seat of Argyll and Bute, called Rangers supporters “huns” on a Celtic fans’ website.
It is an extremely insulting and bigoted term for the Ibrox club and their followers, although some would argue it is derogatory to all Protestants.
"Yet... why am I not a dead cert to vote Conservative again? I'm not sure I understand it myself"
When they read your post they might use you as their new poster boy now that Boris looks bloated. That should sort out your finances
You are being stupid. As has been happening too much recently.
1) 'Despise trade unions'. You may note that there is a certain amount of antipathy the other way. And where is the evidence for your contention that the new MPs will 'despise' unions?
2) 'Despise social solidarity'. Please clarify what you mean.
3) 'Despise the welfare state'. I can't say I've come across anyone who 'despises' the welfare state; they may think that some of the spending is barmy and wasteful, but that's a very different matter. But the whole welfare state is a necessary result of failure: it would be great if it was not needed. However we do not live in an ideal world. You should note that criticism of something does not equate to 'despising' it.
4) 'Despise the NHS'. Really? Again, criticism does not equate to despising it. However I find it interesting that the a supporter of the party of Burnham, Stafford and Furness says this: you could equally say that Labour despises patients as much as it loves the NHS.
It is becoming clear why you have turned your back on your McBride-inspired undertaking not to vote Labour. You are indeed taking on his mantle.
Looking at the various swings for E & W:-
Survation have 2.4% Con to Lab; Opinium 3.5%, Yougov 5%.
@nickeardley: Ed Miliband tells @MarrShow he thinks Labour can win the election in Scotland
@toadmeister: Jesus wept. @Ed_Miliband’s point-blank refusal to answer @AndrewMarr9’s questions about the SNP is infuriating
@montie: Miliband being incredibly evasive on how he'd deal with SNP MPs even though he needs them to become PM.English voters will've noticed #marr
On shy Kippers - I always make a point of friendly enquiry to people who seem to be shy in expressing their views, partly just to be civilised but also to get the information (in one case it turned out to be "I think Hitler was right", so perhaps shyness was appropriate in his case). Obviously the small minority of people who really are racists currently have UKIP as the least bad option, but that doesn't make a UKIP vote racist. I think the most common cause of UKIP support is simply unease about immigration - not hatred of it, but feeling it's too much and Something Should Be Done. The weakness of the party is that they're not perceived to say much more than that. This is partly journalistic laziness - nobody bothers to report on UKIP's views on the economy, for instance - but if Farage really wanted UKIP to be seen as a broad brush party, he's had enough opportunities to focus on other things.
But are there a lot of shy Kippers? To friends maybe, to an anoymous pollsters I doubt it, and I think it's balanced by the lower probability that all of them will vote in the end.
People who may worry how it will affect their career or business, such as foster carers in Rotherham.
"For the 11 million people who rent privately, we will legislate to make three-year tenancies the norm, with a ceiling on excessive rent rises. A ban on unfair letting agent fees will save renters over £600. We will drive standards up by creating a national register of private landlords. "
That is rent control.
Mr. F, the policymakers [a word too polite, I'd say] are damned fools who ought to be slapped around the head and neck with an enormo-haddock.
More desperation from the Unionist mafia.
No she doesn't. She is clearly saying that the UKIP rep was the only one prepared to answer all the questions and that this was dreadfully wrong for the simple reason that the UKIP rep was competent and all the others weren't.
"I know my optimism has become a bit irritating to many here.................."
On the contrary. To many of us it's the only real proof that what we're seeing in the polls isn't a chimera. Don't be put off by the bitterness of the Tory posters. Their aggression only confirms what you are seeing
`When you are Tory leader,get rid of Lynton Crosby.He doesn`t do much for you`.
Left Boris bumbling....
How's that for an ass-coverer if their polling proves to be wrong!
2) Likes tautologies
There should be a minimum period IMO between a defeated MP losing his / her seat and their receiving a peerage. It's an affront to democracy to behave otherwise although governments of all stripes have done it. On the other hand, there's a long-standing practice of rewarding retiring MPs who have achieved distinction with a peerage and I don't have a problem with that. Given the Lords' role in revising legislation, their skills are useful and will be subject to decay if left for five years. Forcing them to wait would also make the Lords an even more geriatric chamber.
But as I say, I'd much rather that the Lords / Senate were fully elected with the exception of a small provision for Senators for Life.
And it looks like Neil Hay is still in the news.
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/politics/cybernat-neil-hay-blasted-for-tax-dodge-role-1-3754312
Come on the Hammers
The Conservatives have a chance in a small number of seats that they either hold already, are close in or hold the Holyrood equivalent. Crucially, these are all seats where the SNP is at its weakest in the country (though that doesn't mean they can't win). By contrast, every Labour seat north of the border is vulnerable to a much bigger swing. However, offsetting that is the fact that at the extremes, the SNP would indeed need a massive swing to take the last few.
Nick has better reason than most. If he doesn't win, then it will be a terrible night for Labour. They'll be down to under 240 seats.
In 2010 we were in a deep recession (caused by the dysfunctional folk from 'Oop-Norff'). People may have had more time to expend their anger against the said 'troupe-of-clowns' as they were not employed usefully.
In 2015 we are doing not-so-bad; we are even approaching Lord Layard's 2.75% long-term growth-rate (thanks Maggie)! Filling YouGov surveys is less important then work, rest and play! [Ahem!]
Of-course: Correlation =/= Causation. Hmm...!
It's also fairly desperate to dig up 20 year old comments about Mo Johnston and use them in an election campaign in this fashion.
Con HOLD: Brighton Kemptown
Con Gain: Bath
Labour hold: Dumfries & Galloway
Lab Gain: Ilford North
Lib Dem Hold: Berwickshire Roxburgh Selkirk
Lib Dem Gain: Watford
SNP Hold:All 1-100 shots...
SNP Gain: DCT
UKIP Hold: Rochester
UKIP Gain: Great Grimsby.
One website looking forward to a boost for business when Labour and Burnham return to power.
They've probably noticed the media don't have the first damned clue about the difference between debt and deficit, and are deciding to take advantage of that ignorance.
Omnium- I don't want to shatter your world, it came hard to me last week when I found out that there wasn't a Father Christmas, but politicians can tell porkies.
I see no reason to have appointed Senators.
The problem with retiring MPs being appointed to the Lords is that it gives them another incentive to continue to grovel to their party leaders and/or the Executive, if they continue on the back benches after retiring from a ministerial career. It would be better if they could continue to use that skills and experience independently. So I would completely remove the opportunity for someone to appoint them to a sinecure for life.
This shift to Labour hasn't been picked up by the other pollsters.
Yougov 6.2%
Survation 4.3% (excl Wales)
ICM 3.9%
Populus 3.7% (excl Wales)
Ashcroft 3.1% (excl Wales)
Ipsos 2.8% (excl Wales)
Comres 2.0% (excl Wales)
Ashcroft's recent marginals in the Midlands have largely been in the 3-4 range.
Yougov look out of synch.
Is it 20% of Labour supporters proud to tell their friends and family but 62% proud themselves ?
I am using Labour as an example because they are the highest in both. Why such a divergence ?
I can understand some people's reluctance to discuss politics in the workplace. Recently, in my company, I was asked which party I supported [ part of an election chat ]. I said Labour and I wish I could record the faces of some of the Managers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8847123/EU-referendum-how-the-MPs-voted.html
What I think he's saying is that somehow the ongoing spending of the government will be in surplus, and as far as I can see that's a long, long way from the truth. Especially as he also mentioned repaying debt - as far as I know no Labour government has ever done that! (Tories did it only briefly)
"More desperation from the Unionist mafia. "
Maybe yiou can answer the question I asked downthread. Why does the SNP's favourite webbsite 'Wings over Scotland' use a logo based on the Waffen SS? It's not that I mind just that every time I read one of your or Scotslass's posts I start humming the Horst-Wessel
http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/5981/thirdreicheagle.jpg
http://wingsoverscotland.com/