Not long to go and the polls finally shifting towards my head over heart Con 35 Lab 32 prediction from a couple of weeks back. I was almost convinced to shift Con down one and Lab up one but talked myself into waiting for this week's polls.
I've had a look behind this morning's GDP numbers and the growth fuelling components of the UK economy are in a dire state.
I am even more convinced any Tory led government post election is running us headling into another recession.
Jeez, it's PB.com's very own Blanchflower. You've spent the last 5 years spinning doom laden tales involving millions of extra unemployed as the sky falls in on failed businesses. It didn't happen. Why not give it a rest.
Miliband hanging out with Russell Brand is extremely high risk, not the act of a frontrunner. Brave politics, or first sign of Labour panic?
I see George Eaton from the New Statesmen was saying he was suprised at Labours change of focus to immigration this week - was meant to be living standards, apparently. I wonder whats going on behind the scenes?
They are running out of time now.
Postal voting is underway and there's only 8 days of campaigning left, one of which is a bank holiday. Meanwhile the politicians are fighting the Nepalese earthquake for headlines and there's a Royal baby on the way. Surely the only thing that will change the game either way at this stage is a massive gaffe from one of the leaders?
This is the most important week/10 days in Ed Milibands life.. strange that he goes to visit a celeb..
I've had a look behind this morning's GDP numbers and the growth fuelling components of the UK economy are in a dire state.
I find the Construction data highly suspect, as a surveyor I can tell you categorically that there is are long-and lengthening-leads times on many standard materials.
Crane hire and skip hire, traditional barometers of the industry, are both strong and plant hire companies are all busy.
I fully expect after the election that these figures will be revised significantly upwrads.
Miliband hanging out with Russell Brand is extremely high risk, not the act of a frontrunner. Brave politics, or first sign of Labour panic?
I see George Eaton from the New Statesmen was saying he was suprised at Labours change of focus to immigration this week - was meant to be living standards, apparently. I wonder whats going on behind the scenes?
They are running out of time now.
Postal voting is underway and there's only 8 days of campaigning left, one of which is a bank holiday. Meanwhile the politicians are fighting the Nepalese earthquake for headlines and there's a Royal baby on the way. Surely the only thing that will change the game either way at this stage is a massive gaffe from one of the leaders?
This is the most important week/10 days in Ed Milibands life.. strange that he goes to visit a celeb..
At least it wasn't Keith Harris. That would have been unfortunate.
I see George Eaton from the New Statesmen was saying he was suprised at Labours change of focus to immigration this week - was meant to be living standards, apparently. I wonder whats going on behind the scenes?
With the rapid decline in Scotland and potential wipe out, he has no choice but to chase southern England (which wasn't apart of his original plan)
He has no chance... it'll be like Cameron trying to win over Bootle.
I wonder whether the poor GDP data will have the same effect as the poor Trade Figures appeared to have in the final days of the 1970 campaign. Government claims of progress and economic sunshine ahead suddenly discredited. Labour perhaps needs to start pushing the message ‘All that pain and sacrifice for no gain’.
Not long to go and the polls finally shifting towards my head over heart Con 35 Lab 32 prediction from a couple of weeks back. I was almost convinced to shift Con down one and Lab up one but talked myself into waiting for this week's polls.
I've had a look behind this morning's GDP numbers and the growth fuelling components of the UK economy are in a dire state.
I am even more convinced any Tory led government post election is running us headling into another recession.
Jeez, it's PB.com's very own Blanchflower. You've spent the last 5 years spinning doom laden tales involving millions of extra unemployed as the sky falls in on failed businesses. It didn't happen. Why not give it a rest.
A recession at some point between now and 2020 is probable.
I've had a look behind this morning's GDP numbers and the growth fuelling components of the UK economy are in a dire state.
I find the Construction data highly suspect, as a surveyor I can tell you categorically that there is are long-and lengthening-leads times on many standard materials.
Crane hire and skip hire, traditional barometers of the industry, are both strong and plant hire companies are all busy.
I fully expect after the election that these figures will be revised significantly upwrads.
Markit's PMI makes reference to some investors sitting on their hands pending the election outcome.
Miliband hanging out with Russell Brand is extremely high risk, not the act of a frontrunner. Brave politics, or first sign of Labour panic?
I see George Eaton from the New Statesmen was saying he was suprised at Labours change of focus to immigration this week - was meant to be living standards, apparently. I wonder whats going on behind the scenes?
They are running out of time now.
Postal voting is underway and there's only 8 days of campaigning left, one of which is a bank holiday. Meanwhile the politicians are fighting the Nepalese earthquake for headlines and there's a Royal baby on the way. Surely the only thing that will change the game either way at this stage is a massive gaffe from one of the leaders?
This is the most important week/10 days in Ed Milibands life.. strange that he goes to visit a celeb..
Would Russell Brand bother to meet with him once he had lost?
Miliband hanging out with Russell Brand is extremely high risk, not the act of a frontrunner. Brave politics, or first sign of Labour panic?
I see George Eaton from the New Statesmen was saying he was suprised at Labours change of focus to immigration this week - was meant to be living standards, apparently. I wonder whats going on behind the scenes?
They are running out of time now.
Postal voting is underway and there's only 8 days of campaigning left, one of which is a bank holiday. Meanwhile the politicians are fighting the Nepalese earthquake for headlines and there's a Royal baby on the way. Surely the only thing that will change the game either way at this stage is a massive gaffe from one of the leaders?
This is the most important week/10 days in Ed Milibands life.. strange that he goes to visit a celeb..
At least it wasn't Keith Harris. That would have been unfortunate.
RIP Orville.
Another childhood hero departs this world. I'm sure Cuddles will still hate that duck. RIP
Not long to go and the polls finally shifting towards my head over heart Con 35 Lab 32 prediction from a couple of weeks back. I was almost convinced to shift Con down one and Lab up one but talked myself into waiting for this week's polls.
I've had a look behind this morning's GDP numbers and the growth fuelling components of the UK economy are in a dire state.
I am even more convinced any Tory led government post election is running us headling into another recession.
Jeez, it's PB.com's very own Blanchflower. You've spent the last 5 years spinning doom laden tales involving millions of extra unemployed as the sky falls in on failed businesses. It didn't happen. Why not give it a rest.
A recession at some point between now and 2020 is probable.
I don't dispute that, but in Ben's world opening the curtains every morning heralds the potential for disaster, which is clearly not the case.
I wonder whether the poor GDP data will have the same effect as the poor Trade Figures appeared to have in the final days of the 1970 campaign. Government claims of progress and economic sunshine ahead suddenly discredited. Labour perhaps needs to start pushing the message ‘All that pain and sacrifice for no gain’.
As I said below -I simply dont believe the Construction figures -1.6% decline.
All anecdotal eveidence and business statements from suppliers says the opposite. The ONS changed the methodology a couple of years ago and have had a lot of trouble ever since getting these right.
Not long to go and the polls finally shifting towards my head over heart Con 35 Lab 32 prediction from a couple of weeks back. I was almost convinced to shift Con down one and Lab up one but talked myself into waiting for this week's polls.
I've had a look behind this morning's GDP numbers and the growth fuelling components of the UK economy are in a dire state.
I am even more convinced any Tory led government post election is running us headling into another recession.
A Labour led government will definitely head us into another recession. It's in their DNA.
Do you actually believe that 'its in their DNA' nonsense? Lets look at the facts.
Recessions with Labour in Power since 1945: 1975 2008-2009
Recessions with the Tories in Power since 1945: 1956 1961 1973-1974 1980-1981 1990-1991
Not long to go and the polls finally shifting towards my head over heart Con 35 Lab 32 prediction from a couple of weeks back. I was almost convinced to shift Con down one and Lab up one but talked myself into waiting for this week's polls.
I've had a look behind this morning's GDP numbers and the growth fuelling components of the UK economy are in a dire state.
I am even more convinced any Tory led government post election is running us headling into another recession.
A Labour led government will definitely head us into another recession. It's in their DNA.
Do you actually believe that 'its in their DNA' nonsense? Lets look at the facts.
Recessions with Labour in Power since 1945: 1975 2008-2009
Recessions with the Tories in Power since 1945: 1956 1961 1973-1974 1980-1981 1990-1991
Sorry which party had 'recession in its DNA'?
Labour's 2008/9 recession was bigger than all the Tory ones rolled together.
That pales into comparison...I was listening to a podcast about rent caps in NYC, and one way they get around it is by providing amentities like a free gym only to full paying tenants. One of the residents compared this to how Hilter treated the Jews....
Freakanomics radio? I love that show (and Planet Money).
Not long to go and the polls finally shifting towards my head over heart Con 35 Lab 32 prediction from a couple of weeks back. I was almost convinced to shift Con down one and Lab up one but talked myself into waiting for this week's polls.
I've had a look behind this morning's GDP numbers and the growth fuelling components of the UK economy are in a dire state.
I am even more convinced any Tory led government post election is running us headling into another recession.
A Labour led government will definitely head us into another recession. It's in their DNA.
Do you actually believe that 'its in their DNA' nonsense? Lets look at the facts.
Recessions with Labour in Power since 1945: 1975 2008-2009
Recessions with the Tories in Power since 1945: 1956 1961 1973-1974 1980-1981 1990-1991
Sorry which party had 'recession in its DNA'?
Labour's 2008/9 recession was bigger than all the Tory ones rolled together.
And then some.
How about "number of times the IMF was called in / seriously considered?"
I wonder whether the poor GDP data will have the same effect as the poor Trade Figures appeared to have in the final days of the 1970 campaign. Government claims of progress and economic sunshine ahead suddenly discredited. Labour perhaps needs to start pushing the message ‘All that pain and sacrifice for no gain’.
The "poor GDP data" meme is ridic. If it had been 0.4 instead of the predicted 0.5 everyone would have shrugged. Instead it's 0.3, a figure with a big margin of error, and quite likely to be revised over time.
No one will notice. Equally, if it had been 0.7 I don't think it would have been of much benefit to the Tories. It all sounds like weird fractions to normal people.
Well they appeared to notice the Trade Figures a few days before the 1970 election. People did not swallow Harold Wilson's excuse that they were caused by Jumbo-Jet imports for that month. Moreover I believe those figures too were subsequently revised!
That pales into comparison...I was listening to a podcast about rent caps in NYC, and one way they get around it is by providing amentities like a free gym only to full paying tenants. One of the residents compared this to how Hilter treated the Jews....
Freakanomics radio? I love that show (and Planet Money).
He has no chance... it'll be like Cameron trying to win over Bootle.
Quite.
Attempting to court Brand, appealing to the far left won't help him either. There will be many Labour MP's unimpressed with this odd move. Especially since YouGov showed many saw Russell Brand as a negative force in politics (even if he raises some good points)
Holding a press conference in somebody's background was another odd move today; yes, I know he wants to bring politics back to communities and local people, but during a General Election campaign? It looks ridiculous.
Not long to go and the polls finally shifting towards my head over heart Con 35 Lab 32 prediction from a couple of weeks back. I was almost convinced to shift Con down one and Lab up one but talked myself into waiting for this week's polls.
I've had a look behind this morning's GDP numbers and the growth fuelling components of the UK economy are in a dire state.
I am even more convinced any Tory led government post election is running us headling into another recession.
A Labour led government will definitely head us into another recession. It's in their DNA.
Do you actually believe that 'its in their DNA' nonsense? Lets look at the facts.
Recessions with Labour in Power since 1945: 1975 2008-2009
Recessions with the Tories in Power since 1945: 1956 1961 1973-1974 1980-1981 1990-1991
Sorry which party had 'recession in its DNA'?
Labour's 2008/9 recession was bigger than all the Tory ones rolled together.
And then some.
There was an interesting article in Investors Chronicle a month or two back on how poor economists are at spotting forthcoming recessions.
When you least expect it; expect it.
It is why we need to get the national finances in order sooner rather than later.
High fives at Labour HQ over the GDP number I reckon.
Not so sure. People vote Labour if they think the economy is fixed, much less keen if it looks fragile. Witness Wilson 1970 as cited. He was favourite to win.
Finally sat down with Oddschecker to look at the seat markets. A few questions: would you bet small amounts on many seats (it could take some time) or large amounts on a few? Do you bother getting all the best prices or stick with one bookie? (Again, could save a lot of time.) And who prefers traditional odds and who prefers the spreads/brokers and why?
I've added all the recent five national polls together (Populus, ICM, Ashcroft, YouGov and TNS.) from yesterday and today.
It is a sample size of 5027 with an MOE of just 1.3%. (which is probably higher because of unknown systemic effects of different methodologies but in the absence of information, the best estimate is a weighted average).
The result is:
Con 35.8% Lab 35.8% LD 8.6% UKIP 14.0% Grn 5.8%
You might find that surprising. I think that is because we have been looking at rounded figures that exaggerate the Con lead; we have been counting Con leads versus Lab leads; and there has been one Poll (Ashcroft) with a large Con lead but a very small sample.
It is easy to be misled, particularly if you are emotionally involved (confirmation bias).
I see George Eaton from the New Statesmen was saying he was suprised at Labours change of focus to immigration this week - was meant to be living standards, apparently. I wonder whats going on behind the scenes?
With the rapid decline in Scotland and potential wipe out, he has no choice but to chase southern England (which wasn't apart of his original plan)
He has no chance... it'll be like Cameron trying to win over Bootle.
It seems incredibly late to chase new marginals; the Scottish 'core vote' has been collapsing for months.
Surely there are only 3-4 possible Labour gains in 'rural' southern England between Norwich and the south coast? Ipswich, Waveney, Kemptown, Hastings ... any more?
10x more in London, the Midlands and North. They must have private polling data.
Has Sunil spotted him yet in Ilford North, seizing on the reported swing to Labour in London?
High fives at Labour HQ over the GDP number I reckon.
Not so sure. People vote Labour if they think the economy is fixed, much less keen if it looks fragile. Witness Wilson 1970 as cited. He was favourite to win.
Whether GDP increases by 0.3% or 0.5% makes no difference, IMHO.
Finally sat down with Oddschecker to look at the seat markets. A few questions: would you bet small amounts on many seats (it could take some time) or large amounts on a few? Do you bother getting all the best prices or stick with one bookie? (Again, could save a lot of time.) And who prefers traditional odds and who prefers the spreads/brokers and why?
Getting the best prices is an essential no brainer, the rest is down to you I reckon
Finally sat down with Oddschecker to look at the seat markets. A few questions: would you bet small amounts on many seats (it could take some time) or large amounts on a few? Do you bother getting all the best prices or stick with one bookie? (Again, could save a lot of time.) And who prefers traditional odds and who prefers the spreads/brokers and why?
Always take best price whereever possible. Bigger stakes where you think the price is more wrong. The spreads are rarely best on the seat winner but often underestimate the 3rd party's chance of getting 2nd place.
Finally sat down with Oddschecker to look at the seat markets. A few questions: would you bet small amounts on many seats (it could take some time) or large amounts on a few? Do you bother getting all the best prices or stick with one bookie? (Again, could save a lot of time.) And who prefers traditional odds and who prefers the spreads/brokers and why?
Always take best price whereever possible. Bigger stakes where you think the price is more wrong. The spreads are rarely best on the seat winner but often underestimate the 3rd party's chance of getting 2nd place.
What price would you make UKIP in Portsmouth South on a 0-10-25 index.
Not long to go and the polls finally shifting towards my head over heart Con 35 Lab 32 prediction from a couple of weeks back. I was almost convinced to shift Con down one and Lab up one but talked myself into waiting for this week's polls.
I've had a look behind this morning's GDP numbers and the growth fuelling components of the UK economy are in a dire state.
I am even more convinced any Tory led government post election is running us headling into another recession.
Con 35 Lab 32 could easily see Labour in government, in alliance with the Nats. It would be a calamitously feeble government, and the bizarre *Coalition* with Sturgeon would do Labour severe longterm damage, but it could easily happen.
As for the recession prediction, pfft. If a recession is headed our way I doubt it will be the worst recession in British history - which is what Labour gave us the last time they were in office.
What the next recession may deliver is much higher unemployment than there has been for a very long time, as companies that shouldn't really be in business but have managed to struggle on as a result of low labour costs finally bow to the inevitable. So what we might see is a relatively shallow recession in which a lot of people lose their jobs.
It might do, or it might not, who can say?
If you look at the recent record on unemployment (since the end of 2010) and compare it to GDP growth, then you can see that growth was stronger in 2011 than in 2012, but unemployment went down in 2012 after rising in 2011.
High fives at Labour HQ over the GDP number I reckon.
Not so sure. People vote Labour if they think the economy is fixed, much less keen if it looks fragile. Witness Wilson 1970 as cited. He was favourite to win.
Whether GDP increases by 0.3% or 0.5% makes no difference, IMHO.
Earnings growth is the most influential, house prices, inflation, interest rates and unemployment less so. GDP can be ignored. Businesses should be increasing wages rather than writing letters if they want the Conservatives re-elected.
Nuneaton again Ashcroft showing a swing to Labour (albeit seemingly from UKIP) as the national polls swing the other way. What's it all about?
The whole country (south of Watford) is. Cambridge looks set to double in size. Satellites ditto. Serious concern over infrastructure especially water/sewerage. Brick shortage hard to detect.
I suspect that the GDP figures are sufficiently poor for Labour to make some headway with a message that ‘Things are getting worse again ‘and ‘All that pain for nothing’ etc. It begins to revive the idea that Osborne has cocked things up on the economy and that Balls has read it better.
The whole country (south of Watford) is. Cambridge looks set to double in size. Satellites ditto. Serious concern over infrastructure especially water/sewerage. Brick shortage hard to detect.
We have 2 of the largest brick factories in the UK close to here and they can't produce them quick enough. I also understand they have doubled in price from a few years ago.
I suspect that the GDP figures are sufficiently poor for Labour to make some headway with a message that ‘Things are getting worse again ‘and ‘All that pain for nothing’ etc. It begins to revive the idea that Osborne has cocked things up on the economy and that Balls has read it better.
S'Wilts update - A bumper crop of leaflets through the door yesterday, bringing the tally to one each for the Blue, Yellow, Red and Green team – plus a UKIP (first ever).
Favourite however was the vote ‘King Arthur Pendragon - independent' pamphlet. – He’s a bit of a celebrity around town and quite charming, although completely nuts.
Not long to go and the polls finally shifting towards my head over heart Con 35 Lab 32 prediction from a couple of weeks back. I was almost convinced to shift Con down one and Lab up one but talked myself into waiting for this week's polls.
I've had a look behind this morning's GDP numbers and the growth fuelling components of the UK economy are in a dire state.
I am even more convinced any Tory led government post election is running us headling into another recession.
Con 35 Lab 32 could easily see Labour in government, in alliance with the Nats. It would be a calamitously feeble government, and the bizarre *Coalition* with Sturgeon would do Labour severe longterm damage, but it could easily happen.
As for the recession prediction, pfft. If a recession is headed our way I doubt it will be the worst recession in British history - which is what Labour gave us the last time they were in office.
What the next recession may deliver is much higher unemployment than there has been for a very long time, as companies that shouldn't really be in business but have managed to struggle on as a result of low labour costs finally bow to the inevitable. So what we might see is a relatively shallow recession in which a lot of people lose their jobs.
It might do, or it might not, who can say?
If you look at the recent record on unemployment (since the end of 2010) and compare it to GDP growth, then you can see that growth was stronger in 2011 than in 2012, but unemployment went down in 2012 after rising in 2011.
Not only low labour costs but also low interest rates. Things will always not stay the same.
I've added all the recent five national polls together (Populus, ICM, Ashcroft, YouGov and TNS.) from yesterday and today.
It is a sample size of 5027 with an MOE of just 1.3%. (which is probably higher because of unknown systemic effects of different methodologies but in the absence of information, the best estimate is a weighted average).
The result is:
Con 35.8% Lab 35.8% LD 8.6% UKIP 14.0% Grn 5.8%
You might find that surprising. I think that is because we have been looking at rounded figures that exaggerate the Con lead; we have been counting Con leads versus Lab leads; and there has been one Poll (Ashcroft) with a large Con lead but a very small sample.
It is easy to be misled, particularly if you are emotionally involved (confirmation bias).
I think you're misleading yourself by doing that. The Internet polls are more favourable to Labour [not just these polls, that's become a clear trend] and they also have bigger samples. By adding up samples you bias your estimate towards that methodology.
SPIN stubbornly maintains 285 - 271 difference between Con - Lab. Also , why is SNP still at 46 and not 56 ?
Because if it was put to 56, everyone who has bought in at 20 and above would cash out.
Heck I'd sell at 56. You're getting 2-1 on 50 seats or less. It'd be the value bet of the election. (One could argue you're getting 4-1 given Orkney and Evens 54 seats or less)
I'm guessing SPIN are sitting on heavy losses on that book.
Friend of mine. Previously of a general fk em all persuasion and particularly hostile to posh tory bullingdon types is now voting Con solely on the SNP point. very much touched a nerve Expressed himself in un diplomatic terms! He is in west Yorkshire (Colne Valley)
This is the most important week/10 days in Ed Milibands life.. strange that he goes to visit a celeb..
Nah. Remember the guest list at Mister Tony's victory party? Slebs only. Plebs keep to the other side of the velvet rope. Mister Wilson was the same. This hunger for stardust... it's a THIGMOU tradition, innit.
I've added all the recent five national polls together (Populus, ICM, Ashcroft, YouGov and TNS.) from yesterday and today.
It is a sample size of 5027 with an MOE of just 1.3%. (which is probably higher because of unknown systemic effects of different methodologies but in the absence of information, the best estimate is a weighted average).
The result is:
Con 35.8% Lab 35.8% LD 8.6% UKIP 14.0% Grn 5.8%
You might find that surprising. I think that is because we have been looking at rounded figures that exaggerate the Con lead; we have been counting Con leads versus Lab leads; and there has been one Poll (Ashcroft) with a large Con lead but a very small sample.
It is easy to be misled, particularly if you are emotionally involved (confirmation bias).
The trend, my friend. The trend.
I am assuming that the Tories will pull ahead to a 2% lead (leaving Con and Lab both on about 270 seats) but time is running out for them.
Not long to go and the polls finally shifting towards my head over heart Con 35 Lab 32 prediction from a couple of weeks back. I was almost convinced to shift Con down one and Lab up one but talked myself into waiting for this week's polls.
I've had a look behind this morning's GDP numbers and the growth fuelling components of the UK economy are in a dire state.
I am even more convinced any Tory led government post election is running us headling into another recession.
A Labour led government will definitely head us into another recession. It's in their DNA.
Do you actually believe that 'its in their DNA' nonsense? Lets look at the facts.
Recessions with Labour in Power since 1945: 1975 2008-2009
Recessions with the Tories in Power since 1945: 1956 1961 1973-1974 1980-1981 1990-1991
Sorry which party had 'recession in its DNA'?
Labour's 2008/9 recession was bigger than all the Tory ones rolled together.
And then some.
Labour's financial policy was incredible. It created recessions in 22 out of 24 OECD countries. It led to the collapse of Lehmann Brothers. It had to introduce TARP in USA. German, Spanish banks went bust. Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Greece etc. had to borrow massive sums of money to stabilise their economies and
SPIN stubbornly maintains 285 - 271 difference between Con - Lab. Also , why is SNP still at 46 and not 56 ?
SNP does seem a bit odd given recent polling and the likely trend, I think one factor might be that as soon as SNP spin hits 50+ many of us will closeout our positions. Here's Prof Curtis's view on Survation:
SPIN stubbornly maintains 285 - 271 difference between Con - Lab. Also , why is SNP still at 46 and not 56 ?
Because if it was put to 56, everyone who has bought in at 20 and above would cash out.
Heck I'd sell at 56. You're getting 2-1 on 50 seats or less. It'd be the value bet of the election. (One could argue you're getting 4-1 given Orkney and Evens 54 seats or less)
I'm guessing SPIN are sitting on heavy losses on that book.
If the SNP were to get 46 seats, how do you think the other 13 would be made up?
Put another way, if you think that we're more likely to see the SNP exceed 47, is Scottish Labour a more attractive sell at 8 than the SNP are a buy at 47?
A lot of these marginal polls are going to be out of date by election night.
I am sensing a big momentum change at the moment towards the blue camp.
I'm not quite ready to call a tory majority or effective majority (+320), but if the trajectory remains the same between now and election day, then that scenario is very much in play.
I've added all the recent five national polls together (Populus, ICM, Ashcroft, YouGov and TNS.) from yesterday and today.
It is a sample size of 5027 with an MOE of just 1.3%. (which is probably higher because of unknown systemic effects of different methodologies but in the absence of information, the best estimate is a weighted average).
The result is:
Con 35.8% Lab 35.8% LD 8.6% UKIP 14.0% Grn 5.8%
You might find that surprising. I think that is because we have been looking at rounded figures that exaggerate the Con lead; we have been counting Con leads versus Lab leads; and there has been one Poll (Ashcroft) with a large Con lead but a very small sample.
It is easy to be misled, particularly if you are emotionally involved (confirmation bias).
I think you're misleading yourself by doing that. The Internet polls are more favourable to Labour [not just these polls, that's become a clear trend] and they also have bigger samples. By adding up samples you bias your estimate towards that methodology.
The question is methodology, not sample size.
But we don't know which methodolgy is the better estimator. So the best estimate is an average.
Probably a better approach is to get the weighted averages of the two methodologies and then take a simple average of the two estimates. (Perhaps this is what Sunil is doing anyway with his ELBOW in which case I won't duplicate his work) So the question is, what is the ELBOW of these recent polls classed by methodology (phone v on-line)?
I am sensing a big momentum change at the moment towards the blue camp.
Are you a canvasser?
For me it isn;t any momentum to the blues in particular. Its just the softness of the labour vote. I think their 'support' might end up being a no-show.
I've added all the recent five national polls together (Populus, ICM, Ashcroft, YouGov and TNS.) from yesterday and today.
It is a sample size of 5027 with an MOE of just 1.3%. (which is probably higher because of unknown systemic effects of different methodologies but in the absence of information, the best estimate is a weighted average).
The result is:
Con 35.8% Lab 35.8% LD 8.6% UKIP 14.0% Grn 5.8%
You might find that surprising. I think that is because we have been looking at rounded figures that exaggerate the Con lead; we have been counting Con leads versus Lab leads; and there has been one Poll (Ashcroft) with a large Con lead but a very small sample.
It is easy to be misled, particularly if you are emotionally involved (confirmation bias).
I think you're misleading yourself by doing that. The Internet polls are more favourable to Labour [not just these polls, that's become a clear trend] and they also have bigger samples. By adding up samples you bias your estimate towards that methodology.
The question is methodology, not sample size.
But we don't know which methodolgy is the better estimator. So the best estimate is an average.
Probably a better approach is to get the weighted averages of the two methodologies and then take a simple average of the two estimates. (Perhaps this is what Sunil is doing anyway with his ELBOW in which case I won't duplicate his work) So the question is, what is the ELBOW of these recent polls classed by methodology (phone v on-line)?
Telephone polling has generally led the way in all previous experience
I've added all the recent five national polls together (Populus, ICM, Ashcroft, YouGov and TNS.) from yesterday and today.
It is a sample size of 5027 with an MOE of just 1.3%. (which is probably higher because of unknown systemic effects of different methodologies but in the absence of information, the best estimate is a weighted average).
The result is:
Con 35.8% Lab 35.8% LD 8.6% UKIP 14.0% Grn 5.8%
You might find that surprising. I think that is because we have been looking at rounded figures that exaggerate the Con lead; we have been counting Con leads versus Lab leads; and there has been one Poll (Ashcroft) with a large Con lead but a very small sample.
It is easy to be misled, particularly if you are emotionally involved (confirmation bias).
The trend, my friend. The trend.
I am assuming that the Tories will pull ahead to a 2% lead (leaving Con and Lab both on about 270 seats) but time is running out for them.
Time is running out, agreed. They need to be 3-4 points ahead, I think, to have most seats. But they probably need to be 15-20 seats ahead for the "illegitimacy" attack to have real dangers for a Lab-SNP "alliance".
Too close to call, as we all know; Scotland will decide, as we also know.
I'm still sticking with my tiny Miliband plurality prediction, though I am MUCH less confident.
My view is that 1-2% ahead gives the Conservatives most seats; 3-4% makes it hard to form a government without them.
ITV had claimed Miliband went to Brand to encourage him to vote.
It's getting ever more ridiculous. Why do it in secret, in the dead of night?
Miliband clearly headed east to the Kingdom of Brand as part of a strategy to get out the Labour voting youth. Those BBC radio stations with younger audiences are pushing it too.
SPIN stubbornly maintains 285 - 271 difference between Con - Lab. Also , why is SNP still at 46 and not 56 ?
Because if it was put to 56, everyone who has bought in at 20 and above would cash out.
Heck I'd sell at 56. You're getting 2-1 on 50 seats or less. It'd be the value bet of the election. (One could argue you're getting 4-1 given Orkney and Evens 54 seats or less)
I'm guessing SPIN are sitting on heavy losses on that book.
If the SNP were to get 46 seats, how do you think the other 13 would be made up?
Put another way, if you think that we're more likely to see the SNP exceed 47, is Scottish Labour a more attractive sell at 8 than the SNP are a buy at 47?
47 - Hmm DCT and BRS are probably unionist; Orkney is held... Those could be the last 3 to go SNP tbh - particularly BRS and Orkney.
DWF; RHW; Glasgow NE; Edi South;
Then perhaps Swinson hanging on ?
East Renfrewshire; One of the Paisleys; Coatbridge; Dumfries Galloway Next ?
High fives at Labour HQ over the GDP number I reckon.
Not so sure. People vote Labour if they think the economy is fixed, much less keen if it looks fragile. Witness Wilson 1970 as cited. He was favourite to win.
Whether GDP increases by 0.3% or 0.5% makes no difference, IMHO.
Earnings growth is the most influential, house prices, inflation, interest rates and unemployment less so. GDP can be ignored. Businesses should be increasing wages rather than writing letters if they want the Conservatives re-elected.
Nuneaton again Ashcroft showing a swing to Labour (albeit seemingly from UKIP) as the national polls swing the other way. What's it all about?
Poll now 4 weeks old presumably - been significant swings to tories since then - especially recently.
ITV had claimed Miliband went to Brand to encourage him to vote.
Has anyone asked Brand if he bothered to register in the first place?
Miliband personally canvassing Brand to GOTV, simply doesn’t wash. – no idea what Ed is really up to but it all looks a bit clandestine and rather desperate to me.
SPIN stubbornly maintains 285 - 271 difference between Con - Lab. Also , why is SNP still at 46 and not 56 ?
I don't think people (including me) can quite believe that the SNP are going to take almost every single seat in Scotland. An extermination level event for SLAB. Totally unprecedented.
And yet the polls point definitively in that direction.
So it's a kind of emotional reluctance to accept what would have been inconceivable a year ago.
Probably some money to be made from it. Unless the intuitive response is correct, of course.
It's not just polls. This is the choice scottish voters made in 2011 too.
SPIN stubbornly maintains 285 - 271 difference between Con - Lab. Also , why is SNP still at 46 and not 56 ?
I don't think people (including me) can quite believe that the SNP are going to take almost every single seat in Scotland. An extermination level event for SLAB. Totally unprecedented.
And yet the polls point definitively in that direction.
So it's a kind of emotional reluctance to accept what would have been inconceivable a year ago.
Probably some money to be made from it. Unless the intuitive response is correct, of course.
I think that is the problem with the polls and placing bets on the levels of support for each party. As a southern Conservative I just cant get my brain around the idea that LABOUR could be in Panda bear territory in Scotland in 10 days time.
It is something that many of my firends also cant believe-surely Labour will bounce back???
ITV had claimed Miliband went to Brand to encourage him to vote.
It's getting ever more ridiculous. Why do it in secret, in the dead of night?
Miliband clearly headed east to the Kingdom of Brand as part of a strategy to get out the Labour voting youth. Those BBC radio stations with younger audiences are pushing it too.
Not that the BBC is left leaning of course (and besides the labour-tory difference in the youngsters is by no means as large as it used to be.)
I've added all the recent five national polls together (Populus, ICM, Ashcroft, YouGov and TNS.) from yesterday and today.
It is a sample size of 5027 with an MOE of just 1.3%. (which is probably higher because of unknown systemic effects of different methodologies but in the absence of information, the best estimate is a weighted average).
The result is:
Con 35.8% Lab 35.8% LD 8.6% UKIP 14.0% Grn 5.8%
You might find that surprising. I think that is because we have been looking at rounded figures that exaggerate the Con lead; we have been counting Con leads versus Lab leads; and there has been one Poll (Ashcroft) with a large Con lead but a very small sample.
It is easy to be misled, particularly if you are emotionally involved (confirmation bias).
The trend, my friend. The trend.
I am assuming that the Tories will pull ahead to a 2% lead (leaving Con and Lab both on about 270 seats) but time is running out for them.
Time is running out, agreed. They need to be 3-4 points ahead, I think, to have most seats. But they probably need to be 15-20 seats ahead for the "illegitimacy" attack to have real dangers for a Lab-SNP "alliance".
Too close to call, as we all know; Scotland will decide, as we also know.
I'm still sticking with my tiny Miliband plurality prediction, though I am MUCH less confident.
Agreed. I'm trying not to get emotional about this. It interferes with my betting. But this is SO fascinating. It has taken over my brain.
I've added all the recent five national polls together (Populus, ICM, Ashcroft, YouGov and TNS.) from yesterday and today.
It is a sample size of 5027 with an MOE of just 1.3%. (which is probably higher because of unknown systemic effects of different methodologies but in the absence of information, the best estimate is a weighted average).
The result is:
Con 35.8% Lab 35.8% LD 8.6% UKIP 14.0% Grn 5.8%
You might find that surprising. I think that is because we have been looking at rounded figures that exaggerate the Con lead; we have been counting Con leads versus Lab leads; and there has been one Poll (Ashcroft) with a large Con lead but a very small sample.
It is easy to be misled, particularly if you are emotionally involved (confirmation bias).
The trend, my friend. The trend.
I am assuming that the Tories will pull ahead to a 2% lead (leaving Con and Lab both on about 270 seats) but time is running out for them.
Time is running out, agreed. They need to be 3-4 points ahead, I think, to have most seats. But they probably need to be 15-20 seats ahead for the "illegitimacy" attack to have real dangers for a Lab-SNP "alliance".
Too close to call, as we all know; Scotland will decide, as we also know.
I'm still sticking with my tiny Miliband plurality prediction, though I am MUCH less confident.
Agreed. I'm trying not to get emotional about this. It interferes with my betting. But this is SO fascinating. It has taken over my brain.
Sure you don't have too much skew in your model. I think electoral bias has more or less dropped out the system now with Labour outperformance in London yielding relatively few realistic targets and possible underperformance in the Midlands.
I've added all the recent five national polls together (Populus, ICM, Ashcroft, YouGov and TNS.) from yesterday and today.
It is a sample size of 5027 with an MOE of just 1.3%. (which is probably higher because of unknown systemic effects of different methodologies but in the absence of information, the best estimate is a weighted average).
The result is:
Con 35.8% Lab 35.8% LD 8.6% UKIP 14.0% Grn 5.8%
You might find that surprising. I think that is because we have been looking at rounded figures that exaggerate the Con lead; we have been counting Con leads versus Lab leads; and there has been one Poll (Ashcroft) with a large Con lead but a very small sample.
It is easy to be misled, particularly if you are emotionally involved (confirmation bias).
I think you're misleading yourself by doing that. The Internet polls are more favourable to Labour [not just these polls, that's become a clear trend] and they also have bigger samples. By adding up samples you bias your estimate towards that methodology.
The question is methodology, not sample size.
But we don't know which methodolgy is the better estimator. So the best estimate is an average.
Probably a better approach is to get the weighted averages of the two methodologies and then take a simple average of the two estimates. (Perhaps this is what Sunil is doing anyway with his ELBOW in which case I won't duplicate his work) So the question is, what is the ELBOW of these recent polls classed by methodology (phone v on-line)?
Yes, that's a much better approach. Really you want to "correct" each poll for known house effects, weight it based on pollster track record and sample size, and then decay its importance over time. Not coincidentally this is 538's approach in the States and is quite a good approximation of what Anthony Wells does over on UKPR (though he doesn't keep it up-to-date every day).
In 2010 most of the London seats (with the exception of the Wandsworth constituencies) didn't declare until 5 or 6 in the morning because they had to separate the local election ballots first. But this time there aren't any local elections in London so they should come through a lot quicker.
SPIN stubbornly maintains 285 - 271 difference between Con - Lab. Also , why is SNP still at 46 and not 56 ?
Because if it was put to 56, everyone who has bought in at 20 and above would cash out.
Heck I'd sell at 56. You're getting 2-1 on 50 seats or less. It'd be the value bet of the election. (One could argue you're getting 4-1 given Orkney and Evens 54 seats or less)
I'm guessing SPIN are sitting on heavy losses on that book.
If the SNP were to get 46 seats, how do you think the other 13 would be made up?
Put another way, if you think that we're more likely to see the SNP exceed 47, is Scottish Labour a more attractive sell at 8 than the SNP are a buy at 47?
47 - Hmm DCT and BRS are probably unionist; Orkney is held... Those could be the last 3 to go SNP tbh - particularly BRS and Orkney.
DWF; RHW; Glasgow NE; Edi South;
Then perhaps Swinson hanging on ?
East Renfrewshire; One of the Paisleys; Coatbridge; Dumfries Galloway Next ?
Given the reputed Thurso personal vote I would have thought Caithness, Sutherland et al should be above Swinson?
I've added all the recent five national polls together (Populus, ICM, Ashcroft, YouGov and TNS.) from yesterday and today.
It is a sample size of 5027 with an MOE of just 1.3%. (which is probably higher because of unknown systemic effects of different methodologies but in the absence of information, the best estimate is a weighted average).
The result is:
Con 35.8% Lab 35.8% LD 8.6% UKIP 14.0% Grn 5.8%
You might find that surprising. I think that is because we have been looking at rounded figures that exaggerate the Con lead; we have been counting Con leads versus Lab leads; and there has been one Poll (Ashcroft) with a large Con lead but a very small sample.
It is easy to be misled, particularly if you are emotionally involved (confirmation bias).
The trend, my friend. The trend.
I am assuming that the Tories will pull ahead to a 2% lead (leaving Con and Lab both on about 270 seats) but time is running out for them.
Time is running out, agreed. They need to be 3-4 points ahead, I think, to have most seats. But they probably need to be 15-20 seats ahead for the "illegitimacy" attack to have real dangers for a Lab-SNP "alliance".
Too close to call, as we all know; Scotland will decide, as we also know.
I'm still sticking with my tiny Miliband plurality prediction, though I am MUCH less confident.
Agreed. I'm trying not to get emotional about this. It interferes with my betting. But this is SO fascinating. It has taken over my brain.
Sure you don't have too much skew in your model. I think electoral bias has more or less dropped out the system now with Labour outperformance in London yielding relatively few realistic targets and possible underperformance in the Midlands.
Yes, unless Labour recover in Scotland, most votes c.= most seats, once you permit the Tories a bit of incumbency.
SPIN stubbornly maintains 285 - 271 difference between Con - Lab. Also , why is SNP still at 46 and not 56 ?
I don't think people (including me) can quite believe that the SNP are going to take almost every single seat in Scotland. An extermination level event for SLAB. Totally unprecedented.
And yet the polls point definitively in that direction.
So it's a kind of emotional reluctance to accept what would have been inconceivable a year ago.
Probably some money to be made from it. Unless the intuitive response is correct, of course.
You'd expect a few recounts in Scotland and for half of them to go Labour's way.
Not long to go and the polls finally shifting towards my head over heart Con 35 Lab 32 prediction from a couple of weeks back. I was almost convinced to shift Con down one and Lab up one but talked myself into waiting for this week's polls.
I've had a look behind this morning's GDP numbers and the growth fuelling components of the UK economy are in a dire state.
I am even more convinced any Tory led government post election is running us headling into another recession.
A Labour led government will definitely head us into another recession. It's in their DNA.
Do you actually believe that 'its in their DNA' nonsense? Lets look at the facts.
Recessions with Labour in Power since 1945: 1975 2008-2009
Recessions with the Tories in Power since 1945: 1956 1961 1973-1974 1980-1981 1990-1991
Sorry which party had 'recession in its DNA'?
Labour's 2008/9 recession was bigger than all the Tory ones rolled together.
And then some.
Labour's financial policy was incredible. It created recessions in 22 out of 24 OECD countries. It led to the collapse of Lehmann Brothers. It had to introduce TARP in USA. German, Spanish banks went bust. Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Greece etc. had to borrow massive sums of money to stabilise their economies and
it was all Labour's fault !
This is trite. Labour were running a 3% deficit at the height of the boom! Being grossly irresponsible with public spending does not cause a global recession - but it does make you particularly vulnerable when one comes along. "Didn't mend the roof while the sun shone' etc. A 160 BILLION deficit is not bad luck but seriously incompetent economic management.
What did cause the global recession was a multi-country central bank / government driven orgy of irresponsible lending. Way too much credit for the uncreditworthy and weak regulation. And Gordon Brown / Ed Balls were as guilty as anyone there. They deliberately screwed the UK's overall banking regulation regime, effectively removing proper oversight of systemic risk.
The job of a good CFO / Chancellor is to remove the punch bowl just as the party is getting a bit too noisy. Brown / Balls pitched up and poured a bucket of vodka into the mix and set piles of supersize cups right to next to it with a 'free punch for everyone sign'. They're not uniquely guilty - but guilty nonetheless.
SPIN stubbornly maintains 285 - 271 difference between Con - Lab. Also , why is SNP still at 46 and not 56 ?
Because if it was put to 56, everyone who has bought in at 20 and above would cash out.
Heck I'd sell at 56. You're getting 2-1 on 50 seats or less. It'd be the value bet of the election. (One could argue you're getting 4-1 given Orkney and Evens 54 seats or less)
I'm guessing SPIN are sitting on heavy losses on that book.
If the SNP were to get 46 seats, how do you think the other 13 would be made up?
Put another way, if you think that we're more likely to see the SNP exceed 47, is Scottish Labour a more attractive sell at 8 than the SNP are a buy at 47?
47 - Hmm DCT and BRS are probably unionist; Orkney is held... Those could be the last 3 to go SNP tbh - particularly BRS and Orkney.
DWF; RHW; Glasgow NE; Edi South;
Then perhaps Swinson hanging on ?
East Renfrewshire; One of the Paisleys; Coatbridge; Dumfries Galloway Next ?
Unless you believe the Guardian, in which case the last 11 seats to hold out will be shod in sandals.
I suppose the sub-question is whether Labour will more easily resist the colossal swings against it in its heartlands or whether the Lib Dems will more easily gather unionist tactical votes. The Labour to SNP swing seems if anything to be getting bigger.
Not that I'm really expecting the Lib Dems to get sufficient numbers of tactical votes to salvage much from the wreckage.
Not long to go and the polls finally shifting towards my head over heart Con 35 Lab 32 prediction from a couple of weeks back. I was almost convinced to shift Con down one and Lab up one but talked myself into waiting for this week's polls.
I've had a look behind this morning's GDP numbers and the growth fuelling components of the UK economy are in a dire state.
I am even more convinced any Tory led government post election is running us headling into another recession.
A Labour led government will definitely head us into another recession. It's in their DNA.
Do you actually believe that 'its in their DNA' nonsense? Lets look at the facts.
Recessions with Labour in Power since 1945: 1975 2008-2009
Recessions with the Tories in Power since 1945: 1956 1961 1973-1974 1980-1981 1990-1991
Sorry which party had 'recession in its DNA'?
Labour's 2008/9 recession was bigger than all the Tory ones rolled together.
And then some.
Labour's financial policy was incredible. It created recessions in 22 out of 24 OECD countries. It led to the collapse of Lehmann Brothers. It had to introduce TARP in USA. German, Spanish banks went bust. Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Greece etc. had to borrow massive sums of money to stabilise their economies and
it was all Labour's fault !
This is trite. Labour were running a 3% deficit at the height of the boom! Being grossly irresponsible with public spending does not cause a global recession - but it does make you particularly vulnerable when one comes along. "Didn't mend the roof while the sun shone' etc. A 160 BILLION deficit is not bad luck but seriously incompetent economic management.
What did cause the global recession was a multi-country central bank / government driven orgy of irresponsible lending. Way too much credit for the uncreditworthy and weak regulation. And Gordon Brown / Ed Balls were as guilty as anyone there. They deliberately screwed the UK's overall banking regulation regime, effectively removing proper oversight of systemic risk.
The job of a good CFO / Chancellor is to remove the punch bowl just as the party is getting a bit too noisy. Brown / Balls pitched up and poured a bucket of vodka into the mix and set piles of supersize cups right to next to it with a 'free punch for everyone sign'. They're not uniquely guilty - but guilty nonetheless.
Not long to go and the polls finally shifting towards my head over heart Con 35 Lab 32 prediction from a couple of weeks back. I was almost convinced to shift Con down one and Lab up one but talked myself into waiting for this week's polls.
I've had a look behind this morning's GDP numbers and the growth fuelling components of the UK economy are in a dire state.
I am even more convinced any Tory led government post election is running us headling into another recession.
A Labour led government will definitely head us into another recession. It's in their DNA.
Do you actually believe that 'its in their DNA' nonsense? Lets look at the facts.
Recessions with Labour in Power since 1945: 1975 2008-2009
Recessions with the Tories in Power since 1945: 1956 1961 1973-1974 1980-1981 1990-1991
Sorry which party had 'recession in its DNA'?
Labour's 2008/9 recession was bigger than all the Tory ones rolled together.
And then some.
Labour's financial policy was incredible. It created recessions in 22 out of 24 OECD countries. It led to the collapse of Lehmann Brothers. It had to introduce TARP in USA. German, Spanish banks went bust. Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Greece etc. had to borrow massive sums of money to stabilise their economies and
it was all Labour's fault !
You cannot have your cake and eat it (unless you think you are a reincarnation of Gordon Brown). We have been affected by the Eurozone crisis since 2010.
The UK recession was one of if not the deepest. Out banks were heavily exposed and went bust. Who changed banking regulation? Remind me. Who increased spending between 2000 and 2010 by 50% in real terms?
I've added all the recent five national polls together (Populus, ICM, Ashcroft, YouGov and TNS.) from yesterday and today.
It is a sample size of 5027 with an MOE of just 1.3%. (which is probably higher because of unknown systemic effects of different methodologies but in the absence of information, the best estimate is a weighted average).
The result is:
Con 35.8% Lab 35.8% LD 8.6% UKIP 14.0% Grn 5.8%
You might find that surprising. I think that is because we have been looking at rounded figures that exaggerate the Con lead; we have been counting Con leads versus Lab leads; and there has been one Poll (Ashcroft) with a large Con lead but a very small sample.
It is easy to be misled, particularly if you are emotionally involved (confirmation bias).
I think you're misleading yourself by doing that. The Internet polls are more favourable to Labour [not just these polls, that's become a clear trend] and they also have bigger samples. By adding up samples you bias your estimate towards that methodology.
The question is methodology, not sample size.
But we don't know which methodolgy is the better estimator. So the best estimate is an average.
Probably a better approach is to get the weighted averages of the two methodologies and then take a simple average of the two estimates. (Perhaps this is what Sunil is doing anyway with his ELBOW in which case I won't duplicate his work) So the question is, what is the ELBOW of these recent polls classed by methodology (phone v on-line)?
But by doing an ELBOW and pooling all the polls you are weighting by sample size, and so favouring the online polls over phone polls.
I am sensing a big momentum change at the moment towards the blue camp.
Are you a canvasser?
For me it isn;t any momentum to the blues in particular. Its just the softness of the labour vote. I think their 'support' might end up being a no-show.
The [polls do suggest some momentum towards the blues.It seems to be driven partly by a weakening in the UKIP vote which you would expect to return disproportionately to the blues. thus strengthening their position in Con/lab marginals and in LD/con marginals,.Think this slow strengthening of the Tory vote will continue right up to polling day.I do have bet from march 10th at 9/2 for an overall Tory majority
SPIN stubbornly maintains 285 - 271 difference between Con - Lab. Also , why is SNP still at 46 and not 56 ?
I don't think people (including me) can quite believe that the SNP are going to take almost every single seat in Scotland. An extermination level event for SLAB. Totally unprecedented.
And yet the polls point definitively in that direction.
So it's a kind of emotional reluctance to accept what would have been inconceivable a year ago.
Probably some money to be made from it. Unless the intuitive response is correct, of course.
You'd expect a few recounts in Scotland and for half of them to go Labour's way.
Why? Labour has taken the lumpen masses of Jock lefties for granted since forever. Unfortunately the said lefties noticed. They're also (rightly) proud Scots. WTF does Labour have to offer them? SLAB is gone. For good.
Core votes are core right up until they're not. Dave is suffering a bit of this with grumpy retired colonels in Tunbridge Wells and tattooed but decent and proud men who drive white vans.
The main parties have both forgotten a bit who they are. Who they're for.
Comments
I've had a look behind this morning's GDP numbers and the growth fuelling components of the UK economy are in a dire state.
I find the Construction data highly suspect, as a surveyor I can tell you categorically that there is are long-and lengthening-leads times on many standard materials.
Crane hire and skip hire, traditional barometers of the industry, are both strong and plant hire companies are all busy.
I fully expect after the election that these figures will be revised significantly upwrads.
RIP Orville.
RIP
Its almost as if labour suddenly realised it is an English party.
'everybody, look up England on the internet....'
All anecdotal eveidence and business statements from suppliers says the opposite. The ONS changed the methodology a couple of years ago and have had a lot of trouble ever since getting these right.
The cynic might even suspect foul play
Recessions with Labour in Power since 1945:
1975
2008-2009
Recessions with the Tories in Power since 1945:
1956
1961
1973-1974
1980-1981
1990-1991
Sorry which party had 'recession in its DNA'?
Indeed. Does not ring true at all
Central London is a giant building site.
And then some.
Lansley and Hunt are no worse, and in many ways better.
Attempting to court Brand, appealing to the far left won't help him either. There will be many Labour MP's unimpressed with this odd move. Especially since YouGov showed many saw Russell Brand as a negative force in politics (even if he raises some good points)
Holding a press conference in somebody's background was another odd move today; yes, I know he wants to bring politics back to communities and local people, but during a General Election campaign? It looks ridiculous.
When you least expect it; expect it.
It is why we need to get the national finances in order sooner rather than later.
It is a sample size of 5027 with an MOE of just 1.3%. (which is probably higher because of unknown systemic effects of different methodologies but in the absence of information, the best estimate is a weighted average).
The result is:
Con 35.8%
Lab 35.8%
LD 8.6%
UKIP 14.0%
Grn 5.8%
You might find that surprising. I think that is because we have been looking at rounded figures that exaggerate the Con lead; we have been counting Con leads versus Lab leads; and there has been one Poll (Ashcroft) with a large Con lead but a very small sample.
It is easy to be misled, particularly if you are emotionally involved (confirmation bias).
Surely there are only 3-4 possible Labour gains in 'rural' southern England between Norwich and the south coast? Ipswich, Waveney, Kemptown, Hastings ... any more?
10x more in London, the Midlands and North. They must have private polling data.
Has Sunil spotted him yet in Ilford North, seizing on the reported swing to Labour in London?
Pound Shop Russell Brand.
"no time for a novice" vs. "their plan is failing"
Hope people managed to "trade out"
If you look at the recent record on unemployment (since the end of 2010) and compare it to GDP growth, then you can see that growth was stronger in 2011 than in 2012, but unemployment went down in 2012 after rising in 2011.
Nuneaton again Ashcroft showing a swing to Labour (albeit seemingly from UKIP) as the national polls swing the other way. What's it all about?
Answers on a blank piece of paper.
Favourite however was the vote ‘King Arthur Pendragon - independent' pamphlet. – He’s a bit of a celebrity around town and quite charming, although completely nuts.
http://www.insidewiltshire.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/King-Arthur-at-Stonehenge.jpg
Markit's PMI makes reference to some investors sitting on their hands pending the election outcome.
I agree that there is an element of that, but that is more about future development.
IF the Conservatives get back in I think we will see a reasonable period of decent growth in the construction sector.
BUT the sector is cyclical and there will be a downturn at some stage before 2020!!
The question is methodology, not sample size.
Heck I'd sell at 56. You're getting 2-1 on 50 seats or less. It'd be the value bet of the election. (One could argue you're getting 4-1 given Orkney and Evens 54 seats or less)
I'm guessing SPIN are sitting on heavy losses on that book.
Friend of mine. Previously of a general fk em all persuasion and particularly hostile to posh tory bullingdon types is now voting Con solely on the SNP point. very much touched a nerve Expressed himself in un diplomatic terms! He is in west Yorkshire (Colne Valley)
it was all Labour's fault !
http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2015/04/survation-also-put-the-snp-above-the-50-mark/
In terms of tactical voting Scotland in the Union have published the following rather confusing article:
http://www.scotlandinunion.co.uk/tactical_voting_survey_siu_press_release
Imagine there was a 7 leader or head to head debate Thursday night - would be dominating the media 24/7.
Put another way, if you think that we're more likely to see the SNP exceed 47, is Scottish Labour a more attractive sell at 8 than the SNP are a buy at 47?
I am sensing a big momentum change at the moment towards the blue camp.
I'm not quite ready to call a tory majority or effective majority (+320), but if the trajectory remains the same between now and election day, then that scenario is very much in play.
I haven't seen anything like this for 23 years.
Has anyone asked Brand if he bothered to register in the first place?
Probably a better approach is to get the weighted averages of the two methodologies and then take a simple average of the two estimates. (Perhaps this is what Sunil is doing anyway with his ELBOW in which case I won't duplicate his work) So the question is, what is the ELBOW of these recent polls classed by methodology (phone v on-line)?
Are you a canvasser?
For me it isn;t any momentum to the blues in particular. Its just the softness of the labour vote. I think their 'support' might end up being a no-show.
Miliband clearly headed east to the Kingdom of Brand as part of a strategy to get out the Labour voting youth. Those BBC radio stations with younger audiences are pushing it too.
47 - Hmm DCT and BRS are probably unionist; Orkney is held... Those could be the last 3 to go SNP tbh - particularly BRS and Orkney.
DWF; RHW; Glasgow NE; Edi South;
Then perhaps Swinson hanging on ?
East Renfrewshire; One of the Paisleys; Coatbridge; Dumfries Galloway Next ?
And we won;t until the election. So interpret the data in your own way and come up with your own conclusions. And let everybody else do the same.
It is something that many of my firends also cant believe-surely Labour will bounce back???
It appears not
Any more polls due today?
You are emotional about it already because you are taking the polling data at face value. That is an emotional decision, not a rational one.
I see that Dan Hodgeadamus thinks that Nigel Farage has given up in Thanet South, and UKIP will poll 6-7%.
What did cause the global recession was a multi-country central bank / government driven orgy of irresponsible lending. Way too much credit for the uncreditworthy and weak regulation. And Gordon Brown / Ed Balls were as guilty as anyone there. They deliberately screwed the UK's overall banking regulation regime, effectively removing proper oversight of systemic risk.
The job of a good CFO / Chancellor is to remove the punch bowl just as the party is getting a bit too noisy. Brown / Balls pitched up and poured a bucket of vodka into the mix and set piles of supersize cups right to next to it with a 'free punch for everyone sign'. They're not uniquely guilty - but guilty nonetheless.
I suppose the sub-question is whether Labour will more easily resist the colossal swings against it in its heartlands or whether the Lib Dems will more easily gather unionist tactical votes. The Labour to SNP swing seems if anything to be getting bigger.
Not that I'm really expecting the Lib Dems to get sufficient numbers of tactical votes to salvage much from the wreckage.
The UK recession was one of if not the deepest. Out banks were heavily exposed and went bust. Who changed banking regulation? Remind me.
Who increased spending between 2000 and 2010 by 50% in real terms?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3059033/The-SNP-openly-racist-says-Farage-blast-Alex-Salmond-fuelling-anti-English-sentiment-Scotland.html
Lib Dems strong 3rd.
DUP! calling it all out for the nonsense it is on the radio this morning
Core votes are core right up until they're not. Dave is suffering a bit of this with grumpy retired colonels in Tunbridge Wells and tattooed but decent and proud men who drive white vans.
The main parties have both forgotten a bit who they are. Who they're for.