Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If you’ve been seat betting based on the Ashcroft polls the

24567

Comments

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    HYUFD said:

    Interesting figures on the voting preferences of various professions and jobs and classes in the Times Redbox yesterday

    City Workers and Finance Sector - Tory 46%, Labour 19%, LD 5%, Green 4%, UKIP 10%

    Health Sector Labour 31%, Tory 27%, LD 6%, Green 4%, UKIP 11%

    Students Labour 29%, Tory 25%, Green 13%, LD 8% UKIP 4%

    Unemployed Labour 36%, Tory 16%, UKIP 14%, Green 6%, LD 6%

    AB Tory 37%, Labour 26%, LD 8%, UKIP 8%, Green 5%

    C1 Tory 30%, Labour 27%, UKIP 10%, LD 7%, Green 7%

    C2 Labour 30%, Tory 27%, UKIP 15%, LD 4%, Green 4%

    D Labour 32%, Tory 23%, UKIP 16%, LD 5%, Green 4%

    E Labour 38%, Tory 19%, UKIP 15%, LD 5%, Green 4%
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/redbox/topic/red-box-the-voters

    Fascinating chart! I'm surprised the Health Sector gap is so low.....
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited April 2015
    BenM said:

    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.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,780
    Sandpit said:

    Send for the Elvis impersonator...Labour wobble-ongoing.


    Tom Newton Dunn ✔ @tnewtondunn

    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.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,950

    Sandpit said:

    Send for the Elvis impersonator...Labour wobble-ongoing.


    Tom Newton Dunn ✔ @tnewtondunn

    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.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,780
    Daniel said:


    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.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    Carlotta Probably Cameron's emphasis on the NHS and ringfencing helps, plus the sector includes a few wealthy surgeons and GPs
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    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’.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546

    BenM said:

    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.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited April 2015


    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.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Sandpit said:

    Send for the Elvis impersonator...Labour wobble-ongoing.


    Tom Newton Dunn ✔ @tnewtondunn

    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?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,031

    Sandpit said:

    Send for the Elvis impersonator...Labour wobble-ongoing.


    Tom Newton Dunn ✔ @tnewtondunn

    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
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    Sean_F said:

    BenM said:

    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.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    He has no chance... it'll be like Cameron trying to win over Bootle.

    Its almost as if labour suddenly realised it is an English party.

    'everybody, look up England on the internet....'
  • justin124 said:

    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.

    The cynic might even suspect foul play
  • perdix said:

    BenM said:

    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'?
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''The cynic might even suspect foul play.''

    Indeed. Does not ring true at all

    Central London is a giant building site.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,950

    perdix said:

    BenM said:

    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.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    HYUFD said:

    Interesting figures on the voting preferences of various professions and jobs and classes in the Times Redbox yesterday

    City Workers and Finance Sector - Tory 46%, Labour 19%, LD 5%, Green 4%, UKIP 10%

    Health Sector Labour 31%, Tory 27%, LD 6%, Green 4%, UKIP 11%

    Students Labour 29%, Tory 25%, Green 13%, LD 8% UKIP 4%

    Unemployed Labour 36%, Tory 16%, UKIP 14%, Green 6%, LD 6%

    AB Tory 37%, Labour 26%, LD 8%, UKIP 8%, Green 5%

    C1 Tory 30%, Labour 27%, UKIP 10%, LD 7%, Green 7%

    C2 Labour 30%, Tory 27%, UKIP 15%, LD 4%, Green 4%

    D Labour 32%, Tory 23%, UKIP 16%, LD 5%, Green 4%

    E Labour 38%, Tory 19%, UKIP 15%, LD 5%, Green 4%
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/redbox/topic/red-box-the-voters

    Fascinating chart! I'm surprised the Health Sector gap is so low.....
    I am not. I remember working for Alan Milburn, John Reid, Patricia Hewitt etc.

    Lansley and Hunt are no worse, and in many ways better.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,655

    SeanT said:

    Indescribable and mind-boggling article in Comment is Free.

    Francine Prose (a hitherto-respected author) compares the murdered Charlie Hebdo journalists to neo-Nazis, and continues from there.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/28/i-admire-charlie-hebdos-courage-but-it-does-not-deserve-a-pen-award#comment-51168796

    Peak Guardian?

    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).
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    perdix said:

    BenM said:

    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?"
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    SeanT said:

    justin124 said:

    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!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    edited April 2015
    rcs1000 said:

    SeanT said:

    Indescribable and mind-boggling article in Comment is Free.

    Francine Prose (a hitherto-respected author) compares the murdered Charlie Hebdo journalists to neo-Nazis, and continues from there.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/28/i-admire-charlie-hebdos-courage-but-it-does-not-deserve-a-pen-award#comment-51168796

    Peak Guardian?

    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).
    It was Freakanomics podcast.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    High fives at Labour HQ over the GDP number I reckon.
  • DanielDaniel Posts: 160



    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.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    perdix said:

    BenM said:

    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.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    BlueRog Yes, RedBox is producing some very interesting research
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Pulpstar said:

    If Labour lose, can they please go sub 250.

    Ta.

    My current prediction would be Labour on about 265. I expect them to win about 25-30 seats from the Tories and 10 from the LDs.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Pulpstar said:

    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.
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,052
    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?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,680
    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).
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038

    Daniel said:


    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?
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Sandpit said:

    Another childhood hero departs this world. I'm sure Cuddles will still hate that duck.
    RIP

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDrQDzIW8AAhMm0.jpg
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Dadge said:

    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
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Dadge said:

    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.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Pulpstar said:

    High fives at Labour HQ over the GDP number I reckon.

    I wonder. Not that clear cut, is it?

    "no time for a novice" vs. "their plan is failing"
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415

    Loving the Lab price on betfair most seats.... reach for the sky!

    Lab most seats is dead I reckon.

    Hope people managed to "trade out"
  • BaskervilleBaskerville Posts: 391
    Even if we take the GDP figures at face value, the rest of the EU would kill for 2.4% annual growth.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415

    Dadge said:

    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.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    SeanT said:

    BenM said:

    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.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    Sean_F said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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?
  • ProdicusProdicus Posts: 658
    taffys said:

    ''Central London is a giant building site.

    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.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Send for the Elvis impersonator...Labour wobble-ongoing.


    Tom Newton Dunn ✔ @tnewtondunn

    Miliband hanging out with Russell Brand is extremely high risk, not the act of a frontrunner. Brave politics, or first sign of Labour panic?

    Would Mandy have let Tony Blair near Mr Brand ?

    Answers on a blank piece of paper.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    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.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,711
    AndyJS said:

    Pulpstar said:

    If Labour lose, can they please go sub 250.

    Ta.

    My current prediction would be Labour on about 265. I expect them to win about 25-30 seats from the Tories and 10 from the LDs.
    Seconded.
  • woody662woody662 Posts: 255
    Prodicus said:

    taffys said:

    ''Central London is a giant building site.

    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.
  • woody662woody662 Posts: 255
    justin124 said:

    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.

    Total fantasy
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    SPIN stubbornly maintains 285 - 271 difference between Con - Lab. Also , why is SNP still at 46 and not 56 ?
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    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.

    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!!
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,711

    AndyJS said:

    Pulpstar said:

    If Labour lose, can they please go sub 250.

    Ta.

    My current prediction would be Labour on about 265. I expect them to win about 25-30 seats from the Tories and 10 from the LDs.
    Seconded.
    Although that still might not put Labour above 260 if Scotland is a wipe out.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    SeanT said:

    BenM said:

    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.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Barnesian said:

    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.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    edited April 2015
    surbiton said:

    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.
  • FattyBolgerFattyBolger Posts: 299
    Anecdotage for what it is worth

    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)
  • ProdicusProdicus Posts: 658
    Charles said:


    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.

  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,680
    SeanT said:

    Barnesian said:

    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.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,031
    Pulpstar said:

    surbiton said:

    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.

    I'm guessing SPIN are sitting on heavy losses on that book.
    So who will admit to being the lucky sod that bought SNP seats for a tenner each at 6.5 a couple of years back?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    Pre exit poll that SPIN will go no higher than about 50.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    perdix said:

    BenM said:

    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 !
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    surbiton said:

    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:

    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
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Anyone still questioning Dave's debate strategy ?

    Imagine there was a 7 leader or head to head debate Thursday night - would be dominating the media 24/7.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Pulpstar said:

    surbiton said:

    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 haven't seen anything like this for 23 years.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    chestnut said:
    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?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,680

    Barnesian said:

    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)?
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    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.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    edited April 2015
    TGOHF said:

    Anyone still questioning Dave's debate strategy ?

    Imagine there was a 7 leader or head to head debate Thursday night - would be dominating the media 24/7.

    Does anybody even really remember any of substance of debates held? Hell no...
  • Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    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
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546
    SeanT said:

    Barnesian said:

    SeanT said:

    Barnesian said:

    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.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited April 2015
    dr_spyn said:
    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.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    edited April 2015
    antifrank said:

    Pulpstar said:

    surbiton said:

    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 ?

  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    FalseFlag said:

    Sean_F said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    TGOHF said:

    Anyone still questioning Dave's debate strategy ?

    Imagine there was a 7 leader or head to head debate Thursday night - would be dominating the media 24/7.

    What debates?
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    dr_spyn said:

    chestnut said:
    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.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''But we don't know which methodolgy is the better estimator. So the best estimate is an average.''

    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.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited April 2015
    SeanT said:

    surbiton said:

    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.

  • SeanT said:

    surbiton said:

    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???

    It appears not :)
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820

    dr_spyn said:
    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.)
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,680
    SeanT said:

    Barnesian said:

    SeanT said:

    Barnesian said:

    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.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,964
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Any more polls due today?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    Barnesian said:

    SeanT said:

    Barnesian said:

    SeanT said:

    Barnesian said:

    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.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    I'''m trying not to get emotional about this.''

    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.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546

    I see that Dan Hodgeadamus thinks that Nigel Farage has given up in Thanet South, and UKIP will poll 6-7%.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    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).
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    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.
  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,782
    Pulpstar said:

    antifrank said:

    Pulpstar said:

    surbiton said:

    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?
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Pulpstar said:

    Barnesian said:

    SeanT said:

    Barnesian said:

    SeanT said:

    Barnesian said:

    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.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    SeanT said:

    surbiton said:

    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.
  • surbiton said:

    perdix said:

    BenM said:

    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.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Pulpstar said:

    antifrank said:

    Pulpstar said:

    surbiton said:

    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.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546
    Patrick said:

    surbiton said:

    perdix said:

    BenM said:

    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.
    Didn't Gordon Brown save the world?
  • Flightpath1Flightpath1 Posts: 207
    surbiton said:

    perdix said:

    BenM said:

    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?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Sean_F said:


    I see that Dan Hodgeadamus thinks that Nigel Farage has given up in Thanet South, and UKIP will poll 6-7%.

    What an idiot. UKIP will get at least 10% and 2 seats.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    UKIP trying to outdo the Tories on the "who can hate the SNP the most" competition.

    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
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    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.
  • rogerhrogerh Posts: 282
    taffys said:

    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

  • AndyJS said:

    SeanT said:

    surbiton said:

    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.
This discussion has been closed.