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.
Sunil does also do a Non Yougov ELBOW. There has been statistically significant divergence...
I see that Dan Hodgeadamus thinks that Nigel Farage has given up in Thanet South, and UKIP will poll 6-7%.
Hodges is correct. There's no doubt in my mind Farage has spent weeks of heavy campaigning in Thanet, getting himself a distance ahead of the Lab & Tory candidates only to decide he never wanted to become an MP in the first place.
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
There's a large pool of "mebbe...." Tories out there right now. Not happy with the Party - but mortified at the alternatives. In that sense, very similar to 1992.
The issue this is time is - will they vote at all? I kinda get the impression from talking to them that they will....
Indeed that raises an interesting question. How far ahead must the Tories be in seats, for the charge of "illegitimacy" to really work against an anti-Tory alliance of Nats and Lab?
If Cameron is just a handful of seats in front, Miliband will be OK (and will be PM). My guess (as below) is that Cameron really needs to be 15-20 seats ahead to put the willies up his minority opponents. If Tories are 30-40 seats in front then Cameron will be PM, full stop.
The Tories were 67 seats ahead in 1924, but MacDonald became PM...
Indeed that raises an interesting question. How far ahead must the Tories be in seats, for the charge of "illegitimacy" to really work against an anti-Tory alliance of Nats and Lab?
If Cameron is just a handful of seats in front, Miliband will be OK (and will be PM). My guess (as below) is that Cameron really needs to be 15-20 seats ahead to put the willies up his minority opponents. If Tories are 30-40 seats in front then Cameron will be PM, full stop.
The Tories were 67 seats ahead in 1924, but MacDonald became PM...
The SNP and Lib Dems won't be getting err 132 seats though
Rod - Do you think Miliband is likely to become next PM ?
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.
No. I'm now suggesting doing two estimates, each weighted by sample size, for the two different methodologies. Then do a simple average (not sample size weighted) of the two estimates (unless you are personally convinced that one methodology is wrong and the other is right).
I'm just frustrated by the large MOEs of individual polls and looking for ways to reduce them. Otherwise it is easy to be misled.
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.
Anyone know when the final electorate figures will be available? The Cambridgeshire seats already had high electorates
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.
You could be right. Like many I am finding this almost impossible to parse, coz of Scotland, UKIP, &c.
My estimation is that we'll get about 290 seats and Labour will get about 260. By my reckoning, that makes forming a government impossible:
- UKIP, Greens, Plaid won't have enough seats to be worth doing a deal with - Labour-SNP won't be enough seats - Labour-LD won't have enough seats - Labour-SNP-LD has been credibly ruled out - Minority Labour won't be credible as they're by far the second party - Conservative-LD won't be enough seats - Conservative-LD-DUP will barely be enough seats, but too broad to function - Conservative-LD-SNP has been credibly ruled out - Minority Conservative wouldn't be able to pass anything - Grand Coalition not possible because Labour & Conservatives are too far apart and neither would want to risk UKIP surge
The £10k lump looking to back Ed at 1.73 is being nibbled at. As Pulpstar has said it's simply not compatible with Tories 1.27 for Most Seats [though that may be a touch short too].
I see that Dan Hodgeadamus thinks that Nigel Farage has given up in Thanet South, and UKIP will poll 6-7%.
Hodges is correct. There's no doubt in my mind Farage has spent weeks of heavy campaigning in Thanet, getting himself a distance ahead of the Lab & Tory candidates only to decide he never wanted to become an MP in the first place.
Well, the idea of leading a group of 'more than a handful' of MPs probably looked attractive. Leading a group of two doesn't seem so interesting - utterly irrelevant to the day-to-day business in Westminster, no limo or guaranteed speaking time as in the EU parliament. Plus the other would be Carswell who has an utterly different vision of Ukip, so endless spats of one sort or another. Even making three isn't much better since that would be Nice-but-dim Tim Aker.
If elected, I'll be putting money on him not seeing out a full term if the market is there.
I see that Dan Hodgeadamus thinks that Nigel Farage has given up in Thanet South, and UKIP will poll 6-7%.
Hodges is correct. There's no doubt in my mind Farage has spent weeks of heavy campaigning in Thanet, getting himself a distance ahead of the Lab & Tory candidates only to decide he never wanted to become an MP in the first place.
Well, the idea of leading a group of 'more than a handful' of MPs probably looked attractive. Leading a group of two doesn't seem so interesting - utterly irrelevant to the day-to-day business in Westminster, no limo or guaranteed speaking time as in the EU parliament. Plus the other would be Carswell who has an utterly different vision of Ukip, so endless spats of one sort or another. Even making three isn't much better since that would be Nice-but-dim Tim Aker.
If elected, I'll be putting money on him not seeing out a full term if the market is there.
What the fuck happens if a Royal Baby drops on the Election Day !
I can see it cause a big late swing to the Tories.
How?
It's not like Labour are proposing to do away with the Monarchy.
I know - people just tend to associate the crown more with the Conservatives though I reckon, subconcsiously.
Please don't misunderstand me, I am not a Conservative astroturfer. Just pondering a big Daily Mail inspired Thatcherite Kipper break to the Cons if Kate drops her sprog.
Mr. Pulpstar, not my area, but I thought second children tended to be on time or early, rather than late. I do think the child will arrive before the election and utterly swamp media coverage.
On topic, in terms of night time declarations, we need to be looking at declarations between Labour's 15th and 25th targets from the Tories.
If the Tories are holding seats like Lincoln, Dewsbury, Stroud, Bedford, Ipswich, Stockton South, Erewash, Keighley, Hastings and Waveney then Cameron should be back as PM. I don't know what's up first on the night, and plenty could be recounts.
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 the momentum is really starting to get behind the SNP. The first phase of the SNP surge was led by the YES camp. The current surge towards 55% is being led by soft NO voters mainly from SLAB and returning SNP supporters. I'm basing this view on various family and friends who have recently joined the surge. For what its worth the Tory vote is holding firm but I can't see many of the Tories I know coming to SLAB's defence.
What the fuck happens if a Royal Baby drops on the Election Day !
I can see it cause a big late swing to the Tories.
Her Royal QILFiness is already a week overdue! It's going to be flagwaving on steroids long before election day. On balance better for Dave than the grumpy communists of Islington.
Indeed that raises an interesting question. How far ahead must the Tories be in seats, for the charge of "illegitimacy" to really work against an anti-Tory alliance of Nats and Lab?
If Cameron is just a handful of seats in front, Miliband will be OK (and will be PM). My guess (as below) is that Cameron really needs to be 15-20 seats ahead to put the willies up his minority opponents. If Tories are 30-40 seats in front then Cameron will be PM, full stop.
I genuinely don't get this argument.
Our democracy has (since forever) functioned on the principal that if you have a majority of seats then you have a mandate to govern, and you have the ability to govern effectively. Ok it gets a bit iffy if you're on 50.5% but you know what a mean.
Whether you get your 50% from 25%+25%, or from 48%+2% is philosophically meaningless. The rest is LibDem bleating to try an crowbar themselves back into power. After all, wouldn't the SNP have a much stronger democratic mandate to be in coalition than the Yellow Peril, given they're likely to have at least double the seats ... ?
What the fuck happens if a Royal Baby drops on the Election Day !
I can see it cause a big late swing to the Tories.
How?
It's not like Labour are proposing to do away with the Monarchy.
Feel good factor - though it needs to be no later than the wednesday but to be really interesting this thursday would be fun just before the debates that night
I see that Dan Hodgeadamus thinks that Nigel Farage has given up in Thanet South, and UKIP will poll 6-7%.
Hodges is correct. There's no doubt in my mind Farage has spent weeks of heavy campaigning in Thanet, getting himself a distance ahead of the Lab & Tory candidates only to decide he never wanted to become an MP in the first place.
Well, the idea of leading a group of 'more than a handful' of MPs probably looked attractive. Leading a group of two doesn't seem so interesting - utterly irrelevant to the day-to-day business in Westminster, no limo or guaranteed speaking time as in the EU parliament. Plus the other would be Carswell who has an utterly different vision of Ukip, so endless spats of one sort or another. Even making three isn't much better since that would be Nice-but-dim Tim Aker.
If elected, I'll be putting money on him not seeing out a full term if the market is there.
Indeed that raises an interesting question. How far ahead must the Tories be in seats, for the charge of "illegitimacy" to really work against an anti-Tory alliance of Nats and Lab?
If Cameron is just a handful of seats in front, Miliband will be OK (and will be PM). My guess (as below) is that Cameron really needs to be 15-20 seats ahead to put the willies up his minority opponents. If Tories are 30-40 seats in front then Cameron will be PM, full stop.
The Tories were 67 seats ahead in 1924, but MacDonald became PM...
The SNP and Lib Dems won't be getting err 132 seats though
Rod - Do you think Miliband is likely to become next PM ?
They won't need to. The Constitutional position is clear.
If Lab/Nats/Grn vote down a Tory QS/VoC Miliband becomes PM however few seats he has.
The £10k lump looking to back Ed at 1.73 is being nibbled at. As Pulpstar has said it's simply not compatible with Tories 1.27 for Most Seats [though that may be a touch short too].
I've had another bite.
Some tremendous green on the field being built up now.
I see that Dan Hodgeadamus thinks that Nigel Farage has given up in Thanet South, and UKIP will poll 6-7%.
Hodges is correct. There's no doubt in my mind Farage has spent weeks of heavy campaigning in Thanet, getting himself a distance ahead of the Lab & Tory candidates only to decide he never wanted to become an MP in the first place.
Well, the idea of leading a group of 'more than a handful' of MPs probably looked attractive. Leading a group of two doesn't seem so interesting - utterly irrelevant to the day-to-day business in Westminster, no limo or guaranteed speaking time as in the EU parliament. Plus the other would be Carswell who has an utterly different vision of Ukip, so endless spats of one sort or another. Even making three isn't much better since that would be Nice-but-dim Tim Aker.
If elected, I'll be putting money on him not seeing out a full term if the market is there.
Of course they may end up with 3 MPs, but ahead in Castle Point & Rochester (before don't knows are reassigned) they may end up with 5 MPs. I think a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 5 are the numbers.
Even on his own Farage is capable of causing carnage in parliament, just think of all the Tory backbenchers that will side with him over Europe and immigration.
You sound like a man who thought they'd never get an MP in the first place
Indeed that raises an interesting question. How far ahead must the Tories be in seats, for the charge of "illegitimacy" to really work against an anti-Tory alliance of Nats and Lab?
If Cameron is just a handful of seats in front, Miliband will be OK (and will be PM). My guess (as below) is that Cameron really needs to be 15-20 seats ahead to put the willies up his minority opponents. If Tories are 30-40 seats in front then Cameron will be PM, full stop.
The Tories were 67 seats ahead in 1924, but MacDonald became PM...
The SNP and Lib Dems won't be getting err 132 seats though
Rod - Do you think Miliband is likely to become next PM ?
They won't need to. The Constitutional position is clear.
If Lab/Nats/Grn vote down a Tory QS/VoC Miliband becomes PM however few seats he has.
Best way to finish off labour south of the border - would think a good number of English labour mps would think twice before voting themselves in via the SNP
Indeed that raises an interesting question. How far ahead must the Tories be in seats, for the charge of "illegitimacy" to really work against an anti-Tory alliance of Nats and Lab?
If Cameron is just a handful of seats in front, Miliband will be OK (and will be PM). My guess (as below) is that Cameron really needs to be 15-20 seats ahead to put the willies up his minority opponents. If Tories are 30-40 seats in front then Cameron will be PM, full stop.
I genuinely don't get this argument.
Our democracy has (since forever) functioned on the principal that if you have a majority of seats then you have a mandate to govern, and you have the ability to govern effectively. Ok it gets a bit iffy if you're on 50.5% but you know what a mean.
Whether you get your 50% from 25%+25%, or from 48%+2% is philosophically meaningless. The rest is LibDem bleating to try an crowbar themselves back into power. After all, wouldn't the SNP have a much stronger democratic mandate to be in coalition than the Yellow Peril, given they're likely to have at least double the seats ... ?
I think we've reached a stage in our constitutional development where if one party wins an overall majority in England and Wales, but another party forms the government, it will be hard for the latter to claim legitimacy.
Indeed that raises an interesting question. How far ahead must the Tories be in seats, for the charge of "illegitimacy" to really work against an anti-Tory alliance of Nats and Lab?
If Cameron is just a handful of seats in front, Miliband will be OK (and will be PM). My guess (as below) is that Cameron really needs to be 15-20 seats ahead to put the willies up his minority opponents. If Tories are 30-40 seats in front then Cameron will be PM, full stop.
The Tories were 67 seats ahead in 1924, but MacDonald became PM...
The SNP and Lib Dems won't be getting err 132 seats though
Rod - Do you think Miliband is likely to become next PM ?
They won't need to. The Constitutional position is clear.
If Lab/Nats/Grn vote down a Tory QS/VoC Miliband becomes PM however few seats he has.
Indeed that raises an interesting question. How far ahead must the Tories be in seats, for the charge of "illegitimacy" to really work against an anti-Tory alliance of Nats and Lab?
If Cameron is just a handful of seats in front, Miliband will be OK (and will be PM). My guess (as below) is that Cameron really needs to be 15-20 seats ahead to put the willies up his minority opponents. If Tories are 30-40 seats in front then Cameron will be PM, full stop.
The Tories were 67 seats ahead in 1924, but MacDonald became PM...
The SNP and Lib Dems won't be getting err 132 seats though
Rod - Do you think Miliband is likely to become next PM ?
They won't need to. The Constitutional position is clear.
If Lab/Nats/Grn vote down a Tory QS/VoC Miliband becomes PM however few seats he has.
Best way to finish off labour south of the border - would think a good number of English labour mps would think twice before voting themselves in via the SNP
If the Labour NEC decided they wanted to be in government and MPs rebelled, they would be expelled.
BBC Politics @BBCPolitics 2m2 minutes ago Ed Miliband says he agreed to interview with comedian Russell Brand to liven up #GE2015 race http://bbc.in/1JxQ60S
""Some people were saying the campaign was too boring so I thought it would make it more interesting," he said"
Indeed that raises an interesting question. How far ahead must the Tories be in seats, for the charge of "illegitimacy" to really work against an anti-Tory alliance of Nats and Lab?
If Cameron is just a handful of seats in front, Miliband will be OK (and will be PM). My guess (as below) is that Cameron really needs to be 15-20 seats ahead to put the willies up his minority opponents. If Tories are 30-40 seats in front then Cameron will be PM, full stop.
The Tories were 67 seats ahead in 1924, but MacDonald became PM...
The SNP and Lib Dems won't be getting err 132 seats though
Rod - Do you think Miliband is likely to become next PM ?
They won't need to. The Constitutional position is clear.
If Lab/Nats/Grn vote down a Tory QS/VoC Miliband becomes PM however few seats he has.
Best way to finish off labour south of the border - would think a good number of English labour mps would think twice before voting themselves in via the SNP
If the Labour NEC decided they wanted to be in government and MPs rebelled, they would be expelled.
Indeed that raises an interesting question. How far ahead must the Tories be in seats, for the charge of "illegitimacy" to really work against an anti-Tory alliance of Nats and Lab?
If Cameron is just a handful of seats in front, Miliband will be OK (and will be PM). My guess (as below) is that Cameron really needs to be 15-20 seats ahead to put the willies up his minority opponents. If Tories are 30-40 seats in front then Cameron will be PM, full stop.
The Tories were 67 seats ahead in 1924, but MacDonald became PM...
The SNP and Lib Dems won't be getting err 132 seats though
Rod - Do you think Miliband is likely to become next PM ?
They won't need to. The Constitutional position is clear.
If Lab/Nats/Grn vote down a Tory QS/VoC Miliband becomes PM however few seats he has.
Best way to finish off labour south of the border - would think a good number of English labour mps would think twice before voting themselves in via the SNP
If the Labour NEC decided they wanted to be in government and MPs rebelled, they would be expelled.
BBC Politics @BBCPolitics 2m2 minutes ago Ed Miliband says he agreed to interview with comedian Russell Brand to liven up #GE2015 race http://bbc.in/1JxQ60S
""Some people were saying the campaign was too boring so I thought it would make it more interesting," he said"
UKIP and Greens on 20% with TNS = c.6 million votes. Likely to win only 2 or 3 seats. What a fantastic system FPTP is.
Agreed, and with 'unpopular' SNP getting 50 seats on 4% you can sense there may be a clamour for PR south of the border in the election aftermath. Unlikely to happen though as the main 2 parties will point towards there being more chaotic hung parliaments under PR than there are now under FPTP.
Greens and UKIP have got to keep pushing, no reason why in 5 years under good leadership they cannot make pockets of the country their own, after all the SNP had to start somewhere.
Indeed that raises an interesting question. How far ahead must the Tories be in seats, for the charge of "illegitimacy" to really work against an anti-Tory alliance of Nats and Lab?
If Cameron is just a handful of seats in front, Miliband will be OK (and will be PM). My guess (as below) is that Cameron really needs to be 15-20 seats ahead to put the willies up his minority opponents. If Tories are 30-40 seats in front then Cameron will be PM, full stop.
The Tories were 67 seats ahead in 1924, but MacDonald became PM...
The SNP and Lib Dems won't be getting err 132 seats though
Rod - Do you think Miliband is likely to become next PM ?
They won't need to. The Constitutional position is clear.
If Lab/Nats/Grn vote down a Tory QS/VoC Miliband becomes PM however few seats he has.
Miliband will be asked by the Queen to form a government, he 'will' be PM, but for how long for if he then can't pass a QS.....
Indeed that raises an interesting question. How far ahead must the Tories be in seats, for the charge of "illegitimacy" to really work against an anti-Tory alliance of Nats and Lab?
If Cameron is just a handful of seats in front, Miliband will be OK (and will be PM). My guess (as below) is that Cameron really needs to be 15-20 seats ahead to put the willies up his minority opponents. If Tories are 30-40 seats in front then Cameron will be PM, full stop.
The Tories were 67 seats ahead in 1924, but MacDonald became PM...
The SNP and Lib Dems won't be getting err 132 seats though
Rod - Do you think Miliband is likely to become next PM ?
They won't need to. The Constitutional position is clear.
If Lab/Nats/Grn vote down a Tory QS/VoC Miliband becomes PM however few seats he has.
I have this feeling that Cameron may well do just that, realising that this is a good election to lose especially if there's no obvious coalition available with the numbers.
He'll say that he has done his time and the electorate have spoken etc etc, while handing Miliband the biggest possible bag of crap to deal with and hoping the whole house of cards falls in short order.
UKIP and Greens on 20% with TNS = c.6 million votes. Likely to win only 2 or 3 seats. What a fantastic system FPTP is.
Quite so, it's discounting the votes of ill-informed supporters of minor parties, just as it's designed to.
Just look at what happened when a minor party finally got enough seats to have an influence - two-thirds of its "supporters" decided they didn't actually support them after all.
(NB tongue slightly in cheek, but not entirely...)
BBC Politics @BBCPolitics 2m2 minutes ago Ed Miliband says he agreed to interview with comedian Russell Brand to liven up #GE2015 race http://bbc.in/1JxQ60S
""Some people were saying the campaign was too boring so I thought it would make it more interesting," he said"
That sounds like some kind of 'crisis'.
"My marriage was too boring, so I thought I'd liven things up with a crack pipe and a couple of hookers"
I've got the running totals spreadsheets for each of those elections which you obviously have to do first in order to get that data. Took ages to complete the job but was worth doing IMO.
I took a Populus survey on Saturday and in the politics section UKIP was the ONLY party not named, I had to mark my vote as others. So much for fairness.
"Tissue Price will probably have another moan, but the TNS percentages to 2 d.p.............."
Ignore the doubting Thomases Sunil.
If they spent as much time campaigning as they do trying to manipulate your poll findings the Tories might well be in an unassailable position by now.
If there were nominations for poster of the year I would nominate you. Your ELBOW has been a revelation and you are clearly a humble seeker after truth.
UKIP and Greens on 20% with TNS = c.6 million votes. Likely to win only 2 or 3 seats. What a fantastic system FPTP is.
Quite so, it's discounting the votes of ill-informed supporters of minor parties, just as it's designed to.
Just look at what happened when a minor party finally got enough seats to have an influence - two-thirds of its "supporters" decided they didn't actually support them after all.
(NB tongue slightly in cheek, but not entirely...)
I've updated the UK-Elect forecast. As before it gives detailed predictions for every seat: April 28th UK-Elect Forecast
It takes into account the latest constituency, national and regional polls, forecasting separately for Scotland, Wales, London and GB as a whole (reconciling the percentages appropriately).
I've updated the UK-Elect forecast. As before it gives detailed predictions for every seat: April 28th UK-Elect Forecast
It takes into account the latest constituency, national and regional polls, forecasting separately for Scotland, Wales, London and GB as a whole (reconciling the percentages appropriately).
I took a Populus survey on Saturday and in the politics section UKIP was the ONLY party not named, I had to mark my vote as others. So much for fairness.
It's going to be the same on the ballot paper, Mike.
UKIP and Greens on 20% with TNS = c.6 million votes. Likely to win only 2 or 3 seats. What a fantastic system FPTP is.
Quite so, it's discounting the votes of ill-informed supporters of minor parties, just as it's designed to.
Just look at what happened when a minor party finally got enough seats to have an influence - two-thirds of its "supporters" decided they didn't actually support them after all.
(NB tongue slightly in cheek, but not entirely...)
That is special pleading, if ever I've read it.
It's just a feature of the system that it discounts protest votes unless and until they get up a proper head of steam. Which is arguably desirable.
I've updated the UK-Elect forecast. As before it gives detailed predictions for every seat: April 28th UK-Elect Forecast
It takes into account the latest constituency, national and regional polls, forecasting separately for Scotland, Wales, London and GB as a whole (reconciling the percentages appropriately).
I'll see if I can find any constituency forecasts on there which just don't look right to me....
I see Sutton & Cheam has a LD maj of 682. Seems a bit on the low side to me.
Doing my seat betting research, I find I agree with Pulpstar, who said that the fate of Pudsey will decide the fate of the nation. Lord A has had it tied twice, the odds are tied, and I get the feeling it's moved into the Tory column this week. Labour will win more difficult targets than Pudsey, but it needs a clean sweep of these easy targets if Ed is to be PM.
What's more, I can see there now just might be a couple of Tory gains from Labour where an incumbent is stepping down. Gulp.
I've got the running totals spreadsheets for each of those elections which you obviously have to do first in order to get that data. Took ages to complete the job but was worth doing IMO.
You could generate an awful lot of interesting statistics with that data. A pointless one that comes to mind: how many results have to come in before the biggest party gets five (or ten?) seats coming in in a row? (I'm guessing this would favour Labour, who (again, a guess) have more inner city seats that are quicker to count). BTW, that's not q request for you to calculate it!
I've got to decide whether to stay up overnight for the GE, or whether to get up early. If the former then I'll be a bit of a zombie the next day (yes, few will be able to tell the difference...)
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.
I think the Scottish LibDems will get tactical votes, but Scottish Labour won't. Also the LibDem incumbents are much more likely than Labour to have a good personal vote.
Whether that's enough to get them out of the reach of the tsunami is another matter, of course.
UKIP and Greens on 20% with TNS = c.6 million votes. Likely to win only 2 or 3 seats. What a fantastic system FPTP is.
Quite so, it's discounting the votes of ill-informed supporters of minor parties, just as it's designed to.
Just look at what happened when a minor party finally got enough seats to have an influence - two-thirds of its "supporters" decided they didn't actually support them after all.
(NB tongue slightly in cheek, but not entirely...)
That is special pleading, if ever I've read it.
It's just a feature of the system that it discounts protest votes unless and until they get up a proper head of steam. Which is arguably desirable.
Is it desirable that every Scottish MP (bar one or two) will be a Nationalist, despite half the population voting for Unionists?
Doing my seat betting research, I find I agree with Pulpstar, who said that the fate of Pudsey will decide the fate of the nation. Lord A has had it tied twice, the odds are tied, and I get the feeling it's moved into the Tory column this week. Labour will win more difficult targets than Pudsey, but it needs a clean sweep of these easy targets if Ed is to be PM.
What's more, I can see there now just might be a couple of Tory gains from Labour where an incumbent is stepping down. Gulp.
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.
I think the Socttish LibDems will get tactical votes, but Scottish Labour won't. Also the LibDem incumbents are much more likely than Labour to have a good personal vote.
Whether that's enough to get them out of the reach of the tsunami is another matter, of course.
Are there odds on a Lib Dem v Labour match bet in Scotland? I'd definitely be tempted by the Lib Dems at the right odds for that very reason.
UKIP and Greens on 20% with TNS = c.6 million votes. Likely to win only 2 or 3 seats. What a fantastic system FPTP is.
Quite so, it's discounting the votes of ill-informed supporters of minor parties, just as it's designed to.
Just look at what happened when a minor party finally got enough seats to have an influence - two-thirds of its "supporters" decided they didn't actually support them after all.
(NB tongue slightly in cheek, but not entirely...)
That is special pleading, if ever I've read it.
It's just a feature of the system that it discounts protest votes unless and until they get up a proper head of steam. Which is arguably desirable.
Is it desirable that every Scottish MP (bar one or two) will be a Nationalist, despite half the population voting for Unionists?
Not really, no. But that's the sort of result you get when a system is in flux and the protest vote has managed to build up the head of steam.
Look, I understand FPTP's flaws. I voted for AV despite the fact that it's not necessarily an improvement. But I'm not convinced that PR would lead to better government.
Perhaps the Nobel prize winner could rein in his dogs? The US should the words of General Sir Philip Chetwode, deputy chief of Britain’s Imperial General Staff, who warned in 1919: “The habit of interfering with other people’s business and making what is euphoniously called ‘peace’ is like buggery; once you take to it, you cannot stop.”
Only three of the online pollsters have samples bigger than 1500: YG, Opinium and Populus - and ComRes online, though these are rarer than Hen's ELBOWs
Based on my running totals spreadsheets which I've compiled for every election since 1979. I'm in the middle of doing Oct 1974 but had to stop because the BBC weren't flashing every result on the screen like they did from 1979 onwards.
But if you mean what definition am I using, the national swing has to settle down at the particular percentage, meaning that it doesn't deviate away from that level again. I can't remember what the correct mathematical terms are for it — "tending" I think. It doesn't count if it hits that level but then moves away again, since that would mean it was just a fluke that it had reached that level after X results.
Indeed that raises an interesting question. How far ahead must the Tories be in seats, for the charge of "illegitimacy" to really work against an anti-Tory alliance of Nats and Lab?
If Cameron is just a handful of seats in front, Miliband will be OK (and will be PM). My guess (as below) is that Cameron really needs to be 15-20 seats ahead to put the willies up his minority opponents. If Tories are 30-40 seats in front then Cameron will be PM, full stop.
Spot on. And the Tories will be that far in front. Labour is very unlikely to exceed its current seat number. In fact, the chances are it will go back.
Doing my seat betting research, I find I agree with Pulpstar, who said that the fate of Pudsey will decide the fate of the nation. Lord A has had it tied twice, the odds are tied, and I get the feeling it's moved into the Tory column this week. Labour will win more difficult targets than Pudsey, but it needs a clean sweep of these easy targets if Ed is to be PM.
What's more, I can see there now just might be a couple of Tory gains from Labour where an incumbent is stepping down. Gulp.
I think if Dave loses Pudsey he is 100% gone.
Nuneaton is the countercase for Ed I reckon.
After all the fuss with the very late Lab selection, I presume that Halifax is going to be very close.
I've been campaigning for the Tories in Bury N and I'm increasingly sure that it will come down to turnout in different areas. Our areas are not swinging to Lab, and their candidate (uber-Blairite, local Councillor for a few years, but with a terrible attendance record) doesn't come over especially well in Tory wards. It will be tight, but I think David Nuttall should hold on.
I've got the running totals spreadsheets for each of those elections which you obviously have to do first in order to get that data. Took ages to complete the job but was worth doing IMO.
You could generate an awful lot of interesting statistics with that data. A pointless one that comes to mind: how many results have to come in before the biggest party gets five (or ten?) seats coming in in a row? (I'm guessing this would favour Labour, who (again, a guess) have more inner city seats that are quicker to count). BTW, that's not q request for you to calculate it!
I've got to decide whether to stay up overnight for the GE, or whether to get up early. If the former then I'll be a bit of a zombie the next day (yes, few will be able to tell the difference...)
General question-what is the precise process for forming the next Govt?
Does the sitting PM have first crack if no-one has more seats than the Conservatives?
Labour have said that they will not form a coalition with SNP and vice-versa but if the Conservatives are the larger party how does Miliband actually get to make a QS first?
Surely if the Conservatives are the largest party and put forward a QS that the Lib Dems don’t vote down, then hard to see where Labour go next.
The key may not be who lines up WITH Labour but who will line up AGAINST the Conservatives, which is not necersarily the same thing.
Doing my seat betting research, I find I agree with Pulpstar, who said that the fate of Pudsey will decide the fate of the nation. Lord A has had it tied twice, the odds are tied, and I get the feeling it's moved into the Tory column this week. Labour will win more difficult targets than Pudsey, but it needs a clean sweep of these easy targets if Ed is to be PM.
What's more, I can see there now just might be a couple of Tory gains from Labour where an incumbent is stepping down. Gulp.
I think if Dave loses Pudsey he is 100% gone.
Nuneaton is the countercase for Ed I reckon.
After all the fuss with the very late Lab selection, I presume that Halifax is going to be very close.
I've been campaigning for the Tories in Bury N and I'm increasingly sure that it will come down to turnout in different areas. Our areas are not swinging to Lab, and their candidate (uber-Blairite, local Councillor for a few years, but with a terrible attendance record) doesn't come over especially well in Tory wards. It will be tight, but I think David Nuttall should hold on.
I'm on Labour here but agree it'll be a thousand or so votes in it.
Comments
The issue this is time is - will they vote at all? I kinda get the impression from talking to them that they will....
What the fuck happens if a Royal Baby drops on the Election Day
I can see it cause a big late swing to the Tories.
I bet the SNP is concentrating the mind
Rod - Do you think Miliband is likely to become next PM ?
I'm just frustrated by the large MOEs of individual polls and looking for ways to reduce them. Otherwise it is easy to be misled.
- UKIP, Greens, Plaid won't have enough seats to be worth doing a deal with
- Labour-SNP won't be enough seats
- Labour-LD won't have enough seats
- Labour-SNP-LD has been credibly ruled out
- Minority Labour won't be credible as they're by far the second party
- Conservative-LD won't be enough seats
- Conservative-LD-DUP will barely be enough seats, but too broad to function
- Conservative-LD-SNP has been credibly ruled out
- Minority Conservative wouldn't be able to pass anything
- Grand Coalition not possible because Labour & Conservatives are too far apart and neither would want to risk UKIP surge
Another election in three months by my estimates.
It's not like Labour are proposing to do away with the Monarchy.
If elected, I'll be putting money on him not seeing out a full term if the market is there.
Please don't misunderstand me, I am not a Conservative astroturfer. Just pondering a big Daily Mail inspired Thatcherite Kipper break to the Cons if Kate drops her sprog.
If the Tories are holding seats like Lincoln, Dewsbury, Stroud, Bedford, Ipswich, Stockton South, Erewash, Keighley, Hastings and Waveney then Cameron should be back as PM. I don't know what's up first on the night, and plenty could be recounts.
Our democracy has (since forever) functioned on the principal that if you have a majority of seats then you have a mandate to govern, and you have the ability to govern effectively. Ok it gets a bit iffy if you're on 50.5% but you know what a mean.
Whether you get your 50% from 25%+25%, or from 48%+2% is philosophically meaningless. The rest is LibDem bleating to try an crowbar themselves back into power. After all, wouldn't the SNP have a much stronger democratic mandate to be in coalition than the Yellow Peril, given they're likely to have at least double the seats ... ?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32503660
"Iran 'seizes' American cargo ship"
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102627185
"US Navy denies"
Current finger pointing to Saudi Arabia.
If Lab/Nats/Grn vote down a Tory QS/VoC Miliband becomes PM however few seats he has.
Some tremendous green on the field being built up now.
Even on his own Farage is capable of causing carnage in parliament, just think of all the Tory backbenchers that will side with him over Europe and immigration.
You sound like a man who thought they'd never get an MP in the first place
Mr. F, agreed.
BBC Politics @BBCPolitics 2m2 minutes ago
Ed Miliband says he agreed to interview with comedian Russell Brand to liven up #GE2015 race http://bbc.in/1JxQ60S
""Some people were saying the campaign was too boring so I thought it would make it more interesting," he said"
Number of results needed to give the eventual national swing to a particular level of accuracy.
Within (a) 2%, (b) 1%, (c) 0.5%:
2010: (a) 16 (b) 26 (c) 135
2005: (a) 1 (b) 4 (c) 91
2001: (a) 1 (b) 8 (c) 89
1997: (a) 1 (b) 99 (c) 341
1992: (a) 1 (b) 16 (c) 18
1987: (a) 5 (b) 7 (c) 76
1983: (a) 1 (b) 1 (c) 11
1979: (a) 2 (b) 2 (c) 372
Greens and UKIP have got to keep pushing, no reason why in 5 years under good leadership they cannot make pockets of the country their own, after all the SNP had to start somewhere.
I'm guessing he will, but will be massively weak.
IMO, He's probably a 4/6 shot for PM right now - and if the polls stay where they are, that should be shorter than 1/2 on the day.
He'll say that he has done his time and the electorate have spoken etc etc, while handing Miliband the biggest possible bag of crap to deal with and hoping the whole house of cards falls in short order.
Just look at what happened when a minor party finally got enough seats to have an influence - two-thirds of its "supporters" decided they didn't actually support them after all.
(NB tongue slightly in cheek, but not entirely...)
How does that stack up? - if Ed hadn't been photographed slinking out of Brand's flat late at night, no one would have been the wiser.
"My marriage was too boring, so I thought I'd liven things up with a crack pipe and a couple of hookers"
"Tissue Price will probably have another moan, but the TNS percentages to 2 d.p.............."
Ignore the doubting Thomases Sunil.
If they spent as much time campaigning as they do trying to manipulate your poll findings the Tories might well be in an unassailable position by now.
If there were nominations for poster of the year I would nominate you. Your ELBOW has been a revelation and you are clearly a humble seeker after truth.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11568398/Dont-treat-the-banks-like-cash-cows-IFS-warns.html
Curious that it's the IFS who are pointing this out, but very welcome all the same.
Labour starting to talking down the Brand interview. Ominous.
It takes into account the latest constituency, national and regional polls, forecasting separately for Scotland, Wales, London and GB as a whole (reconciling the percentages appropriately).
Park Life....
I see Sutton & Cheam has a LD maj of 682. Seems a bit on the low side to me.
What's more, I can see there now just might be a couple of Tory gains from Labour where an incumbent is stepping down. Gulp.
I've got to decide whether to stay up overnight for the GE, or whether to get up early. If the former then I'll be a bit of a zombie the next day (yes, few will be able to tell the difference...)
Whether that's enough to get them out of the reach of the tsunami is another matter, of course.
What could be more normal than visiting the friskiest of fellows under the cover of darkness in search of excitement?
Nuneaton is the countercase for Ed I reckon.
Apols no Watford news as my source wasn't able to attend the planned lunch.
https://twitter.com/DanielVavra/status/593043396110979072
Walsall North: Lab 15331, Con 10749, UKIP 7709: It seems a bit unlikely the Tory vote will only drop from 12395 to 10749.
Anyway, most of the constituency predictions look pretty good to me.
Look, I understand FPTP's flaws. I voted for AV despite the fact that it's not necessarily an improvement. But I'm not convinced that PR would lead to better government.
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/04/27/syrias-nightmarish-narrative/
Perhaps the Nobel prize winner could rein in his dogs? The US should the words of General Sir Philip Chetwode, deputy chief of Britain’s Imperial General Staff, who warned in 1919: “The habit of interfering with other people’s business and making what is euphoniously called ‘peace’ is like buggery; once you take to it, you cannot stop.”
But if you mean what definition am I using, the national swing has to settle down at the particular percentage, meaning that it doesn't deviate away from that level again. I can't remember what the correct mathematical terms are for it — "tending" I think. It doesn't count if it hits that level but then moves away again, since that would mean it was just a fluke that it had reached that level after X results.
How about?
Lab 5/4
Con 11/8
LD 3/1
I've been campaigning for the Tories in Bury N and I'm increasingly sure that it will come down to turnout in different areas. Our areas are not swinging to Lab, and their candidate (uber-Blairite, local Councillor for a few years, but with a terrible attendance record) doesn't come over especially well in Tory wards. It will be tight, but I think David Nuttall should hold on.
http://vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/5511/election-night-running-totals-1979
Does the sitting PM have first crack if no-one has more seats than the Conservatives?
Labour have said that they will not form a coalition with SNP and vice-versa but if the Conservatives are the larger party how does Miliband actually get to make a QS first?
Surely if the Conservatives are the largest party and put forward a QS that the Lib Dems don’t vote down, then hard to see where Labour go next.
The key may not be who lines up WITH Labour but who will line up AGAINST the Conservatives, which is not necersarily the same thing.
"Within (a) 2%, (b) 1%, (c) 0.5%:
2010: (a) 16 (b) 26 (c) 135
2005: (a) 1 (b) 4 (c) 91
2001: (a) 1 (b) 8 (c) 89
1997: (a) 1 (b) 99 (c) 341
1992: (a) 1 (b) 16 (c) 18
1987: (a) 5 (b) 7 (c) 76
1983: (a) 1 (b) 1 (c) 11
1979: (a) 2 (b) 2 (c) 372"
There are some amazing posters on here!
A sizeable handicap.