Speedy No, wrong, Nate has analysed all the constituency polls and the rise of the SNP too, he is the polling geek to end all geeks and got the 2008 and 2012 US results spot on, underestimate him at your peril. Once you add in the moderate Labour gains from Tory being offset by Tory gains from LD and huge Labour losses to the SNP his prediction seems accurate
I got the presidential elections spot on too, but Nate Silver missed the 2010 and 2014 Congressional elections badly. To predict the result of a US presidential election is easy since it has only 50 states, to predict the result of a legislative election with hundreds of seats in FPTP systems (US Congress, House Of Commons ) is far different.
Predicting 42/50 States shouldn't be difficult in a Presidential election. Predicting most Senate and House seats isn't hard either.
Is there a single seat in the USA that is demographically trending republican ?
Speedy No, wrong, Nate has analysed all the constituency polls and the rise of the SNP too, he is the polling geek to end all geeks and got the 2008 and 2012 US results spot on, underestimate him at your peril. Once you add in the moderate Labour gains from Tory being offset by Tory gains from LD and huge Labour losses to the SNP his prediction seems accurate
Labour don't have to be the largest party.
They need 260 seats to have a very good chance of EICINPIPM, or at least EICIPM in everyone;s pocket. At 270 EICINPIPM is certain.
260 seats is Labour abstains the Queens speech; 265 Ye He is PM... Just... 270 is nailed on.
63 SNP/Plaid makes it very hard for Labour to allow the Tories into power. The SNP has created a Morton's Fork Coup and it's true that there isn't a lot of hope for Labour.
BUt Ed BELIEVES in Ed. The option to accept power and believe he can make a difference will trump every rational consideration, every thought about the Amendments the SNP will kill him with (e.g. Amendment to Trident bill - two boats built on the Clyde, two boats in Devonport - SNP/Tory majority for Amendment - then what does he do).
But he is a believer in Ed. He will think he can get past this.
Channel 4 reported it last week or so that Northfield and Halifax were considered by some "senior Tory" or whatever they were speaking to as the best prospects of Con gains from Labour.
I see David Cameron was in Birmingham Northfield today. Interesting.
2 weeks ago I saw a Labour leaflet sent out in Halifax - lots of happy punters from places near Birmingham backing the Reds, not one had a West Yorkshire connection. No mention of candidate or candidate's name.
I wouldn't say it is in the bag for Conservatives, but given it was a marginal, Labour's late selection of a candidate looks like an own goal or a dispirited campaign team.
Speedy No, wrong, Nate has analysed all the constituency polls and the rise of the SNP too, he is the polling geek to end all geeks and got the 2008 and 2012 US results spot on, underestimate him at your peril. Once you add in the moderate Labour gains from Tory being offset by Tory gains from LD and huge Labour losses to the SNP his prediction seems accurate
I got the presidential elections spot on too, but Nate Silver missed the 2010 and 2014 Congressional elections badly. To predict the result of a US presidential election is easy since it has only 50 states, to predict the result of a legislative election with hundreds of seats in FPTP systems (US Congress, House Of Commons ) is far different.
Predicting 42/50 States shouldn't be difficult in a Presidential election. Predicting most Senate and House seats isn't hard either.
Is there a single seat in the USA that is demographically trending republican ?
Virginia is fairly safe Democrat now I think
Missouri used to be a bellwether and is mow moving Republican.
Clinton won Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, W Virginia and Montana in 1992. He won W Virginia by 13 points and Arkansas by 17 points (though it was his home state). Obama has not won any of these
Speedy No, wrong, Nate has analysed all the constituency polls and the rise of the SNP too, he is the polling geek to end all geeks and got the 2008 and 2012 US results spot on, underestimate him at your peril. Once you add in the moderate Labour gains from Tory being offset by Tory gains from LD and huge Labour losses to the SNP his prediction seems accurate
I got the presidential elections spot on too, but Nate Silver missed the 2010 and 2014 Congressional elections badly. To predict the result of a US presidential election is easy since it has only 50 states, to predict the result of a legislative election with hundreds of seats in FPTP systems (US Congress, House Of Commons ) is far different.
Predicting 42/50 States shouldn't be difficult in a Presidential election. Predicting most Senate and House seats isn't hard either.
Is there a single seat in the USA that is demographically trending republican ?
Virginia is fairly safe Democrat now I think
Alaska, Vermont, North Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho.
Assuming the chinese don't prefer any specific party.
SeanF/Speedy/Pulpstar In 2008 Silver got 49/50 states right, in 2012 50 out of 50 states. In 2010 he forecast 34/37 Senate races, 36 /37 governors' races and although slightly less accurate in the House his 54 seat GOP pick-up was not far short of the 63 they gained
In the top 50 Conservative held Labour targets seats that we polled, there's a swing of 3.5 % away from the Tories.
That would be enough, if translated into seats, for Labour to take 44 out of the 50 - so that's places like Carlisle, Ipswich and Keighley turning red.
Sounds like 44+ a few others outside of top 50 (say 49 in total)
Plus 10 LD - 45 SNP gives net gains of about 14 ie 272
Cons 306 add 15 LD -49=272
Betfair 1.31/4.0 most seats looks odd to me
That's silly. You can't simply assume every seat up to the average and then add a few more on, just because there will be some. Yes, there will be some better performances than average, and if there's a net swing to Labour then that'll translate into gains - but only at the cost of missed opportunities below the line, whether failed gains or actual losses.
SeanF/Speedy/Pulpstar In 2008 Silver got 49/50 states right, in 2012 50 out of 50 states. In 2010 he forecast 34/37 Senate races, 36 /37 governors' races and although slightly less accurate in the House his 54 seat GOP pick-up was not far short of the 63 they gained
Yes, but the USA is very easy to do compared to the UK. This is a fundamental fact.
Just go to www.electionforecast.co.uk to get Nate's thoughts in real time on this one...
Rod/Speedy But if in the end only a Labour-LD-SNP combination or a Tory-LD-DUP combination has a majority I think the LDs will grit their teeth and give confidence and supply to the Tories, certainly if the Tories have won most seats
Clegg rules out entering any government relying on support of either UKIP/DUP or SNP.
Pretty serious if he's ruling out the DUP. That's Cameron's ticket back if Con+LD sum to 315 seats.
In reality, if Lab+LD < Conservative, Conservative+LD+DUP delivers a majority, Clegg is leader, and the alternative is a weak Lab-SNP arrangement, I think Clegg would play ball.
SeanF/Speedy/Pulpstar In 2008 Silver got 49/50 states right, in 2012 50 out of 50 states. In 2010 he forecast 34/37 Senate races, 36 /37 governors' races and although slightly less accurate in the House his 54 seat GOP pick-up was not far short of the 63 they gained
But as you see in marginal races his success rate isn't that great. Everyone can predict that the GOP will hold Wyoming and other safe seats, but what about marginal races like N.Carolina? That's where he gets close to toss up territory.
I don't think there'd be any negative fallout if Miliband chose not to form a government. There is little enthusiasm within Labour for going in with the SNP. I really don't think there'd be an outcry if they passed up the opportunity.
Also any reasonable person could see that if Labour were over 60 seats away from getting a majority on their own, then they couldn't function as a government. As long as by declining they're not letting the Conservatives in for five years, then I think most would support Miliband's decision.
Dair On 265, even if the SNP won 50 seats, Labour + SNP combined is only on 315, still well short of the 326 needed for a majority
They don't need a majority (of the whole House), just most votes on a division against the Tories (and allies).
It'd be office without power though. Very difficult to get a legislative programme through.
Doing anything to get the office ahead of one's rivals is surely the aim. I feel like party leaders are optimists -sure, it looks difficult as hell for them to deliver a legislative programme in that circumstance, but they're probably sure something will come up, that they can figure it out. The same reason everything is about short term focus over long term problems - that's for future them to worry about.
Clegg has ruled out any government relying on DUP support? Without at least DUP support how on earth does he expect to even get the Queen's Speech past? There will be a huge anti-coalition block of MPs in the Commons' no matter the result, who will make it difficult for a Con-LD coalition to pass laws already.
Re Labour wins of LibDem seats: people keep throwing around big numbers (12-14 being Surbiton's guess) but the truth is... there are remarkably few LibDem seats where Labour is the challenger.
There are 6 easy gains.
Then there are 4 where Labour is favourite (Birmingham Yardley, Bradford East, Cardiff Central, Horney & Wood Green), but I doubt they'll win all of them.
And there there are three really difficult ones - Cambridge, Sheffield Hallam and Southwark.
Unlike in LibDem<->Conservative seats, there are no Red Liberals to go home in these seats. And in most of them, there are substantial Conservative votes to squeeze. In Southwark and Cambridge demographics are moving against the Labour Party.
Is anyone offering odds on who the LibDems will lose most seats to? I reckon Conservatives will win by a mile.
Rod/Speedy But if in the end only a Labour-LD-SNP combination or a Tory-LD-DUP combination has a majority I think the LDs will grit their teeth and give confidence and supply to the Tories, certainly if the Tories have won most seats
I think the DUP has certain conditions to enter in a coalition with either Labour or the Tories:
"In the newspaper interview, Mr Paisley said the DUP would be comfortable doing a deal with the Conservatives or Labour, as long as they committed to extra money for Northern Ireland.
The party has already outlined some of its policy red lines for doing any deal - including the scrapping of the so-called bedroom tax and an EU referendum.
This new red line of extra funding would not be a paltry sum, according to the North Antrim MP."
Clegg has ruled out any government relying on DUP support? Without at least DUP support how on earth does he expect to even get the Queen's Speech past? There will be a huge anti-coalition block of MPs in the Commons' no matter the result, who will make it difficult for a Con-LD coalition to pass laws already.
He's stabbed Dave in the back at the last moment. Going to stop laying off Ed to be next PM now to be honest.
Pulpstar Nate has Tories most seats, the only reason he may have Ed is PM is on a minority of the seats held to ransom by Sturgeon, but even then he has stated that is not certain as Labour + SNP is still short of a majority
Just realised there is an inevitable and fundamental breaking point in any "Lab-SNP" alliance, formal, informal or under-the-table.
Holyrood 2016.
Is Sturgeon going to ask for another referendum in that Holyrood manifesto? I think she has to (even if she doesn't want to) - her 100,000 new members will go ballistic if they think a precious opportunity to win is being lost.
At that point I cannot see how Labour could be in any sort of accommodation with the Nats, who will explicitly be trying to break up the country - again. Labour in Scotland will be fighting and voting against the referendum being held, yet Labour in London will have to agree to the referendum (on breaking up Britain) to maintain SNP support.
The paradoxes and impossibilities go on, but you see the point.
The alliance will not hold past Holyrood. The contradictions are too great.
It will hold past May 2016 - but only so the SNP can bring it down at a time of their choosing. Your reasoning is spot on but the tactics in the game may cause a later GE. There are local elections in Scotland in 2017 and I'd expect the SNP to want the Westminster/Scottish sore to fester within Labour before prompting an election.
Besides, assuming things pan out as you sketch, when they do bring the government down they need to be able to justify it on a good enough point of principle because there's a more-than-good chance the beneficiaries UK-wide will be the Tories, and those moments can't be had at will.
Dair On 265, even if the SNP won 50 seats, Labour + SNP combined is only on 315, still well short of the 326 needed for a majority
SNP minimum is 56 now. The polls are GROWING for SNP.
There are 59 seats in Scotland. It is perfectly possible the SNP get all of them (on c. 50% of the vote). But I'd reckon them failing in two of the borders seats, in O&S, and in one other.
Which are the three possible non SNP seats you see?
I'd like to see Clegg's wording wrt the DUP. He may just be ruling out a formal coalition involving them, which would be meaningless as the DUP have already said they won't be in one.
Just realised there is an inevitable and fundamental breaking point in any "Lab-SNP" alliance, formal, informal or under-the-table.
Holyrood 2016.
Is Sturgeon going to ask for another referendum in that Holyrood manifesto? I think she has to (even if she doesn't want to) - her 100,000 new members will go ballistic if they think a precious opportunity to win is being lost.
At that point I cannot see how Labour could be in any sort of accommodation with the Nats, who will explicitly be trying to break up the country - again. Labour in Scotland will be fighting and voting against the referendum being held, yet Labour in London will have to agree to the referendum (on breaking up Britain) to maintain SNP support.
The paradoxes and impossibilities go on, but you see the point.
The alliance will not hold past Holyrood. The contradictions are too great.
How many votes do you think Ed Miliband will need to pass before April 2016?
Every single one of them will have an SNP Amendment to devolved Referndum power to Holyrood. The idea that Labour won't need the SNP votes for a single one (i.e. approval of Amendment by Labour MPs) is farcical. They could even tack on EVEL and FFA to their Referenda Amendment to get Tory support.
SeanT Sturgeon will spend the next year ensuring Scotland gets maximum devolution of powers, provided that is achieved her manifesto for Holyrood will state another referendum will only be held if there is a UK wide EU out vote in a 2017 referendum with Scotland voting In (despite the fact polls show SNP voters more Eurosceptic than Scots as a whole)
People need to take a step back. Labour will be in league with people who want to form another country. A separate, neutral country. A country that would have its own ambassador in Moscow. And it is those people, not Scots labour MPs who are unionists, who will be voting on English only matters. Matters like education and policing. Having no present or future stake in these matters.
What's the current thinking on Loughborough? My snout on an afternoon train out of London saw a gaggle of Con central office flunkies disembark at the town.
I'd like to see Clegg's wording wrt the DUP. He may just be ruling out a formal coalition involving them, which would be meaningless as the DUP have already said they won't be in one.
Yes; that was how I understood what Clegg said... but I could be wrong.
SeanF/Speedy/Pulpstar In 2008 Silver got 49/50 states right, in 2012 50 out of 50 states. In 2010 he forecast 34/37 Senate races, 36 /37 governors' races and although slightly less accurate in the House his 54 seat GOP pick-up was not far short of the 63 they gained
But as you see in marginal races his success rate isn't that great. Everyone can predict that the GOP will hold Wyoming and other safe seats, but what about marginal races like N.Carolina? That's where he gets close to toss up territory.
In the UK, generally 80 to 100 seats are considered marginals.
Therefore (in other elections not this one) 85% of seats are already decided. The remaining 15% can go (usually) two ways. 92.5% accuracy in UK predictions is effectively Random Chance.
I doubt America is that different. 90% accuracy will be very close to Random Chance.
What's the current thinking on Loughborough? My snout on an afternoon train out of London saw a gaggle of Con central office flunkies disembark at the town.
People need to take a step back. Labour will be in league with people who want to form another country. A separate, neutral country. A country that would have its own ambassador in Moscow. And it is those people, not Scots labour MPs who are unionists, who will be voting on English only matters. Matters like education and policing. Having no present or future stake in these matters.
Ed Miliband is seriously entertaining this...???
You don't know that they will be voting. Wait and see before you go so far.
I don't think there'd be any negative fallout if Miliband chose not to form a government. There is little enthusiasm within Labour for going in with the SNP. I really don't think there'd be an outcry if they passed up the opportunity.
Also any reasonable person could see that if Labour were over 60 seats away from getting a majority on their own, then they couldn't function as a government. As long as by declining they're not letting the Conservatives in for five years, then I think most would support Miliband's decision.
If Labour refuse a Queens Speech, the SNP will be able to propose one. Given the SNP Manifesto, that will harm Labour when they vote against it or abstain.
An upper house elected on some form of PR is the solution.
I'm not sure a second elected chamber vying for legitimacy with the commons is necessarily a good idea.
If you go back 100 years, or even 50, it wasn't a problem. It isn't a problem in the US, either.
The party which controls the House of Commons supplies the government, but to pass legislation requires both houses.
Quite. England / Britain / the UK got by perfectly well for centuries with two roughly co-equal Houses. That the Lords has recently (in historic terms) lost relative power doesn't mean it need or should be like that. It's what most democratic countries do. Indeed, many go further and have a third active tier in a political head of state.
Dair On 265, even if the SNP won 50 seats, Labour + SNP combined is only on 315, still well short of the 326 needed for a majority
SNP minimum is 56 now. The polls are GROWING for SNP.
There are 59 seats in Scotland. It is perfectly possible the SNP get all of them (on c. 50% of the vote). But I'd reckon them failing in two of the borders seats, in O&S, and in one other.
Which are the three possible non SNP seats you see?
Well with the SNP strategy being "Vote SNP and we can blackmail the Labour government to give more money to our constituencies" working like a charm I think only Shetland will remain out of their hold.
In fact it's so successful I can't understand why UKIP hasn't followed it too with a "Vote UKIP to blackmail the Tory government for more money to our constituencies".
"This would be enough, just, for LAB to come out as top party even if they lost every single Scottish seat. That is assuming that LAB and CON perform equally in terms of net seats against UKIP/LDs"
Either way, this is broadly in line with what the Ashcroft constituency polls are showing c. 43 Tory seat losses to Labour.
That's basically my calculation as well. "An unstable Lab minorty with tacit SNP support" - to quote your excellent paper on possible future governments.
Incidentally, I think your analysis is superb - better than anything I have seen in the press. I have printed it out for use early on May 8th.
Thank you for your kind words, Barnesian. Very generous of you.
It actually takes me quite a long time to write each blogpost. I'd been working on that one for several days, and evenings, as a personal project. You get to a stage when you're never quite fully happy with it, but then you decide to 'publish and be damned'.
It's very satisfying to hear there are others out there who appreciate it.
Please excuse my ignorance but where is this post- I would love to read it.
As was discussed earlier, Labour can't do a deal with the SNP because it will lead to their long term destruction.
Step 1. Scottish voters will realise that they can get a Labour government at UK level whether they vote SNP or Labour, but voting SNP gets a bigger slice of the pie for Scotland.
Step 2. Welsh voters see the situation in Scotland, and start voting Plaid Cymru to do the same. We then move from SNP-Labour coalitions to SNP-PC-Labour coalitions.
Step 3. English voters see that voting Labour just brings nationalists from Wales and Scotland to power, which means they see less of their own tax money. The end result is that they vote for parties other than Labour.
I don't think there'd be any negative fallout if Miliband chose not to form a government. There is little enthusiasm within Labour for going in with the SNP. I really don't think there'd be an outcry if they passed up the opportunity.
Also any reasonable person could see that if Labour were over 60 seats away from getting a majority on their own, then they couldn't function as a government. As long as by declining they're not letting the Conservatives in for five years, then I think most would support Miliband's decision.
If Labour refuse a Queens Speech, the SNP will be able to propose one. Given the SNP Manifesto, that will harm Labour when they vote against it or abstain.
Just realised there is an inevitable and fundamental breaking point in any "Lab-SNP" alliance, formal, informal or under-the-table.
Holyrood 2016.
Is Sturgeon going to ask for another referendum in that Holyrood manifesto? I think she has to (even if she doesn't want to) - her 100,000 new members will go ballistic if they think a precious opportunity to win is being lost.
At that point I cannot see how Labour could be in any sort of accommodation with the Nats, who will explicitly be trying to break up the country - again. Labour in Scotland will be fighting and voting against the referendum being held, yet Labour in London will have to agree to the referendum (on breaking up Britain) to maintain SNP support.
The paradoxes and impossibilities go on, but you see the point.
The alliance will not hold past Holyrood. The contradictions are too great.
Miliband has already ruled out allowing another referendum, any concessions to the SNP would probably be on condition of Sturgeon not including it in the 2016 manifesto.
"This would be enough, just, for LAB to come out as top party even if they lost every single Scottish seat. That is assuming that LAB and CON perform equally in terms of net seats against UKIP/LDs"
Either way, this is broadly in line with what the Ashcroft constituency polls are showing c. 43 Tory seat losses to Labour.
That's basically my calculation as well. "An unstable Lab minorty with tacit SNP support" - to quote your excellent paper on possible future governments.
Incidentally, I think your analysis is superb - better than anything I have seen in the press. I have printed it out for use early on May 8th.
Thank you for your kind words, Barnesian. Very generous of you.
It actually takes me quite a long time to write each blogpost. I'd been working on that one for several days, and evenings, as a personal project. You get to a stage when you're never quite fully happy with it, but then you decide to 'publish and be damned'.
It's very satisfying to hear there are others out there who appreciate it.
Please excuse my ignorance but where is this post- I would love to read it.
many thanks
Thanet South definitely a 2 horse race now I reckon.
Dair On 265, even if the SNP won 50 seats, Labour + SNP combined is only on 315, still well short of the 326 needed for a majority
SNP minimum is 56 now. The polls are GROWING for SNP.
There are 59 seats in Scotland. It is perfectly possible the SNP get all of them (on c. 50% of the vote). But I'd reckon them failing in two of the borders seats, in O&S, and in one other.
Which are the three possible non SNP seats you see?
I'm confident Orkney and Zetland will go SNP now, they have an exceptional local candidate to beat the Incomer Carmichael and his well reported dirty tricks.
I can see the SNP failing in a random choice of 3 in Edinburgh and the Borders. Which ones is not clear but on probabilistic measures, it is the most likely outcome.
Just realised there is an inevitable and fundamental breaking point in any "Lab-SNP" alliance, formal, informal or under-the-table.
Holyrood 2016.
Is Sturgeon going to ask for another referendum in that Holyrood manifesto? I think she has to (even if she doesn't want to) - her 100,000 new members will go ballistic if they think a precious opportunity to win is being lost.
At that point I cannot see how Labour could be in any sort of accommodation with the Nats, who will explicitly be trying to break up the country - again. Labour in Scotland will be fighting and voting against the referendum being held, yet Labour in London will have to agree to the referendum (on breaking up Britain) to maintain SNP support.
The paradoxes and impossibilities go on, but you see the point.
The alliance will not hold past Holyrood. The contradictions are too great.
Miliband has already ruled out allowing another referendum, any concessions to the SNP would probably be on condition of Sturgeon not including it in the 2016 manifesto.
If Miliband only had 270 seats, he wouldn't necessarily be in a position to stop it. Other parties can put forward legislation too.
Re Labour wins of LibDem seats: people keep throwing around big numbers (12-14 being Surbiton's guess) but the truth is... there are remarkably few LibDem seats where Labour is the challenger.
There are 6 easy gains.
Then there are 4 where Labour is favourite (Birmingham Yardley, Bradford East, Cardiff Central, Horney & Wood Green), but I doubt they'll win all of them.
And there there are three really difficult ones - Cambridge, Sheffield Hallam and Southwark.
Unlike in LibDem<->Conservative seats, there are no Red Liberals to go home in these seats. And in most of them, there are substantial Conservative votes to squeeze. In Southwark and Cambridge demographics are moving against the Labour Party.
Is anyone offering odds on who the LibDems will lose most seats to? I reckon Conservatives will win by a mile.
Yet, you are not mentioning Bermondsey. What is the swing Labour is getting in Sheffield, Hallam >
Depressing reading, but no surprise - it confirms what has been obvious for months, that the Tories will lose large numbers of marginal seats to Labour, and Ed will become PM.
And as we know, the reason for this is not a great surge back to Labour. It's UKIP siphoning off the nuttier element of the Tory core. Farage is the man who is screwing the Tories right royally and making it impossible for them to win the GE. As I keep saying.
For me, it's all over - and probably never really got started as a contest. The Tories never really bothered to warn voters of what UKIP will do to the result, other than the "wake up with Ed" comment last autumn which seems to have been ditched even though it was one surefire election-survival weapon Cameron has seemed strangely unwilling to deploy.
I know that people want to vot UKIp but they just cannot secure the seats to make the real difference.
So they voteUkIp anyway and deny the one thing they really want. A referendum.
Bizarre.... The law of unintended consequences personified.
No the one thing they want is to leave the EU. The longer the Tories stay in power the longer it will be until that happens. Your party is the problem not the solution.
Richard-we wont get a referendum under Ed will we?
I WANT A F***ING Referendum!!
I am nearly 48 and no-one has ever allowed me to have a say.
I am not a big fan of Dave but either he or Ed will be PM next Friday
Speedy Indeed, but it will be a confidence and supply deal, though would be ironic if it was unionist Ulster, not Scotland, ended up with most goodies
Dair Correct
I think it will. The only combination that can have a majority, now that the LD said no to the SNP and the DUP (if Clegg remains an MP), is the LAB-SNP one, however even that will have a razor thin majority so at one point after some by-elections the DUP will be needed.
I don't think there'd be any negative fallout if Miliband chose not to form a government. There is little enthusiasm within Labour for going in with the SNP. I really don't think there'd be an outcry if they passed up the opportunity.
Also any reasonable person could see that if Labour were over 60 seats away from getting a majority on their own, then they couldn't function as a government. As long as by declining they're not letting the Conservatives in for five years, then I think most would support Miliband's decision.
If Labour refuse a Queens Speech, the SNP will be able to propose one. Given the SNP Manifesto, that will harm Labour when they vote against it or abstain.
No they won't. This isn't Greece (yet). If Cameron resigns and Miliband refuses to accept the seals of office then HM would turn back to the Tories, who would put a Queen's Speech. Were that then voted down, a second election would almost certainly ensue.
Speedy No, wrong, Nate has analysed all the constituency polls and the rise of the SNP too, he is the polling geek to end all geeks and got the 2008 and 2012 US results spot on, underestimate him at your peril. Once you add in the moderate Labour gains from Tory being offset by Tory gains from LD and huge Labour losses to the SNP his prediction seems accurate
I got the presidential elections spot on too, but Nate Silver missed the 2010 and 2014 Congressional elections badly. To predict the result of a US presidential election is easy since it has only 50 states, to predict the result of a legislative election with hundreds of seats in FPTP systems (US Congress, House Of Commons ) is far different.
Predicting 42/50 States shouldn't be difficult in a Presidential election. Predicting most Senate and House seats isn't hard either.
Is there a single seat in the USA that is demographically trending republican ?
Virginia is fairly safe Democrat now I think
Tennessee, Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Louisiana, West Virginia were won twice by Clinton, but are now solidly Red. The Dakotas and Montana usually elected Democratic Senators and Congressmen, but now have four out of six Republican Senators.
"Our UK forecasting model, which tried to improve upon the deficiencies inherent in uniform swing, performed underwhelmingly. We went out on something of a limb here, and sometimes when you do that, the limb breaks! But let me distract you with some pretty pictures."
JEO Exactly, I think if Labour comes second on seats the Labour assassins would get rid of Ed anyway before he had a chance to do any deal with the SNP, they will want to rebuild under a better leader
Dair On 265, even if the SNP won 50 seats, Labour + SNP combined is only on 315, still well short of the 326 needed for a majority
They don't need a majority (of the whole House), just most votes on a division against the Tories (and allies).
It'd be office without power though. Very difficult to get a legislative programme through.
How important is that really? As long as a government can get a budget passed and avoid defeat on a confidence motion then piloting a small number of popular measures through would be perfectly possible. The SNP clearly support a lot of the labour manifesto. Yes they would be out to cause mischief but they have invested so much political capital in opposing the tories (unwisely in my view if their real goal is independence) that they could not been seen to support them. Maybe there would be some great fallout but the SNP are very unlikely to risk another 1979. Five years is probably pushing it but 3 years seems feasible. Things like zero hour contracts, bedroom tax and housing possibly even abolition (or real reform) of the House of Lords would keep things ticking over. Expect a lot more opposition day and topical debates. It would suit most parties except the tories (and possibly them too) for any legislation to be a result of parliamentary negotiation.
Clegg rules out entering any government relying on support of either UKIP/DUP or SNP.
Clegg rules out err Government in my opinion tbh.
He can with safety...he's going to lose the seat and he knows it. It's a shame really for any number of reasons. Clegg should have focussed on the positives of the coalition which stayed together for 5 long years. Credit where it's due.
Clegg didn't because I feel certain Danny wanted to as Cable went for the nuclear option. Torn in the middle when they finally achieved what they wanted and they themselves poisoned the electoral chalice.
''The spectacle will be grotesque. It will destroy Labour for a generation.
Even if labour got 270, how many of these MPs will be sitting on knife edge majorities, or fresh from UKIP taking huge bites out of their majorities in the North.
Blair had rebellions with a majority of 100. Ed's team, with the money flowing North, would be completely ungovernable.
Speedy No, wrong, Nate has analysed all the constituency polls and the rise of the SNP too, he is the polling geek to end all geeks and got the 2008 and 2012 US results spot on, underestimate him at your peril. Once you add in the moderate Labour gains from Tory being offset by Tory gains from LD and huge Labour losses to the SNP his prediction seems accurate
Labour don't have to be the largest party.
They need 260 seats to have a very good chance of EICINPIPM, or at least EICIPM in everyone;s pocket. At 270 EICINPIPM is certain.
260 seats is Labour abstains the Queens speech; 265 Ye He is PM... Just... 270 is nailed on.
63 SNP/Plaid makes it very hard for Labour to allow the Tories into power. The SNP has created a Morton's Fork Coup and it's true that there isn't a lot of hope for Labour.
BUt Ed BELIEVES in Ed. The option to accept power and believe he can make a difference will trump every rational consideration, every thought about the Amendments the SNP will kill him with (e.g. Amendment to Trident bill - two boats built on the Clyde, two boats in Devonport - SNP/Tory majority for Amendment - then what does he do).
But he is a believer in Ed. He will think he can get past this.
Dair On 265, even if the SNP won 50 seats, Labour + SNP combined is only on 315, still well short of the 326 needed for a majority
SNP minimum is 56 now. The polls are GROWING for SNP.
There are 59 seats in Scotland. It is perfectly possible the SNP get all of them (on c. 50% of the vote). But I'd reckon them failing in two of the borders seats, in O&S, and in one other.
Which are the three possible non SNP seats you see?
I'm confident Orkney and Zetland will go SNP now, they have an exceptional local candidate to beat the Incomer Carmichael and his well reported dirty tricks.
I can see the SNP failing in a random choice of 3 in Edinburgh and the Borders. Which ones is not clear but on probabilistic measures, it is the most likely outcome.
Danus Skene is more of an outsider than Carmichael , from Dundee , could they not find anyone local .
Depressing reading, but no surprise - it confirms what has been obvious for months, that the Tories will lose large numbers of marginal seats to Labour, and Ed will become PM.
And as we know, the reason for this is not a great surge back to Labour. It's UKIP siphoning off the nuttier element of the Tory core. Farage is the man who is screwing the Tories right royally and making it impossible for them to win the GE. As I keep saying.
For me, it's all over - and probably never really got started as a contest. The Tories never really bothered to warn voters of what UKIP will do to the result, other than the "wake up with Ed" comment last autumn which seems to have been ditched even though it was one surefire election-survival weapon Cameron has seemed strangely unwilling to deploy.
I know that people want to vot UKIp but they just cannot secure the seats to make the real difference.
So they voteUkIp anyway and deny the one thing they really want. A referendum.
Bizarre.... The law of unintended consequences personified.
No the one thing they want is to leave the EU. The longer the Tories stay in power the longer it will be until that happens. Your party is the problem not the solution.
Richard-we wont get a referendum under Ed will we?
I WANT A F***ING Referendum!!
I am nearly 48 and no-one has ever allowed me to have a say.
I am not a big fan of Dave but either he or Ed will be PM next Friday
Only one of them will give me a Referendum
You won't get one with Dave either, the LD's will provide him with an excuse not to do one, actually 25 excuses, one for each LD MP.
Just realised there is an inevitable and fundamental breaking point in any "Lab-SNP" alliance, formal, informal or under-the-table.
Holyrood 2016.
Is Sturgeon going to ask for another referendum in that Holyrood manifesto? I think she has to (even if she doesn't want to) - her 100,000 new members will go ballistic if they think a precious opportunity to win is being lost.
At that point I cannot see how Labour could be in any sort of accommodation with the Nats, who will explicitly be trying to break up the country - again. Labour in Scotland will be fighting and voting against the referendum being held, yet Labour in London will have to agree to the referendum (on breaking up Britain) to maintain SNP support.
The paradoxes and impossibilities go on, but you see the point.
The alliance will not hold past Holyrood. The contradictions are too great.
Miliband has already ruled out allowing another referendum, any concessions to the SNP would probably be on condition of Sturgeon not including it in the 2016 manifesto.
If Miliband devolves the power to hold Referenda he isn't breaking his pledge.
Just realised there is an inevitable and fundamental breaking point in any "Lab-SNP" alliance, formal, informal or under-the-table.
Holyrood 2016.
Is Sturgeon going to ask for another referendum in that Holyrood manifesto? I think she has to (even if she doesn't want to) - her 100,000 new members will go ballistic if they think a precious opportunity to win is being lost.
At that point I cannot see how Labour could be in any sort of accommodation with the Nats, who will explicitly be trying to break up the country - again. Labour in Scotland will be fighting and voting against the referendum being held, yet Labour in London will have to agree to the referendum (on breaking up Britain) to maintain SNP support.
The paradoxes and impossibilities go on, but you see the point.
The alliance will not hold past Holyrood. The contradictions are too great.
Miliband has already ruled out allowing another referendum, any concessions to the SNP would probably be on condition of Sturgeon not including it in the 2016 manifesto.
How can Miliband prevent another party (he's not even in coalition with) making a manifesto commitment.
If the SNP make a clean slate now, they'll look for any excuse to say the vow hasn't been implemented afterall (or some other excuse) and so we should re-run the referendum. Labour can't stop the SNP making that demand.
Just realised there is an inevitable and fundamental breaking point in any "Lab-SNP" alliance, formal, informal or under-the-table.
Holyrood 2016.
Is Sturgeon going to ask for another referendum in that Holyrood manifesto? I think she has to (even if she doesn't want to) - her 100,000 new members will go ballistic if they think a precious opportunity to win is being lost.
At that point I cannot see how Labour could be in any sort of accommodation with the Nats, who will explicitly be trying to break up the country - again. Labour in Scotland will be fighting and voting against the referendum being held, yet Labour in London will have to agree to the referendum (on breaking up Britain) to maintain SNP support.
The paradoxes and impossibilities go on, but you see the point.
The alliance will not hold past Holyrood. The contradictions are too great.
Miliband has already ruled out allowing another referendum, any concessions to the SNP would probably be on condition of Sturgeon not including it in the 2016 manifesto.
If Miliband only had 270 seats, he wouldn't necessarily be in a position to stop it. Other parties can put forward legislation too.
But could Sturgeon sell the concession of No Referendum in 2016 Holyrood to her party? Perhaps a few of the wiser souls, but she now has 80,000 nutty new members, too.
Tricky for her. She would find it very hard to convince them.
Rubbish. The SNP is a cult, their members will jump of the cliff if the Dear Leader says so.
I was asking the other night about electorate data and have found the boundary commission have published some figures up to the end of Feb 2015 for England. It really shows how much we need a boundary review. The 10 smallest electorates are as follows:
Wirral W- 54k 2015 (55k 2010) Leeds NW 55k (65k) Nottingham E 55k (57k) Newcastle Central 55k (61k) Wirral S 56k (56k) Cities of London 56k (64k) Blackpool S 56k (63k) Workington 57k (60k) Bath 57k (66k) Preston 58k (61k)
The Wirral seats were undersized to start with as a plan for a cross-Mersey constituency was scotched at the last review. Leeds NW and Bath are showing the drop off in student registration and may have gone back up again since. Cities of London is showing the effect of all the mega rich foreigners buying in Central London. No idea about Blackpool S
As for the largest seats, I was expecting it to be E and W Ham but both of these have dropped back a bit. Ignoring Isle of Wight which is a special case:
NW Cambs - 91k 2015 (87k 2010) Manchester Central - 90k (86k) Ilford S - 88k (85k) Milton Keynes S - 88k (87k) Sleaford - 85k (85k) Bury St Edmunds - 85k (85k) Milton Keynes N - 85k (82k) Banbury - 84k (84k) Wantage - 84k (79k) Warrington S - 84k (80k)
Manchester Central was actually up to 95k before individual registration so will probably be largest on election day. Anyone know why it has shot up so much? I am surprised to see my own constituency Wantage has grown - not sure I've noticed that much new development
In Scotland, I have Dec 2014 data. The 3 lowest mainland constituencies are: Caithness - 48k, Ross - 54k and Glasgow N - 57k
Caithness and Ross are allowed to have smaller electorates due to the huge land area
The largest are: Linlithgow -85k, Livingston - 82k and E Kilbride - 82k
In Wales, all the constituencies are under sized compared to the rest of the UK due to Wales over-representation which is due to be abolished in the next boundary review if it happens
The smallest in Dec 2014 were: Arfon -38k, Dwyfor 43k and Aberconwy 45k
The largest were: Cardiff S 74k, Vale of Glam 71k, Cardiff W 66k
Northern Ireland constituencies range from 63k in Belfast W to 80k in Upper Bann
I think Labour have finally realised that ED is their black swan.He`s a fresh face with interesting ideas running against Cameron who visibly looks tired and worn-out.
Labour might be pushing Ed on our faces everyday till the election.
The Guardian: "Labour is unhappy about the make-up of the audience at Thursday’s BBC Question Time event.
Party sources said it is another example of the BBC giving into Cameron’s demands, as 50% of the audience will be from government parties. The split is Conservative 25%, Labour 25%, Lib Dem 25% and don’t knows 25%."
The Telegraph: "BBC accused of bias as Tories outnumbered two-to-one in Question Time debate audience"
'Clegg has ruled out any government relying on DUP support? Without at least DUP support how on earth does he expect to even get the Queen's Speech past?'
This is the same person that made a personal vow to scrap tuition fees in 2010 or had you forgotten?
Comments
Virginia is fairly safe Democrat now I think
BUt Ed BELIEVES in Ed. The option to accept power and believe he can make a difference will trump every rational consideration, every thought about the Amendments the SNP will kill him with (e.g. Amendment to Trident bill - two boats built on the Clyde, two boats in Devonport - SNP/Tory majority for Amendment - then what does he do).
But he is a believer in Ed. He will think he can get past this.
I wouldn't say it is in the bag for Conservatives, but given it was a marginal, Labour's late selection of a candidate looks like an own goal or a dispirited campaign team.
Clinton won Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, W Virginia and Montana in 1992. He won W Virginia by 13 points and Arkansas by 17 points (though it was his home state). Obama has not won any of these
Assuming the chinese don't prefer any specific party.
Just go to www.electionforecast.co.uk to get Nate's thoughts in real time on this one...
He has Ed as PM...
In reality, if Lab+LD < Conservative, Conservative+LD+DUP delivers a majority, Clegg is leader, and the alternative is a weak Lab-SNP arrangement, I think Clegg would play ball.
http://www.salon.com/2014/11/05/how_did_nate_silvers_forecasts_stack_up_against_midterm_results/
But as you see in marginal races his success rate isn't that great.
Everyone can predict that the GOP will hold Wyoming and other safe seats, but what about marginal races like N.Carolina? That's where he gets close to toss up territory.
The party which controls the House of Commons supplies the government, but to pass legislation requires both houses.
Also any reasonable person could see that if Labour were over 60 seats away from getting a majority on their own, then they couldn't function as a government. As long as by declining they're not letting the Conservatives in for five years, then I think most would support Miliband's decision.
eg SPIN has Con on 286.
But Ladbrokes only has Con at evens for 276 to 300 seats.
So 50% chance of less than 276 or over 300 - either of which makes all the fine tuned calculations way out.
There are 6 easy gains.
Then there are 4 where Labour is favourite (Birmingham Yardley, Bradford East, Cardiff Central, Horney & Wood Green), but I doubt they'll win all of them.
And there there are three really difficult ones - Cambridge, Sheffield Hallam and Southwark.
Unlike in LibDem<->Conservative seats, there are no Red Liberals to go home in these seats. And in most of them, there are substantial Conservative votes to squeeze. In Southwark and Cambridge demographics are moving against the Labour Party.
Is anyone offering odds on who the LibDems will lose most seats to? I reckon Conservatives will win by a mile.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/dup-to-work-with-tories-or-labour-31179121.html
"Let me be very clear, I cannot see how £12 billion could be saved on welfare in a way that would enjoy our support."
http://www.u.tv/News/2015/03/24/DUP-names-price-for-deal-with-Tories-or-Labour-34108
"In the newspaper interview, Mr Paisley said the DUP would be comfortable doing a deal with the Conservatives or Labour, as long as they committed to extra money for Northern Ireland.
The party has already outlined some of its policy red lines for doing any deal - including the scrapping of the so-called bedroom tax and an EU referendum.
This new red line of extra funding would not be a paltry sum, according to the North Antrim MP."
Dave is fucked.
Besides, assuming things pan out as you sketch, when they do bring the government down they need to be able to justify it on a good enough point of principle because there's a more-than-good chance the beneficiaries UK-wide will be the Tories, and those moments can't be had at will.
Which are the three possible non SNP seats you see?
Every single one of them will have an SNP Amendment to devolved Referndum power to Holyrood. The idea that Labour won't need the SNP votes for a single one (i.e. approval of Amendment by Labour MPs) is farcical. They could even tack on EVEL and FFA to their Referenda Amendment to get Tory support.
People need to take a step back. Labour will be in league with people who want to form another country. A separate, neutral country. A country that would have its own ambassador in Moscow. And it is those people, not Scots labour MPs who are unionists, who will be voting on English only matters. Matters like education and policing. Having no present or future stake in these matters.
Ed Miliband is seriously entertaining this...???
Therefore (in other elections not this one) 85% of seats are already decided. The remaining 15% can go (usually) two ways. 92.5% accuracy in UK predictions is effectively Random Chance.
I doubt America is that different. 90% accuracy will be very close to Random Chance.
In fact it's so successful I can't understand why UKIP hasn't followed it too with a "Vote UKIP to blackmail the Tory government for more money to our constituencies".
many thanks
Dair Correct
Step 1. Scottish voters will realise that they can get a Labour government at UK level whether they vote SNP or Labour, but voting SNP gets a bigger slice of the pie for Scotland.
Step 2. Welsh voters see the situation in Scotland, and start voting Plaid Cymru to do the same. We then move from SNP-Labour coalitions to SNP-PC-Labour coalitions.
Step 3. English voters see that voting Labour just brings nationalists from Wales and Scotland to power, which means they see less of their own tax money. The end result is that they vote for parties other than Labour.
SNP 59 seats, get it sorted Nicola.
Oh you already have.
I can see the SNP failing in a random choice of 3 in Edinburgh and the Borders. Which ones is not clear but on probabilistic measures, it is the most likely outcome.
We're the boss. They'll just have to bloody work with what we deliver!
I WANT A F***ING Referendum!!
I am nearly 48 and no-one has ever allowed me to have a say.
I am not a big fan of Dave but either he or Ed will be PM next Friday
Only one of them will give me a Referendum
The only combination that can have a majority, now that the LD said no to the SNP and the DUP (if Clegg remains an MP), is the LAB-SNP one, however even that will have a razor thin majority so at one point after some by-elections the DUP will be needed.
"Our UK forecasting model, which tried to improve upon the deficiencies inherent in uniform swing, performed underwhelmingly. We went out on something of a limb here, and sometimes when you do that, the limb breaks! But let me distract you with some pretty pictures."
Short for Ooops.
I saw some canvas returns for Dundee East, i felt so sorry for the unionist candidates i considered voting for one of them.
It was more like Moscow East in the USSR heyday
Clegg didn't because I feel certain Danny wanted to as Cable went for the nuclear option. Torn in the middle when they finally achieved what they wanted and they themselves poisoned the electoral chalice.
Even if labour got 270, how many of these MPs will be sitting on knife edge majorities, or fresh from UKIP taking huge bites out of their majorities in the North.
Blair had rebellions with a majority of 100. Ed's team, with the money flowing North, would be completely ungovernable.
It must have been on a thread that I missed.
Labour will be on zero.
Assuming the UK still exists.
A fat cheque would do the trick.
If the SNP make a clean slate now, they'll look for any excuse to say the vow hasn't been implemented afterall (or some other excuse) and so we should re-run the referendum. Labour can't stop the SNP making that demand.
The SNP is a cult, their members will jump of the cliff if the Dear Leader says so.
Wirral W- 54k 2015 (55k 2010)
Leeds NW 55k (65k)
Nottingham E 55k (57k)
Newcastle Central 55k (61k)
Wirral S 56k (56k)
Cities of London 56k (64k)
Blackpool S 56k (63k)
Workington 57k (60k)
Bath 57k (66k)
Preston 58k (61k)
The Wirral seats were undersized to start with as a plan for a cross-Mersey constituency was scotched at the last review. Leeds NW and Bath are showing the drop off in student registration and may have gone back up again since. Cities of London is showing the effect of all the mega rich foreigners buying in Central London. No idea about Blackpool S
As for the largest seats, I was expecting it to be E and W Ham but both of these have dropped back a bit. Ignoring Isle of Wight which is a special case:
NW Cambs - 91k 2015 (87k 2010)
Manchester Central - 90k (86k)
Ilford S - 88k (85k)
Milton Keynes S - 88k (87k)
Sleaford - 85k (85k)
Bury St Edmunds - 85k (85k)
Milton Keynes N - 85k (82k)
Banbury - 84k (84k)
Wantage - 84k (79k)
Warrington S - 84k (80k)
Manchester Central was actually up to 95k before individual registration so will probably be largest on election day. Anyone know why it has shot up so much? I am surprised to see my own constituency Wantage has grown - not sure I've noticed that much new development
In Scotland, I have Dec 2014 data. The 3 lowest mainland constituencies are: Caithness - 48k, Ross - 54k and Glasgow N - 57k
Caithness and Ross are allowed to have smaller electorates due to the huge land area
The largest are: Linlithgow -85k, Livingston - 82k and E Kilbride - 82k
In Wales, all the constituencies are under sized compared to the rest of the UK due to Wales over-representation which is due to be abolished in the next boundary review if it happens
The smallest in Dec 2014 were: Arfon -38k, Dwyfor 43k and Aberconwy 45k
The largest were: Cardiff S 74k, Vale of Glam 71k, Cardiff W 66k
Northern Ireland constituencies range from 63k in Belfast W to 80k in Upper Bann
Labour might be pushing Ed on our faces everyday till the election.
15/15 is good in a binary prediction. It is not exceptional.
90% in a midterm where 85% of the seats are pre-determined is not good. It's less than Random Chance.
Shame as Russ is a good bloke.
The Guardian:
"Labour is unhappy about the make-up of the audience at Thursday’s BBC Question Time event.
Party sources said it is another example of the BBC giving into Cameron’s demands, as 50% of the audience will be from government parties. The split is Conservative 25%, Labour 25%, Lib Dem 25% and don’t knows 25%."
The Telegraph:
"BBC accused of bias as Tories outnumbered two-to-one in Question Time debate audience"
'Clegg has ruled out any government relying on DUP support? Without at least DUP support how on earth does he expect to even get the Queen's Speech past?'
This is the same person that made a personal vow to scrap tuition fees in 2010 or had you forgotten?