Ashcroft 6% Con lead Ipsos Mori 5%, BGM 3% ICM 3%, Survation 3%, TNS 1%, Yougov 1%, Opinium 1% ComRes Tie Populus -3% Panelbase - 3%.
Average Conservative lead 1.5%.
Assuming that is that you give the same credence to say Populus and Panelbase as you would to say Ipsos Mori and ICM.
Panelbase and Populus are both reputable.
My caveat with Populus is that they've been stuck in a range of 0-3% Labour leads for months. Either voters made up their minds months ago, and nothing has changed them since, or there is something wrong with the Populus panel. Populus are the only regular pollster not to have shown a Conservative lead in 9 months.
I think I am right in saying that only Panelbase and Populus now show Labour leads (albeit a healthy 3% lead with both)
LAB 260 seats gives Ed M a theoretical chance of being PM, but I would say that must be close to the floor.
In 2001 William Hague was Mr Plus One Seat since he increased the number of Tory seats from 165 to 166. Maybe something very similar could happen with Ed Miliband in 2015.
Unlike William Hague, Ed Milliband might become Prime Minister, if he makes a net gain of one seat.
Hague polled 32.7% in 2001. Ed may struggle to reach that level if a fair number of the latest polls are to be believed.
Imagine it. If Labour won 259 seats with 32% of the vote, he could still be PM. I think that such a government would be a desperately weak one, but it could be done.
Say 259 Labour 58 SNP 3 Plaid 3 SDLP 1 Green Lady Hermon, makes 325 votes.
I'm certain some Labour MPs would put party before Ed if it's that close.
"Clearly the Conservatives have no mandate to enact their manifesto. However it is apparent that we need new leadership before the British people will put their faith in us..."
Geez - if Ed did form a govt on this basis, what would it do to Labour in England?
Well quite. Ed would get to be PM for a year or two, until after Holyrood 2016 at least, and then the mother of all reckonings would occur.
Allister Heath's version of Casino Royale's excellent potential outcomes essay from yesterday, in the DT today:
The UK is thus about to discover the real meaning of political instability. Under confidence and supply agreements, and even more so in truly informal agreements, every vote would be up for negotiation. Politics will become a game of extortion and blackmail, with taxpayers the big losers. Small parties will yield a disproportionate amount of power.
If Mr Cameron remains in power, he will have to give in not just to the Lib Dems and potentially Ukip and the DUP, but also to his own backbenchers. If Mr Miliband takes over, his greatest challenge will be next year’s Scottish parliamentary elections: the SNP would hold him to ransom in humiliating fashion, demanding that he raids Middle England.
Thanks. Yes, I think whoever wins is in for a torrid time. If a weak Conservative led government does stay in office I think they'll be in big trouble come the 2020GE.
I had my biggest bet of the election yesterday, Farage to win S Thanet at EVS.. hard not to make it value when you've backed EVS -6.5!
Evs for Farage is value anyway - yesterday's seat poll didn't name him and was still pretty much level. I'd say he's more like 4/6 to win, can't see the Lab voters going tactically Tory.
I think I am right in saying that only Panelbase and Populus now show Labour leads (albeit a healthy 3% lead with both)
LAB 260 seats gives Ed M a theoretical chance of being PM, but I would say that must be close to the floor.
In 2001 William Hague was Mr Plus One Seat since he increased the number of Tory seats from 165 to 166. Maybe something very similar could happen with Ed Miliband in 2015.
Unlike William Hague, Ed Milliband might become Prime Minister, if he makes a net gain of one seat.
Hague polled 32.7% in 2001. Ed may struggle to reach that level if a fair number of the latest polls are to be believed.
Imagine it. If Labour won 259 seats with 32% of the vote, he could still be PM. I think that such a government would be a desperately weak one, but it could be done.
Say 259 Labour 58 SNP 3 Plaid 3 SDLP 1 Green Lady Hermon, makes 325 votes.
Streuth. That truly is the stuff of nightmares. My skin is crawling just thinking about it.
I think I am right in saying that only Panelbase and Populus now show Labour leads (albeit a healthy 3% lead with both)
LAB 260 seats gives Ed M a theoretical chance of being PM, but I would say that must be close to the floor.
In 2001 William Hague was Mr Plus One Seat since he increased the number of Tory seats from 165 to 166. Maybe something very similar could happen with Ed Miliband in 2015.
Unlike William Hague, Ed Milliband might become Prime Minister, if he makes a net gain of one seat.
Hague polled 32.7% in 2001. Ed may struggle to reach that level if a fair number of the latest polls are to be believed.
Imagine it. If Labour won 259 seats with 32% of the vote, he could still be PM. I think that such a government would be a desperately weak one, but it could be done.
Say 259 Labour 58 SNP 3 Plaid 3 SDLP 1 Green Lady Hermon, makes 325 votes.
I'm certain some Labour MPs would put party before Ed if it's that close.
"Clearly the Conservatives have no mandate to enact their manifesto. However it is apparent that we need new leadership before the British people will put their faith in us..."
Geez - if Ed did form a govt on this basis, what would it do to Labour in England?
Well quite. Ed would get to be PM for a year or two, until after Holyrood 2016 at least, and then the mother of all reckonings would occur.
I think I am right in saying that only Panelbase and Populus now show Labour leads (albeit a healthy 3% lead with both)
LAB 260 seats gives Ed M a theoretical chance of being PM, but I would say that must be close to the floor.
In 2001 William Hague was Mr Plus One Seat since he increased the number of Tory seats from 165 to 166. Maybe something very similar could happen with Ed Miliband in 2015.
Unlike William Hague, Ed Milliband might become Prime Minister, if he makes a net gain of one seat.
Hague polled 32.7% in 2001. Ed may struggle to reach that level if a fair number of the latest polls are to be believed.
Imagine it. If Labour won 259 seats with 32% of the vote, he could still be PM. I think that such a government would be a desperately weak one, but it could be done.
Say 259 Labour 58 SNP 3 Plaid 3 SDLP 1 Green Lady Hermon, makes 325 votes.
I'm certain some Labour MPs would put party before Ed if it's that close.
"Clearly the Conservatives have no mandate to enact their manifesto. However it is apparent that we need new leadership before the British people will put their faith in us..."
Geez - if Ed did form a govt on this basis, what would it do to Labour in England?
Well quite. Ed would get to be PM for a year or two, until after Holyrood 2016 at least, and then the mother of all reckonings would occur.
I think I am right in saying that only Panelbase and Populus now show Labour leads (albeit a healthy 3% lead with both)
LAB 260 seats gives Ed M a theoretical chance of being PM, but I would say that must be close to the floor.
In 2001 William Hague was Mr Plus One Seat since he increased the number of Tory seats from 165 to 166. Maybe something very similar could happen with Ed Miliband in 2015.
Unlike William Hague, Ed Milliband might become Prime Minister, if he makes a net gain of one seat.
Hague polled 32.7% in 2001. Ed may struggle to reach that level if a fair number of the latest polls are to be believed.
Imagine it. If Labour won 259 seats with 32% of the vote, he could still be PM. I think that such a government would be a desperately weak one, but it could be done.
Say 259 Labour 58 SNP 3 Plaid 3 SDLP 1 Green Lady Hermon, makes 325 votes.
I hesitate to say constitutional crisis, but if we get that result with the Tories on say 36-37%, the press will whip one up. Can you imagine the stress of trying to hold that together through a budget?!
Would get lots of popcorn in, if Ed thought he could make that last and still retain any semblance of respectability in England afterwards!
I think I am right in saying that only Panelbase and Populus now show Labour leads (albeit a healthy 3% lead with both)
LAB 260 seats gives Ed M a theoretical chance of being PM, but I would say that must be close to the floor.
In 2001 William Hague was Mr Plus One Seat since he increased the number of Tory seats from 165 to 166. Maybe something very similar could happen with Ed Miliband in 2015.
Unlike William Hague, Ed Milliband might become Prime Minister, if he makes a net gain of one seat.
Hague polled 32.7% in 2001. Ed may struggle to reach that level if a fair number of the latest polls are to be believed.
Imagine it. If Labour won 259 seats with 32% of the vote, he could still be PM. I think that such a government would be a desperately weak one, but it could be done.
Say 259 Labour 58 SNP 3 Plaid 3 SDLP 1 Green Lady Hermon, makes 325 votes.
I'm certain some Labour MPs would put party before Ed if it's that close.
"Clearly the Conservatives have no mandate to enact their manifesto. However it is apparent that we need new leadership before the British people will put their faith in us..."
Geez - if Ed did form a govt on this basis, what would it do to Labour in England?
Well quite. Ed would get to be PM for a year or two, until after Holyrood 2016 at least, and then the mother of all reckonings would occur.
What pratically would Holyrood change?
Once the SNP are safely back in they can pull the plug.
I think I am right in saying that only Panelbase and Populus now show Labour leads (albeit a healthy 3% lead with both)
LAB 260 seats gives Ed M a theoretical chance of being PM, but I would say that must be close to the floor.
In 2001 William Hague was Mr Plus One Seat since he increased the number of Tory seats from 165 to 166. Maybe something very similar could happen with Ed Miliband in 2015.
Unlike William Hague, Ed Milliband might become Prime Minister, if he makes a net gain of one seat.
Hague polled 32.7% in 2001. Ed may struggle to reach that level if a fair number of the latest polls are to be believed.
Imagine it. If Labour won 259 seats with 32% of the vote, he could still be PM. I think that such a government would be a desperately weak one, but it could be done.
Say 259 Labour 58 SNP 3 Plaid 3 SDLP 1 Green Lady Hermon, makes 325 votes.
I'm certain some Labour MPs would put party before Ed if it's that close.
"Clearly the Conservatives have no mandate to enact their manifesto. However it is apparent that we need new leadership before the British people will put their faith in us..."
Geez - if Ed did form a govt on this basis, what would it do to Labour in England?
Well quite. Ed would get to be PM for a year or two, until after Holyrood 2016 at least, and then the mother of all reckonings would occur.
Are there any long range weather forecasts for next Thursday. If the weather is foul this will depress the Labour vote.
It's going to be changeable, which means that there is a risk of rain, but the timing is key. Could easily be in a bright and dry interlude for the peak voting hours, or indeed the whole day itself could be an interlude between the rain before and after.
That said, the prevailing wind direction will mean that, as is normal, the west and north are more likely to be wet. @Pulpstar likes to say that he expects the north-west to be a fertile area for Labour gains, so if you really think this will be a factor betting against Labour in the marginals there, rather than in London, would be the way to go.
Don't know whether this has been discussed already, but I was just thinking that it may be the case that because Labour aren't going to win an overall majority some of their voters are going to be a bit disillusioned and won't bother voting in the same numbers as they would have done had they thought they had a chance of doing so, which most of them probably did believe just a few months ago (no matter how unlikely it was even then).
That might create an opening for the Tories to make one or two gains in places like Southampton Itchen, Halifax, etc. Unlikely but not as unlikely as it used to be, maybe.
There are always lots of reasons for a poor Labour turnout, and we always see lower turnout in Labour seats than Tory ones - but will the Labour turnout be worse this time than in 2010?
Who knows. But the Staggers mighty reluctant "Edorsement" could have been a Party Political Broadcast for the Can't Be Arsed party....
I think I am right in saying that only Panelbase and Populus now show Labour leads (albeit a healthy 3% lead with both)
LAB 260 seats gives Ed M a theoretical chance of being PM, but I would say that must be close to the floor.
In 2001 William Hague was Mr Plus One Seat since he increased the number of Tory seats from 165 to 166. Maybe something very similar could happen with Ed Miliband in 2015.
Unlike William Hague, Ed Milliband might become Prime Minister, if he makes a net gain of one seat.
Hague polled 32.7% in 2001. Ed may struggle to reach that level if a fair number of the latest polls are to be believed.
Imagine it. If Labour won 259 seats with 32% of the vote, he could still be PM. I think that such a government would be a desperately weak one, but it could be done.
Say 259 Labour 58 SNP 3 Plaid 3 SDLP 1 Green Lady Hermon, makes 325 votes.
I'm certain some Labour MPs would put party before Ed if it's that close.
"Clearly the Conservatives have no mandate to enact their manifesto. However it is apparent that we need new leadership before the British people will put their faith in us..."
Geez - if Ed did form a govt on this basis, what would it do to Labour in England?
Well quite. Ed would get to be PM for a year or two, until after Holyrood 2016 at least, and then the mother of all reckonings would occur.
#Prayforcoralstogo5-1Conmajority2020
I don't believe in an interventionist god.
But if I did I would kneel down and ask him To go six to one on the blues
You have to laugh- AV would have benefited Tories: "Lord Ashcroft said his findings suggested the Conservatives could have benefited from AV. This view that the system opposed so strongly by the Conservatives - David Cameron called it "undemocratic, obscure, unfair and crazy" - could have helped the party is backed by Peter Kellner, president of pollster YouGov. "In Tory-Labour marginals, second preferences of UKIP voters would have gone more to the Tories than to Labour - so if you've got seats where Labour takes them by 1,500 to 2,000 votes, the Tories might have taken them," he said. "If AV had gone through, we would now be looking at the clear possibility of an outright Tory victory." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32341420
I think I am right in saying that only Panelbase and Populus now show Labour leads (albeit a healthy 3% lead with both)
LAB 260 seats gives Ed M a theoretical chance of being PM, but I would say that must be close to the floor.
In 2001 William Hague was Mr Plus One Seat since he increased the number of Tory seats from 165 to 166. Maybe something very similar could happen with Ed Miliband in 2015.
Unlike William Hague, Ed Milliband might become Prime Minister, if he makes a net gain of one seat.
Hague polled 32.7% in 2001. Ed may struggle to reach that level if a fair number of the latest polls are to be believed.
Imagine it. If Labour won 259 seats with 32% of the vote, he could still be PM. I think that such a government would be a desperately weak one, but it could be done.
Say 259 Labour 58 SNP 3 Plaid 3 SDLP 1 Green Lady Hermon, makes 325 votes.
Streuth. That truly is the stuff of nightmares. My skin is crawling just thinking about it.
Labour will get WAY more than 259 seats.
I'm sticking with c285. I simply do not believe they will be near wiped out in Scotland. Big losses to SNP sure, but no wipe out. The Scots are teasing the pollsters and taunting Scottish Labour politicians for good measure too.
With the Tories in my view incapable of getting past 270-odd, Ed will become PM with just the acquiescence of the SNP, he won't need to cobble together every last vote from the assorted other lefties.
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
I think I am right in saying that only Panelbase and Populus now show Labour leads (albeit a healthy 3% lead with both)
LAB 260 seats gives Ed M a theoretical chance of being PM, but I would say that must be close to the floor.
In 2001 William Hague was Mr Plus One Seat since he increased the number of Tory seats from 165 to 166. Maybe something very similar could happen with Ed Miliband in 2015.
Unlike William Hague, Ed Milliband might become Prime Minister, if he makes a net gain of one seat.
Hague polled 32.7% in 2001. Ed may struggle to reach that level if a fair number of the latest polls are to be believed.
Imagine it. If Labour won 259 seats with 32% of the vote, he could still be PM. I think that such a government would be a desperately weak one, but it could be done.
Say 259 Labour 58 SNP 3 Plaid 3 SDLP 1 Green Lady Hermon, makes 325 votes.
Streuth. That truly is the stuff of nightmares. My skin is crawling just thinking about it.
Labour will get WAY more than 259 seats.
I'm sticking with c285. I simply do not believe they will be near wiped out in Scotland. Big losses to SNP sure, but no wipe out. The Scots are teasing the pollsters and taunting Scottish Labour politicians for good measure too.
I think I am right in saying that only Panelbase and Populus now show Labour leads (albeit a healthy 3% lead with both)
LAB 260 seats gives Ed M a theoretical chance of being PM, but I would say that must be close to the floor.
In 2001 William Hague was Mr Plus One Seat since he increased the number of Tory seats from 165 to 166. Maybe something very similar could happen with Ed Miliband in 2015.
Unlike William Hague, Ed Milliband might become Prime Minister, if he makes a net gain of one seat.
Hague polled 32.7% in 2001. Ed may struggle to reach that level if a fair number of the latest polls are to be believed.
Imagine it. If Labour won 259 seats with 32% of the vote, he could still be PM. I think that such a government would be a desperately weak one, but it could be done.
Say 259 Labour 58 SNP 3 Plaid 3 SDLP 1 Green Lady Hermon, makes 325 votes.
Streuth. That truly is the stuff of nightmares. My skin is crawling just thinking about it.
Labour will get WAY more than 259 seats.
I'm sticking with c285. I simply do not believe they will be near wiped out in Scotland. Big losses to SNP sure, but no wipe out. The Scots are teasing the pollsters and taunting Scottish Labour politicians for good measure too.
I think it's an extremely plausible result. I can't see Labour getting to 285 seats now.
Thanks, that's really interesting - always good to learn something from PB.
Surely, tho, that would at most account for a doubling of prices, i.e. effectively each household being able to double its pre- and post-tax income (due to independent tax thresholds for each) - only it would be a bit less than that because the additional income would be to some extent offset by costs of going to work. So you could reasonably rebase the index from 1988-2015 by dividing by somewhere between 1.5 and 1.75, but I guess it's still going to show a massive multiple of RPI over the period despite that.
Another interesting (and house price inflationary) thing about low rates is how fast you pay down the principal. With a 25-year mortgage at 10%, over the first 5 years, you pay off only 6% of the principal. At 2%, you pay off 16% of the principal amount over that time.
It would take you 10 years to pay off 16% of the principal at 10%. Over 10 years on a 2% mortgage rate, you could pay off 35% - and so on. So although these hug mortgages look oppressive, you accumulate equity at an unprecedentedly rapid rate now; which must itself encourage people to pay more.
Although the counter to that is that the principle doesn't decrease in real terms due to inflation in the way that it did. Previously, as long as you could pay the interest for 5 years, you were then clear as your income rose substantially and in real terms the principle fell dramatically. Nowadays you actually have to pay *all* the principle back - you don't get help from inflation so 5 years after taking on a mortgage you might have paid back 16% of the principle, but it's real value is still at 90% of what it was when you started, rather than 60%
Don't know whether this has been discussed already, but I was just thinking that it may be the case that because Labour aren't going to win an overall majority some of their voters are going to be a bit disillusioned and won't bother voting in the same numbers as they would have done had they thought they had a chance of doing so, which most of them probably did believe just a few months ago (no matter how unlikely it was even then).
That might create an opening for the Tories to make one or two gains in places like Southampton Itchen, Halifax, etc. Unlikely but not as unlikely as it used to be, maybe.
I think both are fair shouts from whAt I understand. In Halifax I think there was a central office late appointment for th Labour PPC.
In South Itchen the Labour candidate is a privately educated oxford ppe graduate and the Tory is a local councillor with a forces background who is a local hero after foiling a shooting in 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13022096
It's just as likely Labour will win some surprise seats as well. Despite the SNP strengths in Scotland Labour are bound to win a few as the swing against will not be uniform.
I think I am right in saying that only Panelbase and Populus now show Labour leads (albeit a healthy 3% lead with both)
LAB 260 seats gives Ed M a theoretical chance of being PM, but I would say that must be close to the floor.
In 2001 William Hague was Mr Plus One Seat since he increased the number of Tory seats from 165 to 166. Maybe something very similar could happen with Ed Miliband in 2015.
Unlike William Hague, Ed Milliband might become Prime Minister, if he makes a net gain of one seat.
Hague polled 32.7% in 2001. Ed may struggle to reach that level if a fair number of the latest polls are to be believed.
Imagine it. If Labour won 259 seats with 32% of the vote, he could still be PM. I think that such a government would be a desperately weak one, but it could be done.
Say 259 Labour 58 SNP 3 Plaid 3 SDLP 1 Green Lady Hermon, makes 325 votes.
Streuth. That truly is the stuff of nightmares. My skin is crawling just thinking about it.
Labour will get WAY more than 259 seats.
I'm sticking with c285. I simply do not believe they will be near wiped out in Scotland. Big losses to SNP sure, but no wipe out. The Scots are teasing the pollsters and taunting Scottish Labour politicians for good measure too.
With the Tories in my view incapable of getting past 270-odd, Ed will become PM with just the acquiescence of the SNP, he won't need to cobble together every last vote from the assorted other lefties.
I tend to agree with you but @Richard_Nabavi had a good post yday illustrating that in Scotland the last time they said they would give Lab a smacking they indeed did give Lab a smacking. And they gave Lab a worse smacking than they said they would give them.
Don't know whether this has been discussed already, but I was just thinking that it may be the case that because Labour aren't going to win an overall majority some of their voters are going to be a bit disillusioned and won't bother voting in the same numbers as they would have done had they thought they had a chance of doing so, which most of them probably did believe just a few months ago (no matter how unlikely it was even then).
That might create an opening for the Tories to make one or two gains in places like Southampton Itchen, Halifax, etc. Unlikely but not as unlikely as it used to be, maybe.
There are always lots of reasons for a poor Labour turnout, and we always see lower turnout in Labour seats than Tory ones - but will the Labour turnout be worse this time than in 2010?
Who knows. But the Staggers mighty reluctant "Edorsement" could have been a Party Political Broadcast for the Can't Be Arsed party....
The Staggers' "Endorsement" was hilarious - Listen, we think this guy is a complete prat with no principles and doesn't have a clue what the hell he will do if he actually gets in - but hey ho, he's got a red rosette on so we should vote for him anyway...
I think I am right in saying that only Panelbase and Populus now show Labour leads (albeit a healthy 3% lead with both)
LAB 260 seats gives Ed M a theoretical chance of being PM, but I would say that must be close to the floor.
In 2001 William Hague was Mr Plus One Seat since he increased the number of Tory seats from 165 to 166. Maybe something very similar could happen with Ed Miliband in 2015.
Unlike William Hague, Ed Milliband might become Prime Minister, if he makes a net gain of one seat.
Hague polled 32.7% in 2001. Ed may struggle to reach that level if a fair number of the latest polls are to be believed.
Imagine it. If Labour won 259 seats with 32% of the vote, he could still be PM. I think that such a government would be a desperately weak one, but it could be done.
Say 259 Labour 58 SNP 3 Plaid 3 SDLP 1 Green Lady Hermon, makes 325 votes.
I'm certain some Labour MPs would put party before Ed if it's that close.
"Clearly the Conservatives have no mandate to enact their manifesto. However it is apparent that we need new leadership before the British people will put their faith in us..."
The rules make him hard to shift once he's PM. I mean, it can be done, but only in ways that would make the people involved extremely unpopular if it backfired.
Are there any long range weather forecasts for next Thursday. If the weather is foul this will depress the Labour vote.
It's going to be changeable, which means that there is a risk of rain, but the timing is key. Could easily be in a bright and dry interlude for the peak voting hours, or indeed the whole day itself could be an interlude between the rain before and after.
That said, the prevailing wind direction will mean that, as is normal, the west and north are more likely to be wet. @Pulpstar likes to say that he expects the north-west to be a fertile area for Labour gains, so if you really think this will be a factor betting against Labour in the marginals there, rather than in London, would be the way to go.
If you look at the short-range forecast charts you can see that a low pressure is expected to deepen to the west of the UK. In the longer-range charts this is expected to hang around until election day, like a baleful eye, dread harbinger of a majority Conservative government.
The sun is more likely to shine on London as the weekend wears on, so there's no rush to form a new government for the all-important "sun shines on PM entering Number Ten" photos.
Tory Majority ain't happening tbh, it'd be tremendously beneficial for me personally so on that basis we can rule it out.
Labour being in hugely enriched me personally, through house price inflation, a doubling of the IHT threshold, and setting up on my own in a tax-dodgy Hodgey way, compared to plebby old PAYE.
But they did this to benefit themselves not me, they hate me, and they utterly f>cked the country and impoverished a lot of people who hadn't much in the way of wealth or prospects to start with. So I'd be appalled at their getting back in.
Thanks, that's really interesting - always good to learn something from PB.
Surely, tho, that would at most account for a doubling of prices, i.e. effectively each household being able to double its pre- and post-tax income (due to independent tax thresholds for each) - only it would be a bit less than that because the additional income would be to some extent offset by costs of going to work. So you could reasonably rebase the index from 1988-2015 by dividing by somewhere between 1.5 and 1.75, but I guess it's still going to show a massive multiple of RPI over the period despite that.
Another interesting (and house price inflationary) thing about low rates is how fast you pay down the principal. With a 25-year mortgage at 10%, over the first 5 years, you pay off only 6% of the principal. At 2%, you pay off 16% of the principal amount over that time.
It would take you 10 years to pay off 16% of the principal at 10%. Over 10 years on a 2% mortgage rate, you could pay off 35% - and so on. So although these hug mortgages look oppressive, you accumulate equity at an unprecedentedly rapid rate now; which must itself encourage people to pay more.
Although the counter to that is that the principle doesn't decrease in real terms due to inflation in the way that it did. Previously, as long as you could pay the interest for 5 years, you were then clear as your income rose substantially and in real terms the principle fell dramatically. Nowadays you actually have to pay *all* the principle back - you don't get help from inflation so 5 years after taking on a mortgage you might have paid back 16% of the principle, but it's real value is still at 90% of what it was when you started, rather than 60%
I think another factor in rising house prices (I agree that supply is the root of the problem) is the bankers. Certainly in London.
Before Big Bang, to be a banker was to be well off but was, in many ways including salary level, similar to being a doctor or lawyer or university professor.
Big Bang and the explosion of US-type investment bankers with attendant salaries changed all that.
Mr. Woolie, indeed. Rest assured, one shall do one's duty.
Mr. Tokyo, also worth noting Labour are completely incompetent at regicide. Look how they screwed up axing Brown, and wibbled for years about Miliband, before leaving it too late and then finally bottling it.
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
I'm feeling like a trip to Barcelona next weekend to get away from it all. What do you reckon, I think there's some fast cars going round a track for 3 days...
Don't know whether this has been discussed already, but I was just thinking that it may be the case that because Labour aren't going to win an overall majority some of their voters are going to be a bit disillusioned and won't bother voting in the same numbers as they would have done had they thought they had a chance of doing so, which most of them probably did believe just a few months ago (no matter how unlikely it was even then).
That might create an opening for the Tories to make one or two gains in places like Southampton Itchen, Halifax, etc. Unlikely but not as unlikely as it used to be, maybe.
There are always lots of reasons for a poor Labour turnout, and we always see lower turnout in Labour seats than Tory ones - but will the Labour turnout be worse this time than in 2010?
Who knows. But the Staggers mighty reluctant "Edorsement" could have been a Party Political Broadcast for the Can't Be Arsed party....
The Staggers' "Endorsement" was hilarious - Listen, we think this guy is a complete prat with no principles and doesn't have a clue what the hell he will do if he actually gets in - but hey ho, he's got a red rosette on so we should vote for him anyway...
Round these parts it is known as the Southam Observer Endorsement.
I think I am right in saying that only Panelbase and Populus now show Labour leads (albeit a healthy 3% lead with both)
LAB 260 seats gives Ed M a theoretical chance of being PM, but I would say that must be close to the floor.
In 2001 William Hague was Mr Plus One Seat since he increased the number of Tory seats from 165 to 166. Maybe something very similar could happen with Ed Miliband in 2015.
Unlike William Hague, Ed Milliband might become Prime Minister, if he makes a net gain of one seat.
Hague polled 32.7% in 2001. Ed may struggle to reach that level if a fair number of the latest polls are to be believed.
Imagine it. If Labour won 259 seats with 32% of the vote, he could still be PM. I think that such a government would be a desperately weak one, but it could be done.
Say 259 Labour 58 SNP 3 Plaid 3 SDLP 1 Green Lady Hermon, makes 325 votes.
I'm certain some Labour MPs would put party before Ed if it's that close.
"Clearly the Conservatives have no mandate to enact their manifesto. However it is apparent that we need new leadership before the British people will put their faith in us..."
The rules make him hard to shift once he's PM. I mean, it can be done, but only in ways that would make the people involved extremely unpopular if it backfired.
Right, so they don't make him PM. They abstain on Cameron's Queen's Speech.
I think I am right in saying that only Panelbase and Populus now show Labour leads (albeit a healthy 3% lead with both)
LAB 260 seats gives Ed M a theoretical chance of being PM, but I would say that must be close to the floor.
In 2001 William Hague was Mr Plus One Seat since he increased the number of Tory seats from 165 to 166. Maybe something very similar could happen with Ed Miliband in 2015.
Unlike William Hague, Ed Milliband might become Prime Minister, if he makes a net gain of one seat.
Hague polled 32.7% in 2001. Ed may struggle to reach that level if a fair number of the latest polls are to be believed.
Imagine it. If Labour won 259 seats with 32% of the vote, he could still be PM. I think that such a government would be a desperately weak one, but it could be done.
Say 259 Labour 58 SNP 3 Plaid 3 SDLP 1 Green Lady Hermon, makes 325 votes.
Streuth. That truly is the stuff of nightmares. My skin is crawling just thinking about it.
Labour will get WAY more than 259 seats.
I'm sticking with c285. I simply do not believe they will be near wiped out in Scotland. Big losses to SNP sure, but no wipe out. The Scots are teasing the pollsters and taunting Scottish Labour politicians for good measure too.
With the Tories in my view incapable of getting past 270-odd, Ed will become PM with just the acquiescence of the SNP, he won't need to cobble together every last vote from the assorted other lefties.
All the evidence suggests that Labour will be wiped out in Scotland, but let's be generous, and leave them 10 seats.
To reach 285 seats, they'd need to make 58 gains, which I just don't see.
What I'm wondering is whether an EVEL bill can be rammed through the house, thus neutralising a lot of the SNP.
I'm not sure the Tories/Labour could bury their differences to do it. But if one was PM, and the other not, perhaps the one in opposition could break ranks and back the government.
Depends whether they want short-term partisan gain or not. Another way of doing it might be a Tory bill, that the LDs back and then 20 Labour rebels break ranks, enough to get it through.
The people who see it going their way are calling for it following the derision and forensic investigation when it was showing bad figures for them
Who knew?!
This week 9 polls form 7 different pollsters (all time 26 polls from 11)
CON +10 (+2) LAB -5 (-18) UKIP -1 (+7) LD -3 (-2) GREEN +4 (+5)
just how badly was it going for UKIP when you decided to invent it?
UKIP are polling 10-18%, so it obviously isn't going that badly.
But do you believe the 18%?
No but who believes the 10%? 12 or 13% looking likely. Ladbrokes are still offering 2/7 that UKIP get more votes than Libs. Likelihood is UKIP will get more votes than Libs + Greens. Even possible if they hit 15% they'll get double the Libs.
What this short campaign has proved is UKIP vote is very resilient and hasn't dropped more than 1 point in 6 weeks. Nigel on the TV tonight might help too.
I think I am right in saying that only Panelbase and Populus now show Labour leads (albeit a healthy 3% lead with both)
LAB 260 seats gives Ed M a theoretical chance of being PM, but I would say that must be close to the floor.
In 2001 William Hague was Mr Plus One Seat since he increased the number of Tory seats from 165 to 166. Maybe something very similar could happen with Ed Miliband in 2015.
Unlike William Hague, Ed Milliband might become Prime Minister, if he makes a net gain of one seat.
Hague polled 32.7% in 2001. Ed may struggle to reach that level if a fair number of the latest polls are to be believed.
Imagine it. If Labour won 259 seats with 32% of the vote, he could still be PM. I think that such a government would be a desperately weak one, but it could be done.
Say 259 Labour 58 SNP 3 Plaid 3 SDLP 1 Green Lady Hermon, makes 325 votes.
Streuth. That truly is the stuff of nightmares. My skin is crawling just thinking about it.
Labour will get WAY more than 259 seats.
I'm sticking with c285. I simply do not believe they will be near wiped out in Scotland. Big losses to SNP sure, but no wipe out. The Scots are teasing the pollsters and taunting Scottish Labour politicians for good measure too.
With the Tories in my view incapable of getting past 270-odd, Ed will become PM with just the acquiescence of the SNP, he won't need to cobble together every last vote from the assorted other lefties.
There is no chance at all that Labour will get close to 285 seats. Standing still is towards the top end of what they can reasonably hope for. Above 265 is unlikely, above 275 a dream and above 280 a fantasy. There is more chance of them losing a net ten seats than gaining them. They are going to be blown away in Scotland and they are just not popular enough in England to make up for that. The Tories will have a minimum 30 seat advantage.
Thanks, that's really interesting - always good to learn something from PB.
Surely, tho, that would at most account for a doubling of prices, i.e. effectively each household being able to double its pre- and post-tax income (due to independent tax thresholds for each) - only it would be a bit less than that because the additional income would be to some extent offset by costs of going to work. So you could reasonably rebase the index from 1988-2015 by dividing by somewhere between 1.5 and 1.75, but I guess it's still going to show a massive multiple of RPI over the period despite that.
Another interesting (and house price inflationary) thing about low rates is how fast you pay down the principal. With a 25-year mortgage at 10%, over the first 5 years, you pay off only 6% of the principal. At 2%, you pay off 16% of the principal amount over that time.
It would take you 10 years to pay off 16% of the principal at 10%. Over 10 years on a 2% mortgage rate, you could pay off 35% - and so on. So although these hug mortgages look oppressive, you accumulate equity at an unprecedentedly rapid rate now; which must itself encourage people to pay more.
Although the counter to that is that the principle doesn't decrease in real terms due to inflation in the way that it did. Previously, as long as you could pay the interest for 5 years, you were then clear as your income rose substantially and in real terms the principle fell dramatically. Nowadays you actually have to pay *all* the principle back - you don't get help from inflation so 5 years after taking on a mortgage you might have paid back 16% of the principle, but it's real value is still at 90% of what it was when you started, rather than 60%
Yeah, that's why I say it's similar-but-not-equivalent. I've never done the full comparison, but in the 1970s, houses and salaries both inflated, whereas today only houses do. As you say, this means you really do have to pay off the mortgage. OTOH, someone who pays off a third of the mortgage in 10 years, then collects the inflation and equity, and downsizes to outright ownership is, perhaps, not so far adrift of the position of someone who wanted to do that in the 1970s.
All a bit academic, as neither the sexist taxes nor the inflation nor the interest rates of the 1970s are coming back any time soon.
I think I am right in saying that only Panelbase and Populus now show Labour leads (albeit a healthy 3% lead with both)
LAB 260 seats gives Ed M a theoretical chance of being PM, but I would say that must be close to the floor.
In 2001 William Hague was Mr Plus One Seat since he increased the number of Tory seats from 165 to 166. Maybe something very similar could happen with Ed Miliband in 2015.
Unlike William Hague, Ed Milliband might become Prime Minister, if he makes a net gain of one seat.
Hague polled 32.7% in 2001. Ed may struggle to reach that level if a fair number of the latest polls are to be believed.
Imagine it. If Labour won 259 seats with 32% of the vote, he could still be PM. I think that such a government would be a desperately weak one, but it could be done.
Say 259 Labour 58 SNP 3 Plaid 3 SDLP 1 Green Lady Hermon, makes 325 votes.
Streuth. That truly is the stuff of nightmares. My skin is crawling just thinking about it.
Labour will get WAY more than 259 seats.
I'm sticking with c285. I simply do not believe they will be near wiped out in Scotland. Big losses to SNP sure, but no wipe out. The Scots are teasing the pollsters and taunting Scottish Labour politicians for good measure too.
With the Tories in my view incapable of getting past 270-odd, Ed will become PM with just the acquiescence of the SNP, he won't need to cobble together every last vote from the assorted other lefties.
All the evidence suggests that Labour will be wiped out in Scotland, but let's be generous, and leave them 10 seats.
To reach 285 seats, they'd need to make 58 gains, which I just don't see.
Even if they made 285, presumably no Scottish wipeout means SNP are on ~40. Which makes a grand total of 325... you'd need a formal arrangement and a strong whip to make that work.
I think we can all agree, the one thing we all want to be able to say on May 8 is 'were you up for Balls?'
I f*cking don't. I'm holding some 7-2 and 3-1 next chancellor betslips on him.
My child, set thou aside your hopes for the greater hope of joy unbounded
If Balls isn't CoTE in a Labour administration it'll be Reeves or Leslie. The Nats will push them around far more than Balls who clearly is not a loony lefty. Trust me if Ed is PM, we need Balls as CoTE.
Thanks, that's really interesting - always good to learn something from PB.
Surely
I've not checked your maths, but I think that's probably correct, yes. The increase in prices comes from an increase in households' after-tax income; from a reduction in the cost of credit, such that a higher mortgage at today's rates costs the same to service as a smaller one used to do at yesterday's; and from a higher population, so that there are more marginal bidders, and thus more chances for the highest bid to be higher.
Some of those factors will probably mean-revert, but the household after-tax income won't. I don't see the population or the interest rates ones changing quickly either. It is sometimes said that these are emergency rates that won't last and will return to "normal". But we have now had these super-low rates for getting on towards 7 years and you can get 10-year fixes at these rates too. So that's 17 years of a typical 25-year mortgage term, which starts to look structural, rather than an emergency aberration. We've only had base rates above 10% for 20 of the last 300 years, and all 20 of those years were between 1972 and 1994. So there's nothing inherently "normal" about those rates either. A mortgage rate of 4% today is pretty typical of most of the last 300 years. Just not of the last 40.
Another interesting (and house price inflationary) thing about low rates is how fast you pay down the principal. With a 25-year mortgage at 10%, over the first 5 years, you pay off only 6% of the principal. At 2%, you pay off 16% of the principal amount over that time.
It would take you 10 years to pay off 16% of the principal at 10%. Over 10 years on a 2% mortgage rate, you could pay off 35% - and so on. So although these hug mortgages look oppressive, you accumulate equity at an unprecedentedly rapid rate now; which must itself encourage people to pay more.
It is an often-overlooked advantage from low rates that is similar, if not equivalent, to the benefit baby boomers enjoyed, whereby inflation eroded the cost of their mortgage. That doesn't happen any more, but today, you can erode your mortgage pretty damn fast by, er, repaying it!
When we were on the gold standard for 300 odd years prices remained flat, on the fiat money system, as you mention, we have had rampant inflation. You are conflating two very different systems. There is an argument that like Japan we will have low rates for the foreseeable future but I would not count on it.
I think we can all agree, the one thing we all want to be able to say on May 8 is 'were you up for Balls?'
I f*cking don't. I'm holding some 7-2 and 3-1 next chancellor betslips on him.
My child, set thou aside your hopes for the greater hope of joy unbounded
If Balls isn't CoTE in a Labour administration it'll be Reeves or Leslie. The Nats will push them around far more than Balls who clearly is not a loony lefty. Trust me if Ed is PM, we need Balls as CoTE.
Never did I think I'd hear the words 'we need Balls' uttered in earnest
I think we can all agree, the one thing we all want to be able to say on May 8 is 'were you up for Balls?'
I f*cking don't. I'm holding some 7-2 and 3-1 next chancellor betslips on him.
My child, set thou aside your hopes for the greater hope of joy unbounded
If Balls isn't CoTE in a Labour administration it'll be Reeves or Leslie. The Nats will push them around far more than Balls who clearly is not a loony lefty. Trust me if Ed is PM, we need Balls as CoTE.
Never did I think I'd hear the words 'we need Balls' uttered in earnest
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
In that situation, I wonder if Miliband's party would allow him to form a government, given its clear suicidality for Labour.
Labour's best interest (not Ed's) would be in sitting back, and letting Cameron flail around, trying to form a minority government, which would soon fall (over the EU ref?). Meanwhile Labour get rid of their loser leader, and find someone with more charm for the swiftly ensuing 2nd election.
Result: Labour win, as the Tories fight over Europe or whatever.
So Ed's personal ambitions might be in opposition to Labour's wider interests.
Cameron could call Milibands bluff, resign, then he would be forced to make it work..
In fact that would be a smart move by the tories, and I expect Cameron wouldn't want to hang around in that situation.
Being in government at the moment does give you some advantages.
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
I quite like the idea of regional parliaments, as long as they were proper regions that people actually identified with. You could have just four: the North, the Midlands, the Westcountry and the South East.
Can anyone remember to before the last election, the mantra was to take the best figure for the Tories and the worst for Labour across the polls. Was this disproved?
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
In that situation, I wonder if Miliband's party would allow him to form a government, given its clear suicidality for Labour.
Labour's best interest (not Ed's) would be in sitting back, and letting Cameron flail around, trying to form a minority government, which would soon fall (over the EU ref?). Meanwhile Labour get rid of their loser leader, and find someone with more charm for the swiftly ensuing 2nd election.
Result: Labour win, as the Tories fight over Europe or whatever.
So Ed's personal ambitions might be in opposition to Labour's wider interests.
I suspect that the party will be split and it will not be able to whip its full strength against the Queen's speech. You are right: it's a political suicide vest.
I think we can all agree, the one thing we all want to be able to say on May 8 is 'were you up for Balls?'
I f*cking don't. I'm holding some 7-2 and 3-1 next chancellor betslips on him.
My child, set thou aside your hopes for the greater hope of joy unbounded
If Balls isn't CoTE in a Labour administration it'll be Reeves or Leslie. The Nats will push them around far more than Balls who clearly is not a loony lefty. Trust me if Ed is PM, we need Balls as CoTE.
Totally right and Balls will stand up to MacCluskey and his pals as well. Balls is the one senior Labour front bencher at present I have confidence in.
I think we can all agree, the one thing we all want to be able to say on May 8 is 'were you up for Balls?'
I f*cking don't. I'm holding some 7-2 and 3-1 next chancellor betslips on him.
My child, set thou aside your hopes for the greater hope of joy unbounded
If Balls isn't CoTE in a Labour administration it'll be Reeves or Leslie. The Nats will push them around far more than Balls who clearly is not a loony lefty. Trust me if Ed is PM, we need Balls as CoTE.
Never did I think I'd hear the words 'we need Balls' uttered in earnest
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
I quite like the idea of regional parliaments, as long as they were proper regions that people actually identified with. You could have just four: the North, the Midlands, the Westcountry and the South East.
What I'm wondering is whether an EVEL bill can be rammed through the house, thus neutralising a lot of the SNP. Another way of doing it might be a Tory bill, that the LDs back and then 20 Labour rebels break ranks, enough to get it through.
I was thinking along similar lines the other day.
Given the forecast complete deadlock, red and blue teams could find a few common interests surely?
EV4EL, Barnett formula, boundary review/reduction to 600 MPs - even Trident renewal, Royal Commission on HoL reform etc.
I think we can all agree, the one thing we all want to be able to say on May 8 is 'were you up for Balls?'
I f*cking don't. I'm holding some 7-2 and 3-1 next chancellor betslips on him.
My child, set thou aside your hopes for the greater hope of joy unbounded
If Balls isn't CoTE in a Labour administration it'll be Reeves or Leslie. The Nats will push them around far more than Balls who clearly is not a loony lefty. Trust me if Ed is PM, we need Balls as CoTE.
Never did I think I'd hear the words 'we need Balls' uttered in earnest
I think I am right in saying that only Panelbase and Populus now show Labour leads (albeit a healthy 3% lead with both)
LAB 260 seats gives Ed M a theoretical chance of being PM, but I would say that must be close to the floor.
In 2001 William Hague was Mr Plus One Seat since he increased the number of Tory seats from 165 to 166. Maybe something very similar could happen with Ed Miliband in 2015.
Unlike William Hague, Ed Milliband might become Prime Minister, if he makes a net gain of one seat.
Hague polled 32.7% in 2001. Ed may struggle to reach that level if a fair number of the latest polls are to be believed.
Imagine it. If Labour won 259 seats with 32% of the vote, he could still be PM. I think that such a government would be a desperately weak one, but it could be done.
Say 259 Labour 58 SNP 3 Plaid 3 SDLP 1 Green Lady Hermon, makes 325 votes.
Streuth. That truly is the stuff of nightmares. My skin is crawling just thinking about it.
Labour will get WAY more than 259 seats.
I'm sticking with c285. I simply do not believe they will be near wiped out in Scotland. Big losses to SNP sure, but no wipe out. The Scots are teasing the pollsters and taunting Scottish Labour politicians for good measure too.
With the Tories in my view incapable of getting past 270-odd, Ed will become PM with just the acquiescence of the SNP, he won't need to cobble together every last vote from the assorted other lefties.
As I mentioned upthread, Sporting Index has Labour on 267 seats and the Tories on 287 seats (mid-spread prices). They are unlikely to be too far adrift, although it's quite possible of course. Personally I'd expect the spread-betting firm to be within +/- 10 seats for both parties, i.e. 257 - 277 seats for Labour and 277 - 297 seats for the Tories. Of course there could be a significant late swing, but if so I believe this is far more likely to favour the Tories than Labour, in accordance with the immortal words of Hilaire Belloc: ".... And always keep a-hold of Nurse for fear of finding something worse"
I think I am right in saying that only Panelbase and Populus now show Labour leads (albeit a healthy 3% lead with both)
LAB 260 seats gives Ed M a theoretical chance of being PM, but I would say that must be close to the floor.
In 2001 William Hague was Mr Plus One Seat since he increased the number of Tory seats from 165 to 166. Maybe something very similar could happen with Ed Miliband in 2015.
Unlike William Hague, Ed Milliband might become Prime Minister, if he makes a net gain of one seat.
Hague polled 32.7% in 2001. Ed may struggle to reach that level if a fair number of the latest polls are to be believed.
Imagine it. If Labour won 259 seats with 32% of the vote, he could still be PM. I think that such a government would be a desperately weak one, but it could be done.
Say 259 Labour 58 SNP 3 Plaid 3 SDLP 1 Green Lady Hermon, makes 325 votes.
Streuth. That truly is the stuff of nightmares. My skin is crawling just thinking about it.
Labour will get WAY more than 259 seats.
I'm sticking with c285. I simply do not believe they will be near wiped out in Scotland. Big losses to SNP sure, but no wipe out. The Scots are teasing the pollsters and taunting Scottish Labour politicians for good measure too.
With the Tories in my view incapable of getting past 270-odd, Ed will become PM with just the acquiescence of the SNP, he won't need to cobble together every last vote from the assorted other lefties.
All the evidence suggests that Labour will be wiped out in Scotland, but let's be generous, and leave them 10 seats.
To reach 285 seats, they'd need to make 58 gains, which I just don't see.
Somewhere between 30 and 40 gains looks probable, 45 gains tops but that looks very optimistic.
Final electorate figures for Broxtowe in case anyone is interested - 71764 (virtually unchanged), of whom 13246 are postal voters (of whom most voted last week). Last time, the winning mark was just over 20,000 - with fewer LDs but more UKIP this time, I expect it'll be somewhere similar, but perhaps a bit higher since there's really a lot of interest - turnout will probably be 55000 or so (71% last time). If we can get 75% of the promise out, we should be OK.
Can anyone remember to before the last election, the mantra was to take the best figure for the Tories and the worst for Labour across the polls. Was this disproved?
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
I quite like the idea of regional parliaments, as long as they were proper regions that people actually identified with. You could have just four: the North, the Midlands, the Westcountry and the South East.
East Anglians do not identify with Midlands or SE
and the SE would be a bit of a mess, as you'd have a huge gaping hole in it called 'London'.
Don't know whether this has been discussed already, but I was just thinking that it may be the case that because Labour aren't going to win an overall majority some of their voters are going to be a bit disillusioned and won't bother voting in the same numbers as they would have done had they thought they had a chance of doing so, which most of them probably did believe just a few months ago (no matter how unlikely it was even then).
That might create an opening for the Tories to make one or two gains in places like Southampton Itchen, Halifax, etc. Unlikely but not as unlikely as it used to be, maybe.
There are always lots of reasons for a poor Labour turnout, and we always see lower turnout in Labour seats than Tory ones - but will the Labour turnout be worse this time than in 2010?
Who knows. But the Staggers mighty reluctant "Edorsement" could have been a Party Political Broadcast for the Can't Be Arsed party....
The Staggers' "Endorsement" was hilarious - Listen, we think this guy is a complete prat with no principles and doesn't have a clue what the hell he will do if he actually gets in - but hey ho, he's got a red rosette on so we should vote for him anyway...
It’s the Polly Toynbee justification, they may be rubbish and bad for the country, but they’re our rubbish with a red rosette, so hold your nose and vote for them.
Someone should respond by tutting next time Abbott mentions race. Let's see how appropriate she thinks it is, being called out every time she "harps on".....
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
I quite like the idea of regional parliaments, as long as they were proper regions that people actually identified with. You could have just four: the North, the Midlands, the Westcountry and the South East.
East Anglians do not identify with Midlands or SE
I thought a lot of people commute from Ipswich and Cambridge to London on a daily basis? You can carve them off if needed, although it would be a tiny population region.
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
I quite like the idea of regional parliaments, as long as they were proper regions that people actually identified with. You could have just four: the North, the Midlands, the Westcountry and the South East.
East Anglians do not identify with Midlands or SE
and the SE would be a bit of a mess, as you'd have a huge gaping hole in it called 'London'.
Wonder how Bob Sykes would feel being ruled from York....
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
In that situation, I wonder if Miliband's party would allow him to form a government, given its clear suicidality for Labour.
Labour's best interest (not Ed's) would be in sitting back, and letting Cameron flail around, trying to form a minority government, which would soon fall (over the EU ref?). Meanwhile Labour get rid of their loser leader, and find someone with more charm for the swiftly ensuing 2nd election.
Result: Labour win, as the Tories fight over Europe or whatever.
So Ed's personal ambitions might be in opposition to Labour's wider interests.
You only need to remember what happened after the last election. A number of MPs and other Labour figures stated that Labour had lost and had no mandate to form a government. The same thing will happen next week. And unlike Brown, Ed has no base within Labour to fight for him.
With 250-260 seats Labour can oppose a Tory-led government fighting constitutional wars on two fronts and unsure of its ability to pass legislation, while at the same time looking for a new, more credible leader. That makes much more sense than trying to govern with the help of assorted parties with very different agendas.
I had my biggest bet of the election yesterday, Farage to win S Thanet at EVS.. hard not to make it value when you've backed EVS -6.5!
Farage at Evens was a great & wondrous price. Had to take some of that myself !
We'll just have to seriously disagree on that one. UKIP are very evidently heading south and this is likely to continue as minds are further concentrated over the few remaining days leading up to the GE.
It's a far better bet than 284.5- 10-11 Conservatives.
Thanks, that's really interesting - always good to learn something from PB.
Surely
Some of those factors will probably mean-revert, but the household after-tax income won't. I don't see the population or the interest rates ones changing quickly either. It is sometimes said that these are emergency rates that won't last and will return to "normal". But we have now had these super-low rates for getting on towards 7 years and you can get 10-year fixes at these rates too. So that's 17 years of a typical 25-year mortgage term, which starts to look structural, rather than an emergency aberration. We've only had base rates above 10% for 20 of the last 300 years, and all 20 of those years were between 1972 and 1994. So there's nothing inherently "normal" about those rates either. A mortgage rate of 4% today is pretty typical of most of the last 300 years. Just not of the last 40.
Another interesting (and house price inflationary) thing about low rates is how fast you pay down the principal. With a 25-year mortgage at 10%, over the first 5 years, you pay off only 6% of the principal. At 2%, you pay off 16% of the principal amount over that time.
It would take you 10 years to pay off 16% of the principal at 10%. Over 10 years on a 2% mortgage rate, you could pay off 35% - and so on. So although these hug mortgages look oppressive, you accumulate equity at an unprecedentedly rapid rate now; which must itself encourage people to pay more.
It is an often-overlooked advantage from low rates that is similar, if not equivalent, to the benefit baby boomers enjoyed, whereby inflation eroded the cost of their mortgage. That doesn't happen any more, but today, you can erode your mortgage pretty damn fast by, er, repaying it!
When we were on the gold standard for 300 odd years prices remained flat, on the fiat money system, as you mention, we have had rampant inflation. You are conflating two very different systems. There is an argument that like Japan we will have low rates for the foreseeable future but I would not count on it.
We have had both inflation and deflation on fiat money so I am not sure this is conclusive either way. I reckon low rates are here for a lot longer than is widely expected, simply because I see nothing on the horizon to send the north.
I could very well be missing something obvious but my main exposure to interest rates comes through my mortgage which I will have for only another 10 years or so; so my horizon is short.
Sandi Sidhu@sandssidhu·6 mins6 minutes ago Nigel Farage in Aylesbury making a speech on a statue getting cheers for opposing HS2
UKIP even have a shop for this seat - sadly it's in a mini-parade of 4 shops in Weston Turville village and not the high streets of Aylesbury.... weird location, I nearly pranged my car when I drove past it recently so incongruous does it look.
I think I am right in saying that only Panelbase and Populus now show Labour leads (albeit a healthy 3% lead with both)
LAB 260 seats gives Ed M a theoretical chance of being PM, but I would say that must be close to the floor.
In 2001 William Hague was Mr Plus One Seat since he increased the number of Tory seats from 165 to 166. Maybe something very similar could happen with Ed Miliband in 2015.
Unlike William Hague, Ed Milliband might become Prime Minister, if he makes a net gain of one seat.
Hague polled 32.7% in 2001. Ed may struggle to reach that level if a fair number of the latest polls are to be believed.
Imagine it. If Labour won 259 seats with 32% of the vote, he could still be PM. I think that such a government would be a desperately weak one, but it could be done.
Say 259 Labour 58 SNP 3 Plaid 3 SDLP 1 Green Lady Hermon, makes 325 votes.
Streuth. That truly is the stuff of nightmares. My skin is crawling just thinking about it.
Labour will get WAY more than 259 seats.
I'm sticking with c285. I simply do not believe they will be near wiped out in Scotland. Big losses to SNP sure, but no wipe out. The Scots are teasing the pollsters and taunting Scottish Labour politicians for good measure too.
With the Tories in my view incapable of getting past 270-odd, Ed will become PM with just the acquiescence of the SNP, he won't need to cobble together every last vote from the assorted other lefties.
As I've said before, this is an emotional response, not a rational one. ALL the polls are pointing to an SNP whitewash ("tartanwash"?). ALL polls. So you have to believe that ALL the polls are very wrong, and how often does that happen?
Moreover, it's not like this is unprecedented: 45.4% of Scots voted SNP in Holyrood in 2011. They're just repeating the process in Westminster, with a few more electors crossing to the Nats, for amusement purposes.
Like you I used to think Labour would resist total wipe-out (I predicted Nats would get 39 seats in my official S K Tremayne Forecast). I was wrong. Nats are gonna get 45-55, Labour will be in single digits.
It's making me doubt my prediction of a Tiny Miliband Plurality, but not quite enough to withdraw it. Yet.
I believe the polls are indeed accurately recording what their Scottish samples are currently telling them.
What I don't believe is that all of those SNP inclined Labour voters will go through with it on May 7th.
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
I quite like the idea of regional parliaments, as long as they were proper regions that people actually identified with. You could have just four: the North, the Midlands, the Westcountry and the South East.
I have some sympathy for this position, but you'd need London separate from SE
My personal preference would be for proper (ie pre 1974) beefed up counties.
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
I quite like the idea of regional parliaments, as long as they were proper regions that people actually identified with. You could have just four: the North, the Midlands, the Westcountry and the South East.
East Anglians do not identify with Midlands or SE
I thought a lot of people commute from Ipswich and Cambridge to London on a daily basis? You can carve them off if needed, although it would be a tiny population region.
Norwich has commuters too, but then so does Lincoln and Peterborough etc etc. You could make a convincing Eastern Region out of everything costal from Humber to Essex and include Cambridgeshire. The East is very different to the Home Counties, it's rural, agrarian and aloof
Final electorate figures for Broxtowe in case anyone is interested - 71764 (virtually unchanged), of whom 13246 are postal voters (of whom most voted last week). Last time, the winning mark was just over 20,000 - with fewer LDs but more UKIP this time, I expect it'll be somewhere similar, but perhaps a bit higher since there's really a lot of interest - turnout will probably be 55000 or so (71% last time). If we can get 75% of the promise out, we should be OK.
Mr Palmer how have you been occupying yourself since 2010?
I had my biggest bet of the election yesterday, Farage to win S Thanet at EVS.. hard not to make it value when you've backed EVS -6.5!
Farage at Evens was a great & wondrous price. Had to take some of that myself !
We'll just have to seriously disagree on that one. UKIP are very evidently heading south and this is likely to continue as minds are further concentrated over the few remaining days leading up to the GE.
It's a far better bet than 284.5- 10-11 Conservatives.
Really? In which direction do you mean?
You tipped this up the same time Dave was at 1.7 or so in PM after GE market. Sub 285 means he's out, that was my specific issue with the tip I'm afraid.
Can anyone remember to before the last election, the mantra was to take the best figure for the Tories and the worst for Labour across the polls. Was this disproved?
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
In that situation, I wonder if Miliband's party would allow him to form a government, given its clear suicidality for Labour.
Labour's best interest (not Ed's) would be in sitting back, and letting Cameron flail around, trying to form a minority government, which would soon fall (over the EU ref?). Meanwhile Labour get rid of their loser leader, and find someone with more charm for the swiftly ensuing 2nd election.
Result: Labour win, as the Tories fight over Europe or whatever.
So Ed's personal ambitions might be in opposition to Labour's wider interests.
I suspect that the party will be split and it will not be able to whip its full strength against the Queen's speech. You are right: it's a political suicide vest.
Which specific Labour MPs do you think will be standing up and voting for a Tory Queen's Speech, or letting people say they got a Tory government because they couldn't be arsed to show up for the vote?
Can anyone remember to before the last election, the mantra was to take the best figure for the Tories and the worst for Labour across the polls. Was this disproved?
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
I quite like the idea of regional parliaments, as long as they were proper regions that people actually identified with. You could have just four: the North, the Midlands, the Westcountry and the South East.
East Anglians do not identify with Midlands or SE
I thought a lot of people commute from Ipswich and Cambridge to London on a daily basis? You can carve them off if needed, although it would be a tiny population region.
The US has no problems with the idea of having separate governance for entities as small as Rhode Island and Wyoming and as large as Alaska and California. East Anglia has a distinct culture of its own [INSERT JOKE HERE] and should not be bundled up with other areas for administrative convenience.
Can anyone remember to before the last election, the mantra was to take the best figure for the Tories and the worst for Labour across the polls. Was this disproved?
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
In that situation, I wonder if Miliband's party would allow him to form a government, given its clear suicidality for Labour.
Labour's best interest (not Ed's) would be in sitting back, and letting Cameron flail around, trying to form a minority government, which would soon fall (over the EU ref?). Meanwhile Labour get rid of their loser leader, and find someone with more charm for the swiftly ensuing 2nd election.
Result: Labour win, as the Tories fight over Europe or whatever.
So Ed's personal ambitions might be in opposition to Labour's wider interests.
Cameron could call Milibands bluff, resign, then he would be forced to make it work..
In fact that would be a smart move by the tories, and I expect Cameron wouldn't want to hang around in that situation.
Being in government at the moment does give you some advantages.
Likewise. Cameron's not stupid, he's done his time in the top job and would want to do the right thing in resigning if his party have clearly gone backwards.
The last thing he'd want is to try and cobble together an unstable and unwilling coalition of abstainers propping up a minority government - better to allow the party to select a new leader to fight the inevitable second election.
As @SeanT says, eloquently as always, what is good for Ed is not what's good for Labour. I can well see Ed try and make the mess work, but he'll be completely outplayed by Salmond and the LDs a few months down the line.
Comments
My caveat with Populus is that they've been stuck in a range of 0-3% Labour leads for months. Either voters made up their minds months ago, and nothing has changed them since, or there is something wrong with the Populus panel. Populus are the only regular pollster not to have shown a Conservative lead in 9 months.
Thanks. Yes, I think whoever wins is in for a torrid time. If a weak Conservative led government does stay in office I think they'll be in big trouble come the 2020GE.
15 April 10%
11 March 13%
10 Feb 9%
13 Jan 11%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_United_Kingdom_general_election#2015
Blue Moon Rising
That said, the prevailing wind direction will mean that, as is normal, the west and north are more likely to be wet. @Pulpstar likes to say that he expects the north-west to be a fertile area for Labour gains, so if you really think this will be a factor betting against Labour in the marginals there, rather than in London, would be the way to go.
Blue Rinse Mooning
To go six to one on the blues
"Lord Ashcroft said his findings suggested the Conservatives could have benefited from AV.
This view that the system opposed so strongly by the Conservatives - David Cameron called it "undemocratic, obscure, unfair and crazy" - could have helped the party is backed by Peter Kellner, president of pollster YouGov.
"In Tory-Labour marginals, second preferences of UKIP voters would have gone more to the Tories than to Labour - so if you've got seats where Labour takes them by 1,500 to 2,000 votes, the Tories might have taken them," he said.
"If AV had gone through, we would now be looking at the clear possibility of an outright Tory victory."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32341420
I'm sticking with c285. I simply do not believe they will be near wiped out in Scotland. Big losses to SNP sure, but no wipe out. The Scots are teasing the pollsters and taunting Scottish Labour politicians for good measure too.
With the Tories in my view incapable of getting past 270-odd, Ed will become PM with just the acquiescence of the SNP, he won't need to cobble together every last vote from the assorted other lefties.
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
In South Itchen the Labour candidate is a privately educated oxford ppe graduate and the Tory is a local councillor with a forces background who is a local hero after foiling a shooting in 2011.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13022096
It's just as likely Labour will win some surprise seats as well. Despite the SNP strengths in Scotland Labour are bound to win a few as the swing against will not be uniform.
It looks like a Red Sunset to me whatever happens. Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of traitorous luvvies
The sun is more likely to shine on London as the weekend wears on, so there's no rush to form a new government for the all-important "sun shines on PM entering Number Ten" photos.
But they did this to benefit themselves not me, they hate me, and they utterly f>cked the country and impoverished a lot of people who hadn't much in the way of wealth or prospects to start with. So I'd be appalled at their getting back in.
Before Big Bang, to be a banker was to be well off but was, in many ways including salary level, similar to being a doctor or lawyer or university professor.
Big Bang and the explosion of US-type investment bankers with attendant salaries changed all that.
Mr. Tokyo, also worth noting Labour are completely incompetent at regicide. Look how they screwed up axing Brown, and wibbled for years about Miliband, before leaving it too late and then finally bottling it.
To reach 285 seats, they'd need to make 58 gains, which I just don't see.
I'm not sure the Tories/Labour could bury their differences to do it. But if one was PM, and the other not, perhaps the one in opposition could break ranks and back the government.
Depends whether they want short-term partisan gain or not. Another way of doing it might be a Tory bill, that the LDs back and then 20 Labour rebels break ranks, enough to get it through.
What this short campaign has proved is UKIP vote is very resilient and hasn't dropped more than 1 point in 6 weeks. Nigel on the TV tonight might help too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32531750
Should be about 04:30 http://election.pressassociation.com/Declaration_times/general_2015_by_time.php
All a bit academic, as neither the sexist taxes nor the inflation nor the interest rates of the 1970s are coming back any time soon.
Ben Page, Ipsos MORI @benatipsosmori
@tmlbk @leightonvw @ncpoliticsuk exactly. And our Con lead actually has high prev lab
It's like having a Ministry for Tall Dwarves.
In fact that would be a smart move by the tories, and I expect Cameron wouldn't want to hang around in that situation.
Being in government at the moment does give you some advantages.
First Burnham, then Abbott.
http://order-order.com/2015/04/30/tutting-diane-abbott-tories-harp-on-about-mid-staffs/
Given the forecast complete deadlock, red and blue teams could find a few common interests surely?
EV4EL, Barnett formula, boundary review/reduction to 600 MPs - even Trident renewal, Royal Commission on HoL reform etc.
Personally I'd expect the spread-betting firm to be within +/- 10 seats for both parties, i.e. 257 - 277 seats for Labour and 277 - 297 seats for the Tories.
Of course there could be a significant late swing, but if so I believe this is far more likely to favour the Tories than Labour, in accordance with the immortal words of Hilaire Belloc:
".... And always keep a-hold of Nurse for fear of finding something worse"
Greens at 8 or higher and Labour at 30 or lower equals Green Gain Norwich South
With 250-260 seats Labour can oppose a Tory-led government fighting constitutional wars on two fronts and unsure of its ability to pass legislation, while at the same time looking for a new, more credible leader. That makes much more sense than trying to govern with the help of assorted parties with very different agendas.
I could very well be missing something obvious but my main exposure to interest rates comes through my mortgage which I will have for only another 10 years or so; so my horizon is short.
Nigel Farage in Aylesbury making a speech on a statue getting cheers for opposing HS2
UKIP even have a shop for this seat - sadly it's in a mini-parade of 4 shops in Weston Turville village and not the high streets of Aylesbury.... weird location, I nearly pranged my car when I drove past it recently so incongruous does it look.
What I don't believe is that all of those SNP inclined Labour voters will go through with it on May 7th.
My personal preference would be for proper (ie pre 1974) beefed up counties.
You could make a convincing Eastern Region out of everything costal from Humber to Essex and include Cambridgeshire. The East is very different to the Home Counties, it's rural, agrarian and aloof
They are a shoo in for second in NS, and the students are in town for the election....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8667801.stm
The last thing he'd want is to try and cobble together an unstable and unwilling coalition of abstainers propping up a minority government - better to allow the party to select a new leader to fight the inevitable second election.
As @SeanT says, eloquently as always, what is good for Ed is not what's good for Labour. I can well see Ed try and make the mess work, but he'll be completely outplayed by Salmond and the LDs a few months down the line.