If UKIP won Heywood & Middleton after missing out by 600 votes in October, and their SP was 6/1 it would probably go down as one of the great obvious but ignored bets
By-elections are the best chance a challenging party has of winning, if they miss that then it's over.
Voters have been turned off in droves by Nigel Farage during the election campaign, a new poll claims.
The Ipsos MORI survey for the Standard found 38 per cent of people had developed a less favourable view of the Ukip leader in recent weeks, compared with 20 per cent whose opinion of him had improved. The split gave Mr Farage, right, who remains extremely popular among his own supporters, a net rating of -18.
The poll found 28 per cent of people believed the Conservative Party and David Cameron had run the most negative campaign, while 23 per cent said Labour. But the Tories were credited with having the most effective campaign, ahead of Labour by 17 per cent to 15.
No question: Farage has had a bad campaign. He says he is ill and I believe him: he looks sweaty, and tired, and out-of-sorts, trying to win the election all by himself, and abjectly failing. The man is knackered. That likeable brio has gone, for now.
What is surprising is how resilient the UKIP polling has been, despite this. It shows that there is a future for UKIP after Farage, it also makes you wonder how well they might have done, if Farage had been match fit.
I don't think anyone would have expected the Conservatives to be leading, with UKIP on c.13% on average.
UKIP look like polling about 4m votes next week.
In Feb 1974 the Liberals got over 6 million votes and polled over 19% - and they got 14 seats.
Although the leading parties in 1974 had a much greater share of the vote than either conservative or labour have today. That makes the threshold for seats much lower.
Still, UKIP today suffers from "alliance disease", with their vote too evenly spread. It will probably take a couple of election cycles to change that.
If UKIP won Heywood & Middleton after missing out by 600 votes in October, and their SP was 6/1 it would probably go down as one of the great obvious but ignored bets
By-elections are the best chance a challenging party has of winning, if they miss that then it's over.
One simple piece of simple arithmetic relating to the general Election continues to intrigue me - I had thought that it would have resolved itself before now but it hasn't.
If one takes Sporting's current mid-spread price of 289 for Tory seats and compare this with their tally of 306 seats in 2010, this means overall that they are expected to lose a net17 seats. Adjusting this for the, say, 14 seats they are expected to gain from the LibDems, the 3 seats they will probably lose to UKIP and the 1 seat they will almost certainly olse to the SNP, this means they stand to gain a net 10 seats from "other parties" (note the tidy arithmetic, even if you don't agree with it exactly). Combining this net gain, with their overall expected net loss must logically mean that they are expected to lose 27 seats to Labour (i.e. 17 seats + 10 seats).
That being the case, why is it that some of the best brains on PB.com, incl OGH, antifrank and a number of other respected punters seem unwilling to even consider the possibility of the Tories losing fewer than between 40 - 60 seats to Labour, believing in fact that there is a reasonable prospect of them losing a good few more than that, even up to 70 or more seats?
I have been saying for a while now that there should be some decent value to be had by backing the Tories to win those seats ranked as being between say their 30th - 50th most vulnerable.
This is what the Spread-Betting and GE seats model forecasters are screaming IS the case, but very few appear to be listening. Am I missing something here?
SPIN is behaving now like it did 2010. Until yesterday, it was logical. What changed it ? Miliband's trip on the stage ?
UKIP has also gone up two ticks.
If by trip on the stage you mean tripping his tongue denying Labour ever spent too much, then yes. Plus Cameron performed strongly in a slot immediately following Eastenders.
If UKIP won Heywood & Middleton after missing out by 600 votes in October, and their SP was 6/1 it would probably go down as one of the great obvious but ignored bets
By-elections are the best chance a challenging party has of winning, if they miss that then it's over.
No problem, glad to be of help. Another little fact that may help you - Scotland is behaving a bit differently to the rest of Great Britain at the moment.
Jeez, it's knife edge now, isn't it? I know this is hardly news, but. Jeez.
Tory lead of 1-2%: Ed is PM (in a danse macabre with the Nats) Tory lead of 4-5% (or up, obv): Dave is PM Tory lead of 3%: Dave is probably PM, depending on the position of Neptune in Aquarius
If I were a Labour long-term strategist, I'd be praying for a Dave lead of 3. Let Cameron briefly be an incredibly weak PM, and avoid the horrible Miliband-Sturgeon mesalliance, that Political Wedding from Hell
I think the final result will be around 5% tory lead (don't think we are there at this moment with polling - perhaps 2-3% now) but I am building in trajectory to my prediction.
Also think apathy and voter registration issues offer more downside to Labour which isn't necessarily reflected in the polls.
I reckon that will give us: -
Tories 300 ish 15-20 net losses to Labour, slightly less net gains from LD Lab 245 ish 43 net losses to SNP - 25-30 gains from tories and LD LD 20 ish SNP 57
Cam minority with some minor concession to LD and DUP to get through the QS and Finance bills.
One simple piece of simple arithmetic relating to the general Election continues to intrigue me - I had thought that it would have resolved itself before now but it hasn't.
If one takes Sporting's current mid-spread price of 289 for Tory seats and compare this with their tally of 306 seats in 2010, this means overall that they are expected to lose a net17 seats. Adjusting this for the, say, 14 seats they are expected to gain from the LibDems, the 3 seats they will probably lose to UKIP and the 1 seat they will almost certainly olse to the SNP, this means they stand to gain a net 10 seats from "other parties" (note the tidy arithmetic, even if you don't agree with it exactly). Combining this net gain, with their overall expected net loss must logically mean that they are expected to lose 27 seats to Labour (i.e. 17 seats + 10 seats).
That being the case, why is it that some of the best brains on PB.com, incl OGH, antifrank and a number of other respected punters seem unwilling to even consider the possibility of the Tories losing fewer than between 40 - 60 seats to Labour, believing in fact that there is a reasonable prospect of them losing a good few more than that, even up to 70 or more seats?
I have been saying for a while now that there should be some decent value to be had by backing the Tories to win those seats ranked as being between say their 30th - 50th most vulnerable.
This is what the Spread-Betting and GE seats model forecasters are screaming IS the case, but very few appear to be listening. Am I missing something here?
I'm chock full of Tory constituency bets. Are you ?
If UKIP won Heywood & Middleton after missing out by 600 votes in October, and their SP was 6/1 it would probably go down as one of the great obvious but ignored bets
They also "won" or "tied" the SYPCC in Rotherham and Rother Valley
People are just assuming Labour will drearily hold on up North, but who knows?
over 2.5 seats 10/11 pfff
Mcinnes was a no show twice at one of my Mrs shows in her constituency recently, despite having tickets reserved both nights. Very poor considering the kids involved in the shows.
One simple piece of simple arithmetic relating to the general Election continues to intrigue me - I had thought that it would have resolved itself before now but it hasn't.
If one takes Sporting's current mid-spread price of 289 for Tory seats and compare this with their tally of 306 seats in 2010, this means overall that they are expected to lose a net17 seats. Adjusting this for the, say, 14 seats they are expected to gain from the LibDems, the 3 seats they will probably lose to UKIP and the 1 seat they will almost certainly olse to the SNP, this means they stand to gain a net 10 seats from "other parties" (note the tidy arithmetic, even if you don't agree with it exactly). Combining this net gain, with their overall expected net loss must logically mean that they are expected to lose 27 seats to Labour (i.e. 17 seats + 10 seats).
That being the case, why is it that some of the best brains on PB.com, incl OGH, antifrank and a number of other respected punters seem unwilling to even consider the possibility of the Tories losing fewer than between 40 - 60 seats to Labour, believing in fact that there is a reasonable prospect of them losing a good few more than that, even up to 70 or more seats?
I have been saying for a while now that there should be some decent value to be had by backing the Tories to win those seats ranked as being between say their 30th - 50th most vulnerable.
This is what the Spread-Betting and GE seats model forecasters are screaming IS the case, but very few appear to be listening. Am I missing something here?
I think people are looking for a repeat of the SPIN disaster in 2010.
If UKIP won Heywood & Middleton after missing out by 600 votes in October, and their SP was 6/1 it would probably go down as one of the great obvious but ignored bets
By-elections are the best chance a challenging party has of winning, if they miss that then it's over.
No problem, glad to be of help. Another little fact that may help you - Scotland is behaving a bit differently to the rest of Great Britain at the moment.
" Though Ed Miliband’s approval ratings have risen over the campaign, Cameron retains a clear lead as the best available Prime Minister. But it seems to me that if one of your problems as a party is that some of the voters you need think you are “nasty”, then launching personal attacks against your opponent is not the best way to capitalise on one of the few advantages you have. What they needed to do, and what I think they are very belatedly trying to begin to do, is to show voters why strong leadership makes a difference and why it should matter to them who occupies Numbers 10 and 11 Downing Street."
Jeez, it's knife edge now, isn't it? I know this is hardly news, but. Jeez.
Tory lead of 1-2%: Ed is PM (in a danse macabre with the Nats) Tory lead of 4-5% (or up, obv): Dave is PM Tory lead of 3%: Dave is probably PM, depending on the position of Neptune in Aquarius
If I were a Labour long-term strategist, I'd be praying for a Dave lead of 3. Let Cameron briefly be an incredibly weak PM, and avoid the horrible Miliband-Sturgeon mesalliance, that Political Wedding from Hell
I think the final result will be around 5% tory lead (don't think we are there at this moment with polling - perhaps 2-3% now) but I am building in trajectory to my prediction.
Also think apathy and voter registration issues offer more downside to Labour which isn't necessarily reflected in the polls.
I reckon that will give us: -
Tories 300 ish 15-20 net losses to Labour, slightly less net gains from LD Lab 245 ish 43 net losses to SNP - 25-30 gains from tories and LD LD 20 ish SNP 57
Cam minority with some minor concession to LD and DUP to get through the QS and Finance bills.
Why is Ed Miliband still favourite to become PM after GE ?
One simple piece of simple arithmetic relating to the general Election continues to intrigue me - I had thought that it would have resolved itself before now but it hasn't.
If one takes Sporting's current mid-spread price of 289 for Tory seats and compare this with their tally of 306 seats in 2010, this means overall that they are expected to lose a net17 seats. Adjusting this for the, say, 14 seats they are expected to gain from the LibDems, the 3 seats they will probably lose to UKIP and the 1 seat they will almost certainly olse to the SNP, this means they stand to gain a net 10 seats from "other parties" (note the tidy arithmetic, even if you don't agree with it exactly). Combining this net gain, with their overall expected net loss must logically mean that they are expected to lose 27 seats to Labour (i.e. 17 seats + 10 seats).
That being the case, why is it that some of the best brains on PB.com, incl OGH, antifrank and a number of other respected punters seem unwilling to even consider the possibility of the Tories losing fewer than between 40 - 60 seats to Labour, believing in fact that there is a reasonable prospect of them losing a good few more than that, even up to 70 or more seats?
I have been saying for a while now that there should be some decent value to be had by backing the Tories to win those seats ranked as being between say their 30th - 50th most vulnerable.
This is what the Spread-Betting and GE seats model forecasters are screaming IS the case, but very few appear to be listening. Am I missing something here?
Good analysis but for me it is SPIN that is wrong and over estimating the Tories. On the swings seen on pretty much all of the polling to date it is very hard to see less than 40 Lab/Tory gains. Of course if Yougov are right it will be a lot more.
Applying your logic SPIN currently has the Tories 13-14 too high. It is of course a forecast not a poll and it is possible that things will continue to move to the Tories to end up where they forecast. But I doubt it.
4-9 Nick Palmer - Surely that is buying money from what I have read on here.
Is Nick allowed to bet on himself? Or he take a bit of 2-1 on Anna as hedge against lost expenses.
I have a 2-1 charity bet with Square Root - if I win, he gives £20 to Oxfam, if I lose, I give £40 to Lupus. If everything else was equal - no incumbency bonus or antipathy, no local issues, etc. - Broxtowe would stay Tory on a national lead of 6.5%. DYOR on whether the various special factors make the odds too generous or too tight!
I did bet on myself in 1997, to cover the cost of moving back to the UK if I won (I was on long odds with a 10K majority to overcome). Haven't done it since, except for charity bets.
One simple piece of simple arithmetic relating to the general Election continues to intrigue me - I had thought that it would have resolved itself before now but it hasn't.
If one takes Sporting's current mid-spread price of 289 for Tory seats and compare this with their tally of 306 seats in 2010, this means overall that they are expected to lose a net17 seats. Adjusting this for the, say, 14 seats they are expected to gain from the LibDems, the 3 seats they will probably lose to UKIP and the 1 seat they will almost certainly olse to the SNP, this means they stand to gain a net 10 seats from "other parties" (note the tidy arithmetic, even if you don't agree with it exactly). Combining this net gain, with their overall expected net loss must logically mean that they are expected to lose 27 seats to Labour (i.e. 17 seats + 10 seats).
That being the case, why is it that some of the best brains on PB.com, incl OGH, antifrank and a number of other respected punters seem unwilling to even consider the possibility of the Tories losing fewer than between 40 - 60 seats to Labour, believing in fact that there is a reasonable prospect of them losing a good few more than that, even up to 70 or more seats?
I have been saying for a while now that there should be some decent value to be had by backing the Tories to win those seats ranked as being between say their 30th - 50th most vulnerable.
This is what the Spread-Betting and GE seats model forecasters are screaming IS the case, but very few appear to be listening. Am I missing something here?
I'm chock full of Tory constituency bets. Are you ?
I've had around 6 or 7 modest bets where the Tories were priced at between 2.5 - 3.0 second favourites in the 30th - 50th most vulnerable seats. I feel I should have done more, but have followed antifrank 's advice more or less slavishly and of course he was spectacularly successful in spotting the seismic shift in the Scottish vote more or less before anyone else.
If you want to understand what is happening to Scottish Labour, look at the sense of entitlement draining from this SLAB MP. The panic is palpable. Just 10 minutes long
Jeez, it's knife edge now, isn't it? I know this is hardly news, but. Jeez.
Tory lead of 1-2%: Ed is PM (in a danse macabre with the Nats) Tory lead of 4-5% (or up, obv): Dave is PM Tory lead of 3%: Dave is probably PM, depending on the position of Neptune in Aquarius
If I were a Labour long-term strategist, I'd be praying for a Dave lead of 3. Let Cameron briefly be an incredibly weak PM, and avoid the horrible Miliband-Sturgeon mesalliance, that Political Wedding from Hell
I think the final result will be around 5% tory lead (don't think we are there at this moment with polling - perhaps 2-3% now) but I am building in trajectory to my prediction.
Also think apathy and voter registration issues offer more downside to Labour which isn't necessarily reflected in the polls.
I reckon that will give us: -
Tories 300 ish 15-20 net losses to Labour, slightly less net gains from LD Lab 245 ish 43 net losses to SNP - 25-30 gains from tories and LD LD 20 ish SNP 57
Cam minority with some minor concession to LD and DUP to get through the QS and Finance bills.
Why is Ed Miliband still favourite to become PM after GE ?
Perhaps the bookies don't think the tories will finish 5% ahead.
2-3% and No 10 is back in play for Ed, albeit with a rather messy alliance.
SPIN is behaving now like it did 2010. Until yesterday, it was logical. What changed it ? Miliband's trip on the stage ?
UKIP has also gone up two ticks.
For me it was the feel of the audience. They may have disliked and disagreed with Cameron but they disliked and disagreed with Miliband and additionally had absolutely zero respect for him.
What I hope is going to happen is like a riff on Ashcroft Q1 and Q2: "are you going to vote Labour?" and "thinking now about ed miliband, are you going to vote Labour?" The polls have asked Q1; the voters will answer Q2.
Tom Clarke comes across as a complacent if jovial fool on the John Harris piece. He seem to think that telling people to remember to vote Labour means they will vote Labour. As soon as his back is turned they turn out to be not as reliable as he assumes.
@Greenwich_Floater - that seems a decent prediction to me. I would put the SNP lower in seats; I think they will end up between 45-50 and thus uptick Labour a bit.
My own prediction near the beginning of the campaign was: Conservative 37%, Labour 32%, UKIP 11%, Lib Dems 10%, Greens 5%, Others 5%. I also guessed about 319 for the Conservatives in seat terms.
I would perhaps uptick UKIP by a percent, Greens down a percent, Conservatives down a percent but not many changes. I also think the Conservatives will end up pretty similar in seat terms to what they currently have.
Jeez, it's knife edge now, isn't it? I know this is hardly news, but. Jeez.
Tory lead of 1-2%: Ed is PM (in a danse macabre with the Nats) Tory lead of 4-5% (or up, obv): Dave is PM Tory lead of 3%: Dave is probably PM, depending on the position of Neptune in Aquarius
If I were a Labour long-term strategist, I'd be praying for a Dave lead of 3. Let Cameron briefly be an incredibly weak PM, and avoid the horrible Miliband-Sturgeon mesalliance, that Political Wedding from Hell
I think the final result will be around 5% tory lead (don't think we are there at this moment with polling - perhaps 2-3% now) but I am building in trajectory to my prediction.
Also think apathy and voter registration issues offer more downside to Labour which isn't necessarily reflected in the polls.
I reckon that will give us: -
Tories 300 ish 15-20 net losses to Labour, slightly less net gains from LD Lab 245 ish 43 net losses to SNP - 25-30 gains from tories and LD LD 20 ish SNP 57
Cam minority with some minor concession to LD and DUP to get through the QS and Finance bills.
Why is Ed Miliband still favourite to become PM after GE ?
Perhaps the bookies don't think the tories will finish 5% ahead.
2-3% and No 10 is back in play for Ed, albeit with a rather messy alliance.
Nah they're happy to be taking money on Miliband at 4-6 is all
"When Nicola saw the breadth of her domain, she wept for there were not more wards to conquer" - Partial apologies to Plutarch (for he never really wrote that - as any fule kno)
Ian Watson covering closed nature of Miliband's 'public' events - full of activists but closed meetings.
Some opponents waiting to ambush him, but safety concerns rolled out re walkabouts, meeting public. Followed by press bus, whole thing designed to stop prat falls, confrontations - Mrs Duffy or War of Jennifer's Ear or waiting times for cancer treatments et al.
Tom Clarke comes across as a complacent if jovial fool on the John Harris piece. He seem to think that telling people to remember to vote Labour means they will vote Labour. As soon as his back is turned they turn out to be not as reliable as he assumes.
The video also highlights something people don't talk about because it seems counter-intuitive.
Tom Clarke comes across as a complacent if jovial fool on the John Harris piece. He seem to think that telling people to remember to vote Labour means they will vote Labour. As soon as his back is turned they turn out to be not as reliable as he assumes.
The video also highlights something people don't talk about because it seems counter-intuitive.
Tom Clarke comes across as a complacent if jovial fool on the John Harris piece. He seem to think that telling people to remember to vote Labour means they will vote Labour. As soon as his back is turned they turn out to be not as reliable as he assumes.
The video also highlights something people don't talk about because it seems counter-intuitive.
Ian Watson covering closed nature of Miliband's 'public' events - full of activists but closed meetings.
This point was made during QT last night. In closed Labour meetings Ed's "Obama" line goes down a storm. With a less partisan audience it didn't get the cheer he was expecting
Conservatives 2-5 Portsmouth North Labour target 114 ! Conservatives Vale of Glamorgan 2-5 Lab target 64 (And a very decent by-election for the Conservatives there recently)
I predicted that pollsters will somehow by pure coincidence converge their numbers prior to polling day again.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 60m 60 minutes ago Today's Populus has methodology change. Now reallocating DKs to party supported at GE10. On old approach LAB has 1% lead.
I'm expecting further methodology tweaks, Yougov has changed it too I think, they are no longer asking if people have voted already by post.
Tom Clarke comes across as embodying everything I detest about machine politics. It's all about tribe. 'We vote Labour round here'. 'You've been loyal to me'. Zip about content or policy or why to vote Labour. I hope the SNP crush him.
I have been saying for a while now that there should be some decent value to be had by backing the Tories to win those seats ranked as being between say their 30th - 50th most vulnerable.
Yes, plenty of value there IMO. Last time I looked, there was also similar value in backing Labour in safeish Labour seats. In both cases the constituency markets are out of line with the seat total markets.
Michael Gove prediction on Tories getting more seats than SLAB, he's keeping it secret as to which seats, I believe he was in Aberdeen and Edinburgh a few days ago.
I didn't realise the SNP making Ed the PM stunt was a Tory effort, I just glimpsed it earlier and thought it was a SNP stunt !!
Bizarrely having spent the last few months wiping SLAB out in Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon will probably now spend a fair bit of time trying to bolster up Ed's position in England by trading on her trust ratings and trying to reassure Labour voters they have nothing to fear from the SNP.
Michael Gove prediction on Tories getting more seats than SLAB, he's keeping it secret as to which seats, I believe he was in Aberdeen and Edinburgh a few days ago.
I didn't realise the SNP making Ed the PM stunt was a Tory effort, I just glimpsed it earlier and thought it was a SNP stunt !!
Bizarrely having spent the last few months wiping SLAB out in Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon will probably now spend a fair bit of time trying to bolster up Ed's position in England by trading on her trust ratings and trying to reassure Labour voters they have nothing to fear from the SNP.
Something deeply creepy and unsettling about activists in masks. Look like they're about to do a bank job or something.
Tom Clarke comes across as embodying everything I detest about machine politics. It's all about tribe. 'We vote Labour round here'. 'You've been loyal to me'. Zip about content or policy or why to vote Labour. I hope the SNP crush him.
There are lots of Labour MPs like that in Scotland. Probably inevitable they'd get lazy/complacent when they win most of the seats pretty easily for so long.
Does partially explain the collapse in support I guess - when a genuine challenge came, they no longer knew how to fight.
A point that John Harris made in that film is that Labour may need to change its name in Scotland and he skips over New labour and onto Modern Labour.
But may be the problem is that SLAB never really embraced New Labour with the dominance of Gordon Brown etc they kept New Labour on the sidelines. Ironically their new Leader is from New Labour but he seems incapable of changing SLAB.
Whew! My head is buzzing but still in one piece after reading that. No wonder labour is in trouble.
The right leading papers are slamming Ed after last night. To be expected but he seems to have suffered. Will it matter? Is the final definitive answer that Cameron played a blinder with the debate issue? At least its broken the inevitable ratchet effect that the media would have had if the same debates as last time had gone ahead.
Michael Gove prediction on Tories getting more seats than SLAB, he's keeping it secret as to which seats, I believe he was in Aberdeen and Edinburgh a few days ago.
I didn't realise the SNP making Ed the PM stunt was a Tory effort, I just glimpsed it earlier and thought it was a SNP stunt !!
Bizarrely having spent the last few months wiping SLAB out in Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon will probably now spend a fair bit of time trying to bolster up Ed's position in England by trading on her trust ratings and trying to reassure Labour voters they have nothing to fear from the SNP.
Something deeply creepy and unsettling about activists in masks. Look like they're about to do a bank job or something.
Tom Clarke comes across as embodying everything I detest about machine politics. It's all about tribe. 'We vote Labour round here'. 'You've been loyal to me'. Zip about content or policy or why to vote Labour. I hope the SNP crush him.
There are lots of Labour MPs like that in Scotland. Probably inevitable they'd get lazy/complacent when they win most of the seats pretty easily for so long.
Does partially explain the collapse in support I guess - when a genuine challenge came, they no longer knew how to fight.
Well when you are in one of the safest seats in the whole of the UK, it's perhaps understandable.
Dundee East and Western Isles will have the look of "indomitable bastion" after the GE.
Michael Gove prediction on Tories getting more seats than SLAB, he's keeping it secret as to which seats, I believe he was in Aberdeen and Edinburgh a few days ago.
I didn't realise the SNP making Ed the PM stunt was a Tory effort, I just glimpsed it earlier and thought it was a SNP stunt !!
Bizarrely having spent the last few months wiping SLAB out in Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon will probably now spend a fair bit of time trying to bolster up Ed's position in England by trading on her trust ratings and trying to reassure Labour voters they have nothing to fear from the SNP.
It is I would think important to talk the tories up in Scotland.
BTW its not ''the SNP making Ed the PM stunt'' its, ''the SNP making Ed the stunt PM '' (as in stunt double) Supporting Labour in their rule of England is of course totally shallow and bogus of the SNP.
Conservatives 2-5 Portsmouth North Labour target 114 ! Conservatives Vale of Glamorgan 2-5 Lab target 64 (And a very decent by-election for the Conservatives there recently)
Odds on a Tory win in Wyre Forest = 1.53. Normally so safe that it is isn't on the list of 125 Labour target seats! (Or create an arb.)
The odds may have been set when UKIP and NHA were a threat.
Just had an amusing lunch with our window cleaners - they clean the sea spray from the windows of our Victorian building and we give them a cold lunch (as well as payment) - the business owner and his three employees.
After munching of paninis and slurps of tea, the owner asked if I watched the debate last night and replied not as was out. He said, "that plonker Miliband may have taught economics - looked him up - but obvious he has never used them; didn't even know the difference between a small business and Tesco!!
We're having a better year, things are looking up, will be able to take the wife and kids away for a holiday this summer and the lads (his employees) will be able to afford a week in a van (static caravan).
You know the big house down the road overlooking the sea (about 3 miles away), well its been bought by one of those non-doms - not there very often but we get to clean all the windows every two weeks and the whole inside before they come to stay - good work for us. And that tw*t Miliband wants to tax them out of the country - plain he's never run and struggled with a small business. If we don't get enough work, have to spend less - bank wont give us a loan. Obvious he's never been used to a budget - what a p***k and bet he's no use with that either!"
Michael Gove prediction on Tories getting more seats than SLAB, he's keeping it secret as to which seats, I believe he was in Aberdeen and Edinburgh a few days ago.
I didn't realise the SNP making Ed the PM stunt was a Tory effort, I just glimpsed it earlier and thought it was a SNP stunt !!
Bizarrely having spent the last few months wiping SLAB out in Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon will probably now spend a fair bit of time trying to bolster up Ed's position in England by trading on her trust ratings and trying to reassure Labour voters they have nothing to fear from the SNP.
Reminds me of Heseltine being interviewed on North West Tonight in 1997 a week before the Blair landslide confidently projecting that not only would the Tories hold key NW marginals they were looking to win back seats lost by Major in 1992 - citing Pendle, Rossendale and Hyndburn as examples. Think Labour held all by over 10k majorities.
It wasn't convincing then, and Gove is certainly no Hezza!
Comments
Still, UKIP today suffers from "alliance disease", with their vote too evenly spread. It will probably take a couple of election cycles to change that.
If one takes Sporting's current mid-spread price of 289 for Tory seats and compare this with their tally of 306 seats in 2010, this means overall that they are expected to lose a net17 seats. Adjusting this for the, say, 14 seats they are expected to gain from the LibDems, the 3 seats they will probably lose to UKIP and the 1 seat they will almost certainly olse to the SNP, this means they stand to gain a net 10 seats from "other parties" (note the tidy arithmetic, even if you don't agree with it exactly).
Combining this net gain, with their overall expected net loss must logically mean that they are expected to lose 27 seats to Labour (i.e. 17 seats + 10 seats).
That being the case, why is it that some of the best brains on PB.com, incl OGH, antifrank and a number of other respected punters seem unwilling to even consider the possibility of the Tories losing fewer than between 40 - 60 seats to Labour, believing in fact that there is a reasonable prospect of them losing a good few more than that, even up to 70 or more seats?
I have been saying for a while now that there should be some decent value to be had by backing the Tories to win those seats ranked as being between say their 30th - 50th most vulnerable.
This is what the Spread-Betting and GE seats model forecasters are screaming IS the case, but very few appear to be listening. Am I missing something here?
It may not change much, but it could.
Another little fact that may help you - Scotland is behaving a bit differently to the rest of Great Britain at the moment.
Also think apathy and voter registration issues offer more downside to Labour which isn't necessarily reflected in the polls.
I reckon that will give us: -
Tories 300 ish 15-20 net losses to Labour, slightly less net gains from LD
Lab 245 ish 43 net losses to SNP - 25-30 gains from tories and LD
LD 20 ish
SNP 57
Cam minority with some minor concession to LD and DUP to get through the QS and Finance bills.
CONS rising
LAB falling
A speech well worth reading...
" Though Ed Miliband’s approval ratings have risen over the campaign, Cameron retains a clear lead as the best available Prime Minister. But it seems to me that if one of your problems as a party is that some of the voters you need think you are “nasty”, then launching personal attacks against your opponent is not the best way to capitalise on one of the few advantages you have. What they needed to do, and what I think they are very belatedly trying to begin to do, is to show voters why strong leadership makes a difference and why it should matter to them who occupies Numbers 10 and 11 Downing Street."
Applying your logic SPIN currently has the Tories 13-14 too high. It is of course a forecast not a poll and it is possible that things will continue to move to the Tories to end up where they forecast. But I doubt it.
I did bet on myself in 1997, to cover the cost of moving back to the UK if I won (I was on long odds with a 10K majority to overcome). Haven't done it since, except for charity bets.
The 2010 comparison points to Tories being in the 270's range.
The way Tom Clarke gets told what he wants to hear then the reporter moves in and they basically say "nah, we're voting SNP" is hilarious.
2-3% and No 10 is back in play for Ed, albeit with a rather messy alliance.
What I hope is going to happen is like a riff on Ashcroft Q1 and Q2: "are you going to vote Labour?" and "thinking now about ed miliband, are you going to vote Labour?" The polls have asked Q1; the voters will answer Q2.
I know nothing about Aberconwy but I think it is Labour target 83 in err Wales which has barely moved since 2010.
4-9 is a great price here.
May 1st UK-Elect Forecast
As always, it includes detailed forecasts for every UK constituency.
My own prediction near the beginning of the campaign was: Conservative 37%, Labour 32%, UKIP 11%, Lib Dems 10%, Greens 5%, Others 5%. I also guessed about 319 for the Conservatives in seat terms.
I would perhaps uptick UKIP by a percent, Greens down a percent, Conservatives down a percent but not many changes. I also think the Conservatives will end up pretty similar in seat terms to what they currently have.
Some opponents waiting to ambush him, but safety concerns rolled out re walkabouts, meeting public. Followed by press bus, whole thing designed to stop prat falls, confrontations - Mrs Duffy or War of Jennifer's Ear or waiting times for cancer treatments et al.
Shy-SNP.
Conservatives Vale of Glamorgan 2-5 Lab target 64 (And a very decent by-election for the Conservatives there recently)
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 60m 60 minutes ago
Today's Populus has methodology change. Now reallocating DKs to party supported at GE10. On old approach LAB has 1% lead.
I'm expecting further methodology tweaks, Yougov has changed it too I think, they are no longer asking if people have voted already by post.
They are top price on alot !
And arbable with bookies that have a clue.
Where's the diversity?
At least in the boreal realms, we seem to have a new political term:
https://twitter.com/weegingerdug/status/593815144905453568
Now there's a hostage to fortune...
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2015/05/michael-gove-claims-tories-will-win-more-seats-in-scotland-than-labour/
I didn't realise the SNP making Ed the PM stunt was a Tory effort, I just glimpsed it earlier and thought it was a SNP stunt !!
Bizarrely having spent the last few months wiping SLAB out in Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon will probably now spend a fair bit of time trying to bolster up Ed's position in England by trading on her trust ratings and trying to reassure Labour voters they have nothing to fear from the SNP.
ARF!
Does partially explain the collapse in support I guess - when a genuine challenge came, they no longer knew how to fight.
The right leading papers are slamming Ed after last night. To be expected but he seems to have suffered. Will it matter?
Is the final definitive answer that Cameron played a blinder with the debate issue? At least its broken the inevitable ratchet effect that the media would have had if the same debates as last time had gone ahead.
Dundee East and Western Isles will have the look of "indomitable bastion" after the GE.
BTW its not ''the SNP making Ed the PM stunt'' its, ''the SNP making Ed the stunt PM '' (as in stunt double)
Supporting Labour in their rule of England is of course totally shallow and bogus of the SNP.
new thread
The odds may have been set when UKIP and NHA were a threat.
After munching of paninis and slurps of tea, the owner asked if I watched the debate last night and replied not as was out. He said, "that plonker Miliband may have taught economics - looked him up - but obvious he has never used them; didn't even know the difference between a small business and Tesco!!
We're having a better year, things are looking up, will be able to take the wife and kids away for a holiday this summer and the lads (his employees) will be able to afford a week in a van (static caravan).
You know the big house down the road overlooking the sea (about 3 miles away), well its been bought by one of those non-doms - not there very often but we get to clean all the windows every two weeks and the whole inside before they come to stay - good work for us. And that tw*t Miliband wants to tax them out of the country - plain he's never run and struggled with a small business. If we don't get enough work, have to spend less - bank wont give us a loan. Obvious he's never been used to a budget - what a p***k and bet he's no use with that either!"
It wasn't convincing then, and Gove is certainly no Hezza!