Damian Lyons of Survation on Sky saying Ed MILIBAND is now ahead of Cameron in ratings? and it`s a foolish Tory strategy of saying it`s a choice between Cameron and Miliband.
Mr Lyons must be certain of his polling, I hope his firm don't come a cropper when the results are in. Frankly, his notion that Ed is more popular is palpably nonsense.,
Labour's ground game is honestly brilliant this election. I really wish I could go into the details of it for people on here. Its so frustrating when you read very ill informed comments about campaigning on here!
You're digging a hole for yourself if Labour have less seats than the Tories.
I know - Mike or mods - any chance you can have a word? Its doing the site in.
Can I ask they not do that. It would only 'do things in' if everyone was at it.
Have a pleasant morning everyone.
But we can't have one rule for Scott_P and one rule for everyone else.
Mods really need to think about it - it's ruining the site....
Scott_P does some quite thoughtful posts when he escapes the twittersphere. I wish he would do so a little more often.
I agree , wish he would post more of his own position. The constant tweets are over done.
As are complaints about tweets to which I of course am adding. Repeats of tweets with pictures get me. Massive amount of screen space just repeating something from lower down. Headers set a bad example as well.
If anyone replies to a tweet, then delete the "https://" bit off the front of the link.
Then it will not show the whole tweet/pic again.
The same goes for YouTube videos, as I try to do if I post them.
Labour's ground game is honestly brilliant this election. I really wish I could go into the details of it for people on here. Its so frustrating when you read very ill informed comments about campaigning on here!
Everyone who posts here says their party's ground game/canvass returns are brilliant.
Distinct dearth of that kind of fluff from SLab. Even the SLDs are going through the motions*.
SNP voting with Conservatives to bring down a Labour government? Has that ever happened before?
1979. The traitors have form.
Would the SNP have done it had they known Margaret Thatcher would hold power for so long. On the other hand without Thatcher they wouldn't have been able to demonise the Tories in Scotland for the last 25 years.
It will be better for Scotland politically when they are Independent. The SNP will have done their job , then people can vote for what they believe in apart from the nation state. Malc g and others can then vote for center right parties, with another name apart from conservative I suspect.
It seems rather tetchy on here this morning. Jitters all round, I guess.
Anyway, putting the Times front page together with Ed Miliband's comments today, it seems as though there will be a high speed power struggle within Labour if they come second by 20 seats or more.
I would have expected loyalty to hold till the election. It is interesting that there are rumbles coming ahead of Thursday.
Personally, I am not surprised.
Although Ed is not the only person responsible for problems in Scotland, he certainly is responsible for failing to notice the very real threat after Holyrood 2011 (his first election in charge).
I expect he will pay the price for that misjudgment.
It's like the 2008 crash. You can argue till the cows come home about the causes, but in the end those in charge at the time have no chance of avoiding the blame.
Labour's ground game is honestly brilliant this election. I really wish I could go into the details of it for people on here. Its so frustrating when you read very ill informed comments about campaigning on here!
Everyone who posts here says their party's ground game/canvass returns are brilliant.
And it's like asking a soldier on the front-line who's winning the war - they can't possibly know because they don't have the overall arial view.
You think the generals have a lucida perception of the way things are going?
Labour vote will get out in the marginals alright...On Thursday,the canvassing say starts at 5 AM with leafletting known Labour voters to remind them there`s an election and subsequently gets busy after 4 to check if they have voted.
I think that if I had a bunch of idiots waking me up by noisily poking leaflets through my letterbox at 5.00 am, that would go a long way towards convincing me to vote for the other side!
The leafletting will start at 6 AM after preparations.And it`s known supporters rather than undecideds.
If you are up at 5:00am and presumably hanging around for the count into the early hours, that's a hard day's work. I admire your commitment.
Is it the local party activists that do this, or does HQ send in 'flying pickets' to help?
I did it in 2010GE. It's a long day, but the adrenaline gets you through.
That is one thing I agree with you on. The tories grass roots are moribund in many areas. But in these days of mass media, I just don;t think it matters.
This is brilliant. It should be propagated in a big way until PR is introduced.
So the fact that the people voted to retain FPTP means you should do an end round around their wishes?
With the utmost respect, they voted against AV, not for FPTP. I voted no, for example, but would have voted yes if the referendum had been for a more proportionate voting system.
They voted to keep the current system in a forced choice between two flawed options.
But if you don't like the answer, campaign for change and persuade people to adopt a new system. Just because you don't like the law of the land, you don't have the right to corrupt its intended purpose.
I don't think vote swapping is corrupting the purpose of the electoral system. Voters have an absolute right to vote as they please, for any reason other than pecuniary gain.
Technically it's "value" not "pecuniary value" which could make a difference.
But I come from the position that the intention of the system is to allow local people to select their local representative. It's not to achieve a proportional response, or to ensure majoritarian government or anything else that people ascribe to it.
Vote swapping undermines the right of local people to select their local representative. (Yes, I know that technically it is a local representative casting their vote, but they are doing it under instruction from an outside party with their primary intention being influencing the outcome in another constituency rather than selecting their local representative)
Damian Lyons of Survation on Sky saying Ed MILIBAND is now ahead of Cameron in ratings? and it`s a foolish Tory strategy of saying it`s a choice between Cameron and Miliband.
But not a foolish Miliband strategy of saying "its a choice between Cameron & Miliband", as he was half an hour ago on R4?
Labour's ground game is honestly brilliant this election. I really wish I could go into the details of it for people on here. Its so frustrating when you read very ill informed comments about campaigning on here!
Everyone who posts here says their party's ground game/canvass returns are brilliant.
Distinct dearth of that kind of fluff from SLab.
They're too busy planning independence from London?
If latest You Gov is back to 9% for Lib Dems reasonable chance of LD getting 10% on either ICM or Ashcroft (assume they are releasing figures today).Also possibility on ICM that UKIP may be down to 4th place.
In Europe, internet pollster have tended to overstate insurgent parties, while phone pollsters have tended to understate them. This makes me fairly confident that UKIP will poll 12-13%.
...
With the Euros there was a single issue election and the 'insurgents' were not deciding who runs the country. Should we be surprised it was understated??
This is brilliant. It should be propagated in a big way until PR is introduced.
So the fact that the people voted to retain FPTP means you should do an end round around their wishes?
With the utmost respect, they voted against AV, not for FPTP. I voted no, for example, but would have voted yes if the referendum had been for a more proportionate voting system.
They voted to keep the current system in a forced choice between two flawed options.
But if you don't like the answer, campaign for change and persuade people to adopt a new system. Just because you don't like the law of the land, you don't have the right to corrupt its intended purpose.
I don't think vote swapping is corrupting the purpose of the electoral system. Voters have an absolute right to vote as they please, for any reason other than pecuniary gain.
Technically it's "value" not "pecuniary value" which could make a difference.
But I come from the position that the intention of the system is to allow local people to select their local representative. It's not to achieve a proportional response, or to ensure majoritarian government or anything else that people ascribe to it.
Vote swapping undermines the right of local people to select their local representative. (Yes, I know that technically it is a local representative casting their vote, but they are doing it under instruction from an outside party with their primary intention being influencing the outcome in another constituency rather than selecting their local representative)
It's actually even worse than you're making out. I understand that outrageously, some votes abuse the system to try to affect who becomes Prime Minister.
He's not winning, he is unlikely to have an overall majority. And even if he is the leader of the largest party, we were firmly informed by the Labour supporters on here in 2010 that that is not called "winning".
Yes, it'll be interesting to see if Labour supporters call Miliband an election winner on Friday morning. If they do then I suppose they'll have to think of Cameron in 2010 as one too. But at least they'll be able to reinstate Wilson as the four-time election winner that he was generally considered to be prior to May 2010.
Nail on head. I said a few days ago that the left wing have always claimed for 5 years the coalition and in particular Cameron as PM were illegitimate as "He did not win". Yet in a heartbeat when they are looking at a similar situation for a Labour leader everything is all roses in the No 10 garden (including a great big limestone)
Labour and left wing hypocrisy personified. Don't do as I do but as I say.
Labour's ground game is honestly brilliant this election. I really wish I could go into the details of it for people on here. Its so frustrating when you read very ill informed comments about campaigning on here!
Everyone who posts here says their party's ground game/canvass returns are brilliant.
Distinct dearth of that kind of fluff from SLab. Even the SLDs are going through the motions*.
*make your own jokes.
Scottish Labour are following the model that Labour uses elsewhere in politics, boasting of inputs rather than outputs.
Differential groundwork was the Yes secret weapon at Indyref
And didn't we hear about it!
As it turned out, IIRC the highest turnouts were in 'No' areas, some of the lowest in 'Yes'......
There was almost no correlation between turnout and Yes/No vote.
Up to a point, Lord Copper:
There is a weak (R^2 = 0.177) negative correlation between the Yes vote %, and the Turnout %, suggesting that the Yes campaign had more difficulty in getting its supporters to vote on the day.
Those in charge of the initial problem is Blair and how he let the grassroots die up there. The reason why Miliband isn't taking - and won't take the flak for it - is because the solution is the EXACT opposite of what his critics have been suggesting.
Talking more about the deficit would not have saved Scotland!
Labour vote will get out in the marginals alright...On Thursday,the canvassing say starts at 5 AM with leafletting known Labour voters to remind them there`s an election and subsequently gets busy after 4 to check if they have voted.
I think that if I had a bunch of idiots waking me up by noisily poking leaflets through my letterbox at 5.00 am, that would go a long way towards convincing me to vote for the other side!
The leafletting will start at 6 AM after preparations.And it`s known supporters rather than undecideds.
If you are up at 5:00am and presumably hanging around for the count into the early hours, that's a hard day's work. I admire your commitment.
Is it the local party activists that do this, or does HQ send in 'flying pickets' to help?
Allocated to the most local base.
Presumably the most local Conservative marginal.
Been very quiet In M&O this year compared to 2010 even though it's more marginal it's probably safer Labour hold. Everyone must be in Dewsbury or Pudsey.
Its a secret ballot FFS. How does anybody know those people you herded to the polling station even voted for you?
Have you canvassed before? There is always going to be those who tell you what you want to hear, but there is no reason to think that canvassing is less than 80% accurate.
When you knock on the door, the bulk of times, you get people who will clearly say they are going to vote for you, or against you. Often people will use excuses to avoid telling you what they know you dont want to hear. So, not sure yet, im eating my dinner.
Some people will outright tell you its none of your business who they are voting for, which, it isnt, you apologise and make your excuses. But, if you were canvassing that person for the party they support they would tell you without hesitation.
Anyone want yo stick their neck out for shock of the night? For Labour - Norwich North and the lovely Jess to beat Chloe Tories - both Southampton seats to turn blue SNP - 50 seats but they will lose one 'banker' Lib Dems - holding on here! UKIP - Carswell to hold on (just), no other seats
Labour to win Rochester. 66/1 when i last checked.
Is anyone sure it is even possible to pick up an incumbency boost in polling?
If for example it is worth 1000 votes to the MP. that is ~1 in 70 if the eligible constituency.
In a constituency poll that would represent 14 voters.
This is not a demographic that is representative of anyone, it is people who the MP has helped or think is doing a good job. You cannot weight to it, or do anything to ensure you pick the 14 voters that will change.
I think we can only go on historical evidence. The Lib Dem scenario is different. They almost entirely rely on incumbency and tactical voting too get elected which is why there is a big variation in Q1/Q2. Whether polls are able to accurately forecast this is debatable but it is easier to pick up.
Those in charge of the initial problem is Blair and how he let the grassroots die up there. The reason why Miliband isn't taking - and won't take the flak for it - is because the solution is the EXACT opposite of what his critics have been suggesting.
Talking more about the deficit would not have saved Scotland!
You don't think that central control from London in the last few years has been a big part of the problem?
Labour's ground game is honestly brilliant this election. I really wish I could go into the details of it for people on here. Its so frustrating when you read very ill informed comments about campaigning on here!
Everyone who posts here says their party's ground game/canvass returns are brilliant.
True - "Their" marginal never quite matches the polls.
A sound rule of thumb is that your opponent is usually doing more than you realise.
Labour's ground game is honestly brilliant this election. I really wish I could go into the details of it for people on here. Its so frustrating when you read very ill informed comments about campaigning on here!
How's the ground game in Cornwall?
You were confidently predicting that Labour would sweep all before them just a few months ago.
But I notice that you are surprisingly unwilling to answer this question. I've only asked it 3 or 4 times. So I guess you are just a party shill...
I know - Mike or mods - any chance you can have a word? Its doing the site in.
Can I ask they not do that. It would only 'do things in' if everyone was at it.
Have a pleasant morning everyone.
But we can't have one rule for Scott_P and one rule for everyone else.
Mods really need to think about it - it's ruining the site....
Scott_P does some quite thoughtful posts when he escapes the twittersphere. I wish he would do so a little more often.
I agree , wish he would post more of his own position. The constant tweets are over done.
As are complaints about tweets to which I of course am adding. Repeats of tweets with pictures get me. Massive amount of screen space just repeating something from lower down. Headers set a bad example as well.
If anyone replies to a tweet, then delete the "https://" bit off the front of the link.
This is brilliant. It should be propagated in a big way until PR is introduced.
So the fact that the people voted to retain FPTP means you should do an end round around their wishes?
With the utmost respect, they voted against AV, not for FPTP. I voted no, for example, but would have voted yes if the referendum had been for a more proportionate voting system.
They voted to keep the current system in a forced choice between two flawed options.
But if you don't like the answer, campaign for change and persuade people to adopt a new system. Just because you don't like the law of the land, you don't have the right to corrupt its intended purpose.
I don't think vote swapping is corrupting the purpose of the electoral system. Voters have an absolute right to vote as they please, for any reason other than pecuniary gain.
Technically it's "value" not "pecuniary value" which could make a difference.
But I come from the position that the intention of the system is to allow local people to select their local representative. It's not to achieve a proportional response, or to ensure majoritarian government or anything else that people ascribe to it.
Vote swapping undermines the right of local people to select their local representative. (Yes, I know that technically it is a local representative casting their vote, but they are doing it under instruction from an outside party with their primary intention being influencing the outcome in another constituency rather than selecting their local representative)
Stop moaning, and campaign for an honest system where such incentives don't arise.
Those in charge of the initial problem is Blair and how he let the grassroots die up there. The reason why Miliband isn't taking - and won't take the flak for it - is because the solution is the EXACT opposite of what his critics have been suggesting.
Talking more about the deficit would not have saved Scotland!
You don't think that central control from London in the last few years has been a big part of the problem?
Slab would appear to think that's the case....otherwise why would they be going within miles of 'independence' (for them, not the country...)
Labour vote will get out in the marginals alright...On Thursday,the canvassing say starts at 5 AM with leafletting known Labour voters to remind them there`s an election and subsequently gets busy after 4 to check if they have voted.
I think that if I had a bunch of idiots waking me up by noisily poking leaflets through my letterbox at 5.00 am, that would go a long way towards convincing me to vote for the other side!
The leafletting will start at 6 AM after preparations.And it`s known supporters rather than undecideds.
If you are up at 5:00am and presumably hanging around for the count into the early hours, that's a hard day's work. I admire your commitment.
Is it the local party activists that do this, or does HQ send in 'flying pickets' to help?
Allocated to the most local base.
Presumably the most local Conservative marginal.
Been very quiet In M&O this year compared to 2010 even though it's more marginal it's probably safer Labour hold. Everyone must be in Dewsbury or Pudsey.
Good luck Smukesh, you're going to be exhausted.
We have a lot of volunteers this time who haven`t canvassed before.No guarantees of course for a win here but we`ll certainly give it our best.
Differential groundwork was the Yes secret weapon at Indyref
And didn't we hear about it!
As it turned out, IIRC the highest turnouts were in 'No' areas, some of the lowest in 'Yes'......
There was almost no correlation between turnout and Yes/No vote.
Up to a point, Lord Copper:
There is a weak (R^2 = 0.177) negative correlation between the Yes vote %, and the Turnout %, suggesting that the Yes campaign had more difficulty in getting its supporters to vote on the day.
SNP voting with Conservatives to bring down a Labour government? Has that ever happened before?
1979. The traitors have form.
Would the SNP have done it had they known Margaret Thatcher would hold power for so long. On the other hand without Thatcher they wouldn't have been able to demonise the Tories in Scotland for the last 25 years.
It will be better for Scotland politically when they are Independent. The SNP will have done their job , then people can vote for what they believe in apart from the nation state. Malc g and others can then vote for center right parties, with another name apart from conservative I suspect.
Labour's ground game is honestly brilliant this election. I really wish I could go into the details of it for people on here. Its so frustrating when you read very ill informed comments about campaigning on here!
Are you in London by any chance? I would expect Labour to have a good ground game there as that is where half their members are said to live. Perhaps less so in other parts of the country
Hell No! Like you say the problem started a long long time ago and over a long period. Scottish Labour are frigging useless. The only chance we have of getting anything is because we have sent resources and sensible ideas up from England.
This is a disgrace and should be illegal. It's certainly not ethical. Why should I have my local MP elected by random people who have never even visited my constituency?
It's the price you pay for having a non-proportional voting system. People will simply find ways to try and make their vote count.
Because their vote is more important than the right of people to select their local representative without intervention from outside?
In 70% of the seats the decision is already made and people may as well stay at home. I have every sympathy with anyone who tries to make their vote meaningful under FPTP.
The "intervention from outside" argument is a red herring used by Tory sympathisers because the vote swapping generally works against them. I am more concerned about "outside intervention" from a certain octaganarian Aussie who pops up every so often to try to use his wealth to elect a government to his liking, but, funnily enough, most Tory sympathisers don't seem to mind that!
For the record - I don't want Scott P banned. I just want the mods to tell him he drags down the quality of the site and breaks up discussion for no good reason and thus to stop the copying and pasteing.
Impressive lack of self awareness in this post. Tell us again how brilliant labour and their ground game is you so rarely mention it.
Those in charge of the initial problem is Blair and how he let the grassroots die up there. The reason why Miliband isn't taking - and won't take the flak for it - is because the solution is the EXACT opposite of what his critics have been suggesting.
Talking more about the deficit would not have saved Scotland!
? Scottish politicians gave us the deficit. This is hardly a good omen for giving 50 more of them another chance. Which party they belong to is irrelevant.
The old farm derby. Norfolk football sucks so much our local derby is against a team from another county
Who would you tip in the playoffs? I think Middlesborough myself, they have a pretty solid defence, but Norwich over Ipswich I think.
Edit: Leicesters derbys are all with adjacent counties too!
Middlesborough have to be favourites, Brentford also have the hoodoo over Norwich. Ipswich are a dire football team utterly reliant on one striker, I'd like to see them go up so they can come down with under 10 points
Chaps, it's Middlesbrough - not borough. Looks like they might pass one of the north east teams going the other way!
Northerners and their spelling, tsk
Given that Boro was originally called Port Darlington it could be worse...
One of the antecedents of the club went by the wonderful name of Middlesbrough Ironopolis.
Leicester City were Leicester Fosse until we officially became a city in 1920. Fosse means ditch, and the team were affectionately known as the fossils!
Leicester appear to have come back from the dead (I think Sunderland, rather than Newcastle will go down with QPR and Burnley - their last two games are against Arsenal and Chelsea). Big Nige was a great Boro captain, and I'm glad Leicester stuck with him in the end.
The permutations are endlessly discussed on the Leicester fan sites. We would like Arsenal to give Hull a tanking today, so that we go above them on goal difference.
I think Sunderland and Hull have pretty bad run ins. Newcastle are dire and may not get another point unless they change manager. They may well get McLaren in soonish.
what was most interesting was what Miliband said about the SNP. In one sense he was just saying something he has said many times before, but he was also hardening up his line. He is now ruling out “arrangements” (which, arguably, are looser than “deals”) and he is even suggesting he won’t even talk to Alex Salmond or Nicola Sturgeon about Labour’s programme. This is daft; ministers talk to opposition parties about their plans all the time, because it is party of how sensible government works. But Miliband is being pushed into a position where, if he does form a minority government and makes even a miniscule concession to the SNP, he will be accused of gross betrayal.
Labour's ground game is honestly brilliant this election. I really wish I could go into the details of it for people on here. Its so frustrating when you read very ill informed comments about campaigning on here!
Everyone who posts here says their party's ground game/canvass returns are brilliant.
True - "Their" marginal never quite matches the polls.
A sound rule of thumb is that your opponent is usually doing more than you realise.
I lost £250 on my very first political bet, not yet having learnt that basic rule. I believed my own canvass returns and I was convinced the Tories were going to take Eastleigh in 2005.
For the record - I don't want Scott P banned. I just want the mods to tell him he drags down the quality of the site and breaks up discussion for no good reason and thus to stop the copying and pasteing.
Labour shill wants another poster banned. Sheesh. What is it about your party, and their obsession with closing down 'unfavourable' free speech?
That is one thing I agree with you on. The tories grass roots are moribund in many areas. But in these days of mass media, I just don;t think it matters.
The Tories have lost quite a lot of members over the last 5 years. Not many new ones have joined. I suspect most are in the old shire constituencies, rather than in key marginals, where many Tory branch offices have been weak for many years.
This is brilliant. It should be propagated in a big way until PR is introduced.
So the fact that the people voted to retain FPTP means you should do an end round around their wishes?
With the utmost respect, they voted against AV, not for FPTP. I voted no, for example, but would have voted yes if the referendum had been for a more proportionate voting system.
They voted to keep the current system in a forced choice between two flawed options.
But if you don't like the answer, campaign for change and persuade people to adopt a new system. Just because you don't like the law of the land, you don't have the right to corrupt its intended purpose.
I don't think vote swapping is corrupting the purpose of the electoral system. Voters have an absolute right to vote as they please, for any reason other than pecuniary gain.
Technically it's "value" not "pecuniary value" which could make a difference.
But I come from the position that the intention of the system is to allow local people to select their local representative. It's not to achieve a proportional response, or to ensure majoritarian government or anything else that people ascribe to it.
Vote swapping undermines the right of local people to select their local representative. (Yes, I know that technically it is a local representative casting their vote, but they are doing it under instruction from an outside party with their primary intention being influencing the outcome in another constituency rather than selecting their local representative)
It's actually even worse than you're making out. I understand that outrageously, some votes abuse the system to try to affect who becomes Prime Minister.
Voters don't vote for a Prime Minister.
They vote for a local MP to represent their interests in Parliament.
Those in charge of the initial problem is Blair and how he let the grassroots die up there. The reason why Miliband isn't taking - and won't take the flak for it - is because the solution is the EXACT opposite of what his critics have been suggesting.
Talking more about the deficit would not have saved Scotland!
One of my vivid recollection of pb.com is Henry G Manson posting a clip of a video of Iain Gray in the SLAB leadership election in 2008 (when SLAB ran Scotland and were well ahead in the polls). The clip showed Iain responding badly to a TV interview, and it was immediately obvious to everyone on pb.com that he was out of his depth as a political leader (especially when up against Salmond)
Henry said that Iain, if elected as SLAB leader, would be routed by Salmond. And so it duly came to pass.
What has happened in Scotland is ABSOLUTELY NO surprise to Labour supporters in the North East. They understood all to well what was going to happen. It is just a surprise to the London-centric leadership.
Miliband completely failed in Scotland. All the routs have taken place on his watch -- so yes, he will carry the can, he will get the blame. Even if Miliband scrapes a narrow plurality (IMO doubtful), I think he is doomed.
Your view of the world seems to me to be odd, London-based and wildly out of touch.
The ONLY thing of any real importance that has happened in this stultifying campaign has happened in Scotland.
Compared to that, whether the blue or the reds take Croydon Central is of no importance. It won’t save Miliband.
This is brilliant. It should be propagated in a big way until PR is introduced.
So the fact that the people voted to retain FPTP means you should do an end round around their wishes?
With the utmost respect, they voted against AV, not for FPTP. I voted no, for example, but would have voted yes if the referendum had been for a more proportionate voting system.
They voted to keep the current system in a forced choice between two flawed options.
But if you don't like the answer, campaign for change and persuade people to adopt a new system. Just because you don't like the law of the land, you don't have the right to corrupt its intended purpose.
I don't think vote swapping is corrupting the purpose of the electoral system. Voters have an absolute right to vote as they please, for any reason other than pecuniary gain.
Technically it's "value" not "pecuniary value" which could make a difference.
But I come from the position that the intention of the system is to allow local people to select their local representative. It's not to achieve a proportional response, or to ensure majoritarian government or anything else that people ascribe to it.
Vote swapping undermines the right of local people to select their local representative. (Yes, I know that technically it is a local representative casting their vote, but they are doing it under instruction from an outside party with their primary intention being influencing the outcome in another constituency rather than selecting their local representative)
It's actually even worse than you're making out. I understand that outrageously, some votes abuse the system to try to affect who becomes Prime Minister.
Voters don't vote for a Prime Minister.
They vote for a local MP to represent their interests in Parliament.
This is brilliant. It should be propagated in a big way until PR is introduced.
So the fact that the people voted to retain FPTP means you should do an end round around their wishes?
With the utmost respect, they voted against AV, not for FPTP. I voted no, for example, but would have voted yes if the referendum had been for a more proportionate voting system.
They voted to keep the current system in a forced choice between two flawed options.
But if you don't like the answer, campaign for change and persuade people to adopt a new system. Just because you don't like the law of the land, you don't have the right to corrupt its intended purpose.
I don't think vote swapping is corrupting the purpose of the electoral system. Voters have an absolute right to vote as they please, for any reason other than pecuniary gain.
Technically it's "value" not "pecuniary value" which could make a difference.
But I come from the position that the intention of the system is to allow local people to select their local representative. It's not to achieve a proportional response, or to ensure majoritarian government or anything else that people ascribe to it.
Vote swapping undermines the right of local people to select their local representative. (Yes, I know that technically it is a local representative casting their vote, but they are doing it under instruction from an outside party with their primary intention being influencing the outcome in another constituency rather than selecting their local representative)
It's actually even worse than you're making out. I understand that outrageously, some votes abuse the system to try to affect who becomes Prime Minister.
Voters don't vote for a Prime Minister.
They vote for a local MP to represent their interests in Parliament.
Apologies if I have misunderstood but a replica ballot poll of 2100 people that covers 632 constituencies averages just over 3 people per constituency, surely that is hardly likely to pick up any incumbency factor??
Those in charge of the initial problem is Blair and how he let the grassroots die up there. The reason why Miliband isn't taking - and won't take the flak for it - is because the solution is the EXACT opposite of what his critics have been suggesting.
Talking more about the deficit would not have saved Scotland!
You don't think that central control from London in the last few years has been a big part of the problem?
Slab would appear to think that's the case....otherwise why would they be going within miles of 'independence' (for them, not the country...)
On this occasion, the Ed Miliband quip "they're both right" springs to mind.
For the record - I don't want Scott P banned. I just want the mods to tell him he drags down the quality of the site and breaks up discussion for no good reason and thus to stop the copying and pasteing.
Labour shill wants another poster banned. Sheesh. What is it about your party, and their obsession with closing down 'unfavourable' free speech?
Labour are an absolute disgrace. Totally unfit to run a town hall, yet alone a country.
They are authoritarian statist megalomaniacs who hold the people of this country in contempt.
It's tight. Both sides are focussing very heavily on their own key wards -- so Church, North Manor and Tottington for the Tories, and East, Redvales and Moorside for Labour. The battlebus is going to Ramsbottom, a key marginal which has been swinging back to the Tories in recent local votes after a big move to Lab in 2011. GOTV is crucial, especially for Lab -- but their safest ward, East, is historically a low turnout ward. Lab are going crazy with posters in their areas.
The Lab council collects bins every 3 weeks, which is a huge local issue and plays very badly for their candidate, who's a councillor. And Nuttall will keep the UKIP vote down in Tory areas as he's so anti EU.
Gut feeling is Nuttall by 1000, but this could easily go either way.
This is brilliant. It should be propagated in a big way until PR is introduced.
So the fact that the people voted to retain FPTP means you should do an end round around their wishes?
With the utmost respect, they voted against AV, not for FPTP. I voted no, for example, but would have voted yes if the referendum had been for a more proportionate voting system.
They voted to keep the current system in a forced choice between two flawed options.
But if you don't like the answer, campaign for change and persuade people to adopt a new system. Just because you don't like the law of the land, you don't have the right to corrupt its intended purpose.
I don't think vote swapping is corrupting the purpose of the electoral system. Voters have an absolute right to vote as they please, for any reason other than pecuniary gain.
Technically it's "value" not "pecuniary value" which could make a difference.
But I come from the position that the intention of the system is to allow local people to select their local representative. It's not to achieve a proportional response, or to ensure majoritarian government or anything else that people ascribe to it.
Vote swapping undermines the right of local people to select their local representative. (Yes, I know that technically it is a local representative casting their vote, but they are doing it under instruction from an outside party with their primary intention being influencing the outcome in another constituency rather than selecting their local representative)
Stop moaning, and campaign for an honest system where such incentives don't arise.
I'm not moaning about the system. I'd prefer MM STV, but FPTP is ok as a second choice.
I just think people shouldn't try to subvert the rules.
This is brilliant. It should be propagated in a big way until PR is introduced.
So the fact that the people voted to retain FPTP means you should do an end round around their wishes?
With the utmost respect, they voted against AV, not for FPTP. I voted no, for example, but would have voted yes if the referendum had been for a more proportionate voting system.
They voted to keep the current system in a forced choice between two flawed options.
But if you don't like the answer, campaign for change and persuade people to adopt a new system. Just because you don't like the law of the land, you don't have the right to corrupt its intended purpose.
I don't think vote swapping is corrupting the purpose of the electoral system. Voters have an absolute right to vote as they please, for any reason other than pecuniary gain.
Technically it's "value" not "pecuniary value" which could make a difference.
But I come from the position that the intention of the system is to allow local people to select their local representative. It's not to achieve a proportional response, or to ensure majoritarian government or anything else that people ascribe to it.
Vote swapping undermines the right of local people to select their local representative. (Yes, I know that technically it is a local representative casting their vote, but they are doing it under instruction from an outside party with their primary intention being influencing the outcome in another constituency rather than selecting their local representative)
It's actually even worse than you're making out. I understand that outrageously, some votes abuse the system to try to affect who becomes Prime Minister.
They vote for a local MP to represent their interests in Parliament.
In theory, but most voters have no idea who their MP is. If all you had tho go on, on the ballot form was the candidates name they would be unable to identify who they actually wanted to support.
Alastair Campbell @campbellclaret · 1h 1 hour ago Don't often listen to @BBCr4today cos of constant hectoring and smugness of certain presenters. @Ed_Miliband dealt with said presenter well
This is brilliant. It should be propagated in a big way until PR is introduced.
So the fact that the people voted to retain FPTP means you should do an end round around their wishes?
With the utmost respect, they voted against AV, not for FPTP. I voted no, for example, but would have voted yes if the referendum had been for a more proportionate voting system.
They voted to keep the current system in a forced choice between two flawed options.
But if you don't like the answer, campaign for change and persuade people to adopt a new system. Just because you don't like the law of the land, you don't have the right to corrupt its intended purpose.
I don't think vote swapping is corrupting the purpose of the electoral system. Voters have an absolute right to vote as they please, for any reason other than pecuniary gain.
Technically it's "value" not "pecuniary value" which could make a difference.
But I come from the position that the intention of the system is to allow local people to select their local representative. It's not to achieve a proportional response, or to ensure majoritarian government or anything else that people ascribe to it.
Vote swapping undermines the right of local people to select their local representative. (Yes, I know that technically it is a local representative casting their vote, but they are doing it under instruction from an outside party with their primary intention being influencing the outcome in another constituency rather than selecting their local representative)
Stop moaning, and campaign for an honest system where such incentives don't arise.
Hear, hear.
I was about to reply to the comment about lying to canvassers to say that I can't ... I haven't been canvassed for 36 years! (But I've just had a very large glossy Tory leaflet which is larger than the UKIP/LD/Green put together; Labour now doesn't even leaflet this seat.)
This condition, safe seat syndrome, must affect at least 40% of the UK.
A common symptom of it is seen on oddschecker. The odds on a Tory or Labour win in that constituency are 1.01 max.
Those in charge of the initial problem is Blair and how he let the grassroots die up there. The reason why Miliband isn't taking - and won't take the flak for it - is because the solution is the EXACT opposite of what his critics have been suggesting.
Talking more about the deficit would not have saved Scotland!
The problem seems to be more deep-rooted than that. Falkirk showed that SLab was far from fit for purpose, and run by a bunch of people who were more interested in getting 'their' people in than local or national democracy.
SLab's internal problems have probably been in place for decades, and Blair and Miliband did not have the ability or desire to tackle it. Brown may have had the ability, but then he was a product of it.
The last thing Labour supporters should be doing is 'blaming' the Scottish voters for voting SNP. I know you are not, but some on here have. SLab's problem is SLab itself.
Hell No! Like you say the problem started a long long time ago and over a long period. Scottish Labour are frigging useless. The only chance we have of getting anything is because we have sent resources and sensible ideas up from England.
That's just the kind of talk to bring the Scots vote back to Labour
Differential groundwork was the Yes secret weapon at Indyref
And didn't we hear about it!
As it turned out, IIRC the highest turnouts were in 'No' areas, some of the lowest in 'Yes'......
There was almost no correlation between turnout and Yes/No vote.
Up to a point, Lord Copper:
There is a weak (R^2 = 0.177) negative correlation between the Yes vote %, and the Turnout %, suggesting that the Yes campaign had more difficulty in getting its supporters to vote on the day.
Looked at the scatterplot. There is NO relationship. The weak R^2 (even this number has hardly no significance) is likely being driven by a couple of outlier data-points.
I'll let others with more stats knowledge comment.
SLab suffered from an extended round of night of the long knives as they lost Slab leaders to incredibly minor expenses scandals - the suggestion with Wendy Alexander was that the knifing had come direct from No 10.
This is a disgrace and should be illegal. It's certainly not ethical. Why should I have my local MP elected by random people who have never even visited my constituency?
It's the price you pay for having a non-proportional voting system. People will simply find ways to try and make their vote count.
Because their vote is more important than the right of people to select their local representative without intervention from outside?
In 70% of the seats the decision is already made and people may as well stay at home. I have every sympathy with anyone who tries to make their vote meaningful under FPTP.
The "intervention from outside" argument is a red herring used by Tory sympathisers because the vote swapping generally works against them. I am more concerned about "outside intervention" from a certain octaganarian Aussie who pops up every so often to try to use his wealth to elect a government to his liking, but, funnily enough, most Tory sympathisers don't seem to mind that!
I suspect that the influence of the papers is vastly overstated. I remember seeing a while back stats which suggested that the Mail had a higher % of Labour voters than the Mirror or some equally unexpected result!
We have a fundamental difference of opinion, so there's not much point in discussing:
- I see votes as electing a local representative for each constituency. - You believe Parliament should reflect the proportions of votes cast nationally.
The enormous discrepancy on Betfair's GE Most Seats market continues unabated with Labour on offer at 6.0 (that's 4.75/1 net of comm'n) and the Tories on 1.19 (or 2/9 net in old money). As I suggested last night, this not only means that the Betfair punters think the Tories will win, but that they will win big, probably by 30 or more seats. Apart from our own JackW, there are no other respected forecasters who have the Blue team so far ahead ....... interesting. Of course, the Betfair punters could be wrong, but in a major betting matket such as this, they are certainly making a bold statement.
Betfair historically isn't famously smart on political betting. The 2004 US presidential election is a classic example of it.
There will be vast profits to be made for those that focus on the raw numbers, listening to media commentators is the road to ruin
I'm not sure what you mean by "Betfair historically isn't famously smart on political betting". Betfair as an exchange doesn't itself have any influence in determining betting odds, it merely acts as a facilitator between backers and layers in each of its markets. Also, back in 2004, it had then only recently been established and had a tiny fraction of the client base it enjoys today, when it has well over twice the market capitalisation of Ladbrokes. Furthermore, those who are scratching their heads in trying to understand the current odds in this particular market are free to take a contrarian view and bet on the opposite outcome ..... that after all is the fundamental attraction of exchange betting, compared with handing money over to the conventional bookies where one is restricted to backing only, although increasingly this is offered as a two way option with an overround operating.
This is brilliant. It should be propagated in a big way until PR is introduced.
So the fact that the people voted to retain FPTP means you should do an end round around their wishes?
With the utmost respect, they voted against AV, not for FPTP. I voted no, for example, but would have voted yes if the referendum had been for a more proportionate voting system.
They voted to keep the current system in a forced choice between two flawed options.
But if you don't like the answer, campaign for change and persuade people to adopt a new system. Just because you don't like the law of the land, you don't have the right to corrupt its intended purpose.
I don't think vote swapping is corrupting the purpose of the electoral system. Voters have an absolute right to vote as they please, for any reason other than pecuniary gain.
Technically it's "value" not "pecuniary value" which could make a difference.
But I come from the position that the intention of the system is to allow local people to select their local representative. It's not to achieve a proportional response, or to ensure majoritarian government or anything else that people ascribe to it.
Vote swapping undermines the right of local people to select their local representative. (Yes, I know that technically it is a local representative casting their vote, but they are doing it under instruction from an outside party with their primary intention being influencing the outcome in another constituency rather than selecting their local representative)
Stop moaning, and campaign for an honest system where such incentives don't arise.
I'm not moaning about the system. I'd prefer MM STV, but FPTP is ok as a second choice.
I just think people shouldn't try to subvert the rules.
As is well known, the "Rules" of FPTP include the strong incentive to misrepresent your preference.
Labour vote will get out in the marginals alright...On Thursday,the canvassing say starts at 5 AM with leafletting known Labour voters to remind them there`s an election and subsequently gets busy after 4 to check if they have voted.
I think that if I had a bunch of idiots waking me up by noisily poking leaflets through my letterbox at 5.00 am, that would go a long way towards convincing me to vote for the other side!
The leafletting will start at 6 AM after preparations.And it`s known supporters rather than undecideds.
If you are up at 5:00am and presumably hanging around for the count into the early hours, that's a hard day's work. I admire your commitment.
Is it the local party activists that do this, or does HQ send in 'flying pickets' to help?
Either stupid or being well paid. The trougher you are helping will appreciate it though.
Apologies if I have misunderstood but a replica ballot poll of 2100 people that covers 632 constituencies averages just over 3 people per constituency, surely that is hardly likely to pick up any incumbency factor??
That occurred to me, as well. A named ballot paper would be really useful for single constituency polls. I don't see what it adds to a national poll.
Labour vote will get out in the marginals alright...On Thursday,the canvassing say starts at 5 AM with leafletting known Labour voters to remind them there`s an election and subsequently gets busy after 4 to check if they have voted.
I think that if I had a bunch of idiots waking me up by noisily poking leaflets through my letterbox at 5.00 am, that would go a long way towards convincing me to vote for the other side!
The leafletting will start at 6 AM after preparations.And it`s known supporters rather than undecideds.
If you are up at 5:00am and presumably hanging around for the count into the early hours, that's a hard day's work. I admire your commitment.
Is it the local party activists that do this, or does HQ send in 'flying pickets' to help?
Allocated to the most local base.
Presumably the most local Conservative marginal.
Been very quiet In M&O this year compared to 2010 even though it's more marginal it's probably safer Labour hold. Everyone must be in Dewsbury or Pudsey.
Good luck Smukesh, you're going to be exhausted.
..... and ultimately very disappointed with the overall GE result.
Yeah Slab are to blame. In many ways they deserve what is coming to them. They have got a lot lot better recently and have woken up almost fully but its to little to late.
No one person sums up the problem more than Tom Harris
Liked this - (Darren Hall ) Bristol West Green Party candidate, ... expressed surprise over polls showing the large number of Tory-voting students at Bristol.
Am still inclined to think that Greens won't do it.
This is a disgrace and should be illegal. It's certainly not ethical. Why should I have my local MP elected by random people who have never even visited my constituency?
It's the price you pay for having a non-proportional voting system. People will simply find ways to try and make their vote count.
Because their vote is more important than the right of people to select their local representative without intervention from outside?
In 70% of the seats the decision is already made and people may as well stay at home. I have every sympathy with anyone who tries to make their vote meaningful under FPTP.
The "intervention from outside" argument is a red herring used by Tory sympathisers because the vote swapping generally works against them. I am more concerned about "outside intervention" from a certain octaganarian Aussie who pops up every so often to try to use his wealth to elect a government to his liking, but, funnily enough, most Tory sympathisers don't seem to mind that!
I suspect that the influence of the papers is vastly overstated. I remember seeing a while back stats which suggested that the Mail had a higher % of Labour voters than the Mirror or some equally unexpected result!
We have a fundamental difference of opinion, so there's not much point in discussing:
- I see votes as electing a local representative for each constituency. - You believe Parliament should reflect the proportions of votes cast nationally.
And of course Charles you are constitutionally correct as well. I agree entirely with your view of who we are voting for and so does the law.
This is brilliant. It should be propagated in a big way until PR is introduced.
So the fact that the people voted to retain FPTP means you should do an end round around their wishes?
With the utmost respect, they voted against AV, not for FPTP. I voted no, for example, but would have voted yes if the referendum had been for a more proportionate voting system.
They voted to keep the current system in a forced choice between two flawed options.
But if you don't like the answer, campaign for change and persuade people to adopt a new system. Just because you don't like the law of the land, you don't have the right to corrupt its intended purpose.
I don't think vote swapping is corrupting the purpose of the electoral system. Voters have an absolute right to vote as they please, for any reason other than pecuniary gain.
Technically it's "value" not "pecuniary value" which could make a difference.
But I come from the position that the intention of the system is to allow local people to select their local representative. It's not to achieve a proportional response, or to ensure majoritarian government or anything else that people ascribe to it.
Vote swapping undermines the right of local people to select their local representative. (Yes, I know that technically it is a local representative casting their vote, but they are doing it under instruction from an outside party with their primary intention being influencing the outcome in another constituency rather than selecting their local representative)
It's actually even worse than you're making out. I understand that outrageously, some votes abuse the system to try to affect who becomes Prime Minister.
They vote for a local MP to represent their interests in Parliament.
In theory, but most voters have no idea who their MP is. If all you had tho go on, on the ballot form was the candidates name they would be unable to identify who they actually wanted to support.
Voters used to be trusted to know which candidate stood for which party until a Labour government feared voters were dumb and needed reminding in the polling booth.
Apologies if I have misunderstood but a replica ballot poll of 2100 people that covers 632 constituencies averages just over 3 people per constituency, surely that is hardly likely to pick up any incumbency factor??
That occurred to me, as well. A named ballot paper would be really useful for single constituency polls. I don't see what it adds to a national poll.
I don't think an average poll covers all 632 constituencies. In the old days, they used to do only about 100 constituencies. I know online polls are different.
This is brilliant. It should be propagated in a big way until PR is introduced.
So the fact that the people voted to retain FPTP means you should do an end round around their wishes?
With the utmost respect, they voted against AV, not for FPTP. I voted no, for example, but would have voted yes if the referendum had been for a more proportionate voting system.
They voted to keep the current system in a forced choice between two flawed options.
But if you don't like the answer, campaign for change and persuade people to adopt a new system. Just because you don't like the law of the land, you don't have the right to corrupt its intended purpose.
I don't think vote swapping is corrupting the purpose of the electoral system. Voters have an absolute right to vote as they please, for any reason other than pecuniary gain.
Technically it's "value" not "pecuniary value" which could make a difference.
But I come from the position that the intention of the system is to allow local people to select their local representative. It's not to achieve a proportional response, or to ensure majoritarian government or anything else that people ascribe to it.
Vote swapping undermines the right of local people to select their local representative. (Yes, I know that technically it is a local representative casting their vote, but they are doing it under instruction from an outside party with their primary intention being influencing the outcome in another constituency rather than selecting their local representative)
It's actually even worse than you're making out. I understand that outrageously, some votes abuse the system to try to affect who becomes Prime Minister.
Voters don't vote for a Prime Minister.
They vote for a local MP to represent their interests in Parliament.
Yes, it would be lovely if MPs actually did that.
The theory doesn't hold good, when you have a party whip, as Richard Tyndall points out.
Either we elect individuals with very loose party affiliation, as in the pre-1867 period, or else party representation should roughly match party support.
In theory, but most voters have no idea who their MP is. If all you had tho go on, on the ballot form was the candidates name they would be unable to identify who they actually wanted to support.
Not necessarily as an individual: they may think that whoever Labour puts forward will best represent their interests.
But that's totally different to someone from Witney directing the vote of someone in Eastleigh. The Witney individual might be quite happy with a Tory, but is likely to have no understanding of specific issues pertaining to Eastleigh.
This is brilliant. It should be propagated in a big way until PR is introduced.
So the fact that the people voted to retain FPTP means you should do an end round around their wishes?
With the utmost respect, they voted against AV, not for FPTP. I voted no, for example, but would have voted yes if the referendum had been for a more proportionate voting system.
They voted to keep the current system in a forced choice between two flawed options.
But if you don't like the answer, campaign for change and persuade people to adopt a new system. Just because you don't like the law of the land, you don't have the right to corrupt its intended purpose.
I don't think vote swapping is corrupting the purpose of the electoral system. Voters have an absolute right to vote as they please, for any reason other than pecuniary gain.
Technically it's "value" not "pecuniary value" which could make a difference.
But I come from the position that the intention of the system is to allow local people to select their local representative. It's not to achieve a proportional response, or to ensure majoritarian government or anything else that people ascribe to it.
Vote swapping undermines the right of local people to select their local representative. (Yes, I know that technically it is a local representative casting their vote, but they are doing it under instruction from an outside party with their primary intention being influencing the outcome in another constituency rather than selecting their local representative)
It's actually even worse than you're making out. I understand that outrageously, some votes abuse the system to try to affect who becomes Prime Minister.
Voters don't vote for a Prime Minister.
They vote for a local MP to represent their interests in Parliament.
That statement is only technically true.
No it is also constitutionally true and for me also morally and practically true as well. I do not vote for a party or a PM. And unless you live in Doncaster or Witney neither do you. And long may that continue. I want to see the power of the parties reduced not increased.
This is brilliant. It should be propagated in a big way until PR is introduced.
So the fact that the people voted to retain FPTP means you should do an end round around their wishes?
With the utmost respect, they voted against AV, not for FPTP. I voted no, for example, but would have voted yes if the referendum had been for a more proportionate voting system.
They voted to keep the current system in a forced choice between two flawed options.
But if you don't like the answer, campaign for change and persuade people to adopt a new system. Just because you don't like the law of the land, you don't have the right to corrupt its intended purpose.
I don't think vote swapping is corrupting the purpose of the electoral system. Voters have an absolute right to vote as they please, for any reason other than pecuniary gain.
Technically it's "value" not "pecuniary value" which could make a difference.
But I come from the position that the intention of the system is to allow local people to select their local representative. It's not to achieve a proportional response, or to ensure majoritarian government or anything else that people ascribe to it.
Vote swapping undermines the right of local people to select their local representative. (Yes, I know that technically it is a local representative casting their vote, but they are doing it under instruction from an outside party with their primary intention being influencing the outcome in another constituency rather than selecting their local representative)
It's actually even worse than you're making out. I understand that outrageously, some votes abuse the system to try to affect who becomes Prime Minister.
Voters don't vote for a Prime Minister.
They vote for a local MP to represent their interests in Parliament.
Hell No! Like you say the problem started a long long time ago and over a long period. Scottish Labour are frigging useless. The only chance we have of getting anything is because we have sent resources and sensible ideas up from England.
The enormous discrepancy on Betfair's GE Most Seats market continues unabated with Labour on offer at 6.0 (that's 4.75/1 net of comm'n) and the Tories on 1.19 (or 2/9 net in old money). As I suggested last night, this not only means that the Betfair punters think the Tories will win, but that they will win big, probably by 30 or more seats. Apart from our own JackW, there are no other respected forecasters who have the Blue team so far ahead ....... interesting. Of course, the Betfair punters could be wrong, but in a major betting matket such as this, they are certainly making a bold statement.
Betfair historically isn't famously smart on political betting. The 2004 US presidential election is a classic example of it.
There will be vast profits to be made for those that focus on the raw numbers, listening to media commentators is the road to ruin
I'm not sure what you mean by "Betfair historically isn't famously smart on political betting". Betfair as an exchange doesn't itself have any influence in determining betting odds, it merely acts as a facilitator between backers and layers in each of its markets. Also, back in 2004, it had then only recently been established and had a tiny fraction of the client base it enjoys today, when it has well over twice the market capitalisation of Ladbrokes. Furthermore, those who are scratching their heads in trying to understand the current odds in this particular market are free to take a contrarian view and bet on the opposite outcome ..... that after all is the fundamental attraction of exchange betting, compared with handing money over to the conventional bookies where one is restricted to backing only, although increasingly this is offered as a two way option with an overround operating.
When I use the phrase "betfair" i'm referring to the community of people staking money in the market.
In my opinion, having sat through too many all nighters, the market tends to over react wildly and fluctuates more than it should, but this is all to the good.
Comments
How's the labour 'ground game' in Scotland? Perhaps we should call it 'subterranean'
Do people SERIOUSLY not know there's an election on ?!
*make your own jokes.
CDU
I was up until 6am the following morning.
That is one thing I agree with you on. The tories grass roots are moribund in many areas. But in these days of mass media, I just don;t think it matters.
But I come from the position that the intention of the system is to allow local people to select their local representative. It's not to achieve a proportional response, or to ensure majoritarian government or anything else that people ascribe to it.
Vote swapping undermines the right of local people to select their local representative. (Yes, I know that technically it is a local representative casting their vote, but they are doing it under instruction from an outside party with their primary intention being influencing the outcome in another constituency rather than selecting their local representative)
(Just the party, not the country....)
Should we be surprised it was understated??
In these days of multi party - de aligned politics it matters more than ever.
Labour and left wing hypocrisy personified. Don't do as I do but as I say.
There is a weak (R^2 = 0.177) negative correlation between the Yes vote %, and the Turnout %, suggesting that the Yes campaign had more difficulty in getting its supporters to vote on the day.
http://oobrien.com/2014/09/a-resultturnout-correlation-for-the-scottish-independence-referendum/
Those in charge of the initial problem is Blair and how he let the grassroots die up there. The reason why Miliband isn't taking - and won't take the flak for it - is because the solution is the EXACT opposite of what his critics have been suggesting.
Talking more about the deficit would not have saved Scotland!
Been very quiet In M&O this year compared to 2010 even though it's more marginal it's probably safer Labour hold. Everyone must be in Dewsbury or Pudsey.
Good luck Smukesh, you're going to be exhausted.
When you knock on the door, the bulk of times, you get people who will clearly say they are going to vote for you, or against you. Often people will use excuses to avoid telling you what they know you dont want to hear. So, not sure yet, im eating my dinner.
Some people will outright tell you its none of your business who they are voting for, which, it isnt, you apologise and make your excuses. But, if you were canvassing that person for the party they support they would tell you without hesitation.
Is anyone sure it is even possible to pick up an incumbency boost in polling?
If for example it is worth 1000 votes to the MP. that is ~1 in 70 if the eligible constituency.
In a constituency poll that would represent 14 voters.
This is not a demographic that is representative of anyone, it is people who the MP has helped or think is doing a good job. You cannot weight to it, or do anything to ensure you pick the 14 voters that will change.
I think we can only go on historical evidence. The Lib Dem scenario is different. They almost entirely rely on incumbency and tactical voting too get elected which is why there is a big variation in Q1/Q2. Whether polls are able to accurately forecast this is debatable but it is easier to pick up.
You were confidently predicting that Labour would sweep all before them just a few months ago.
But I notice that you are surprisingly unwilling to answer this question. I've only asked it 3 or 4 times. So I guess you are just a party shill...
Interesting. So renewing Trident represents a 'fundamental change'? I thought it was more of a status quo ante.
EDIT: Of the top 10 turnout areas 4 were above average Yes votes, 6 were below average.
Of the bottom 10 for turnout it was split 5/5 for above an below average Yes vote.
Hell No! Like you say the problem started a long long time ago and over a long period. Scottish Labour are frigging useless. The only chance we have of getting anything is because we have sent resources and sensible ideas up from England.
The "intervention from outside" argument is a red herring used by Tory sympathisers because the vote swapping generally works against them. I am more concerned about "outside intervention" from a certain octaganarian Aussie who pops up every so often to try to use his wealth to elect a government to his liking, but, funnily enough, most Tory sympathisers don't seem to mind that!
Scottish politicians gave us the deficit. This is hardly a good omen for giving 50 more of them another chance. Which party they belong to is irrelevant.
There are mad people in all parties and this is this mornings prize:
I already posted up the figures for the canvassing totals. London doesn't stand out. The North West is top for example.
I think Sunderland and Hull have pretty bad run ins. Newcastle are dire and may not get another point unless they change manager. They may well get McLaren in soonish.
what was most interesting was what Miliband said about the SNP. In one sense he was just saying something he has said many times before, but he was also hardening up his line. He is now ruling out “arrangements” (which, arguably, are looser than “deals”) and he is even suggesting he won’t even talk to Alex Salmond or Nicola Sturgeon about Labour’s programme. This is daft; ministers talk to opposition parties about their plans all the time, because it is party of how sensible government works. But Miliband is being pushed into a position where, if he does form a minority government and makes even a miniscule concession to the SNP, he will be accused of gross betrayal.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/may/04/election-2015-live-result-knife-edge-ken-clarke-warns-chaos-second-vote#block-55472a52e4b0d1d5d9abd657
Voters lie too.
But that's what CCHQ wanted.
They vote for a local MP to represent their interests in Parliament.
Henry said that Iain, if elected as SLAB leader, would be routed by Salmond. And so it duly came to pass.
What has happened in Scotland is ABSOLUTELY NO surprise to Labour supporters in the North East. They understood all to well what was going to happen. It is just a surprise to the London-centric leadership.
Miliband completely failed in Scotland. All the routs have taken place on his watch -- so yes, he will carry the can, he will get the blame. Even if Miliband scrapes a narrow plurality (IMO doubtful), I think he is doomed.
Your view of the world seems to me to be odd, London-based and wildly out of touch.
The ONLY thing of any real importance that has happened in this stultifying campaign has happened in Scotland.
Compared to that, whether the blue or the reds take Croydon Central is of no importance. It won’t save Miliband.
That statement is only technically true.
A few years ago I went a local association gathering when I was around 45. It was a thank you party for leaflet delivering.
I reckon I was the youngest person there by at least 25 years
They are authoritarian statist megalomaniacs who hold the people of this country in contempt.
The Lab council collects bins every 3 weeks, which is a huge local issue and plays very badly for their candidate, who's a councillor. And Nuttall will keep the UKIP vote down in Tory areas as he's so anti EU.
Gut feeling is Nuttall by 1000, but this could easily go either way.
I just think people shouldn't try to subvert the rules.
Alastair Campbell @campbellclaret · 1h 1 hour ago
Don't often listen to @BBCr4today cos of constant hectoring and smugness of certain presenters. @Ed_Miliband dealt with said presenter well
I was about to reply to the comment about lying to canvassers to say that I can't ... I haven't been canvassed for 36 years! (But I've just had a very large glossy Tory leaflet which is larger than the UKIP/LD/Green put together; Labour now doesn't even leaflet this seat.)
This condition, safe seat syndrome, must affect at least 40% of the UK.
A common symptom of it is seen on oddschecker. The odds on a Tory or Labour win in that constituency are 1.01 max.
SLab's internal problems have probably been in place for decades, and Blair and Miliband did not have the ability or desire to tackle it. Brown may have had the ability, but then he was a product of it.
The last thing Labour supporters should be doing is 'blaming' the Scottish voters for voting SNP. I know you are not, but some on here have. SLab's problem is SLab itself.
I'll let others with more stats knowledge comment.
We have a fundamental difference of opinion, so there's not much point in discussing:
- I see votes as electing a local representative for each constituency.
- You believe Parliament should reflect the proportions of votes cast nationally.
Also, back in 2004, it had then only recently been established and had a tiny fraction of the client base it enjoys today, when it has well over twice the market capitalisation of Ladbrokes. Furthermore, those who are scratching their heads in trying to understand the current odds in this particular market are free to take a contrarian view and bet on the opposite outcome ..... that after all is the fundamental attraction of exchange betting, compared with handing money over to the conventional bookies where one is restricted to backing only, although increasingly this is offered as a two way option with an overround operating.
Miliband is right: he does not need to worry about the SNP backing his Queen’s Speech. What he needs to worry about is what happens next.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/05/miliband-is-right-the-snp-will-put-him-in-regardless-then-start-on-a-political-remake-of-stephen-kings-misery
Yeah Slab are to blame. In many ways they deserve what is coming to them. They have got a lot lot better recently and have woken up almost fully but its to little to late.
No one person sums up the problem more than Tom Harris
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/04/lib-dems-bristol-west-student-vote?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Liked this - (Darren Hall ) Bristol West Green Party candidate, ... expressed surprise over polls showing the large number of Tory-voting students at Bristol.
Am still inclined to think that Greens won't do it.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/04/ed-miliband-conservatives-have-secret-plan-to-reorganise-nhs-after-election
don't get this incumbency argument. If incumbency isn't such a big benefit for the blues then isn't it also the same for all the other parties ?
Either we elect individuals with very loose party affiliation, as in the pre-1867 period, or else party representation should roughly match party support.
But that's totally different to someone from Witney directing the vote of someone in Eastleigh. The Witney individual might be quite happy with a Tory, but is likely to have no understanding of specific issues pertaining to Eastleigh.
Tom Newton Dunn: The Guardian "don't always get everything right" says Mili on #EdStone criticism. They endorsed him on Friday #bbcr4today
Please just post the link it's a pain scrolling past the entire thing on a phone, thanks.
In my opinion, having sat through too many all nighters, the market tends to over react wildly and fluctuates more than it should, but this is all to the good.