Never bought the Bank Holiday=odd polls theory. The weighting to past voting means that the people who haven't gone on holiday but had the same 2010 political views will represent the holidaymakers. The theory only makes sense if the people who go on holiday are in some subtle way different from like-minded people who stay at home.
I was musing about this the other date. I don't think the pollsters usually weight for sociodemographic stuff, as they would only be a proxy for voting intention and/or past voting, and they can use the real thing.
So a theory... people who go away at bank holidays are the people with the most money to spend, in terms of disposable income. They can afford a weekend away. They might not actually be the best off in terms of income but they are the ones who can afford to spend. And maybe they are the ones most likely to vote for the Government and/or Tory, even if they voted otherwise last time - life is being good to them. Just a thought. Someone will come along in a moment and blow it out of the water,
You are completely correct.
Contact with different demographics varies according to day of the week, time of day and holiday periods.
Working people (private sector) are the hardest to catch, while working parents are the hardest to pin down for time.
It's easy to catch pensioners, the unemployed and the economically inactive. Wealth = more holidays, more nights out etc.
Which is why market research work on quotas. You haven't experienced hell, until you've tried to find a working male who makes grocery shopping choices in a household.
Huw Edwards will take over from David Dimbleby on the BBC's election programme at 7am on Friday morning. In 2010 Dimbleby continued until about 3:30pm (with a short break between 7 and 10am).
Pulpstar Smarmeron Indeed, I tweeted it to Tommy Sheridan saying it looked like the best left of Labour option was now Green or TUSC and he favourited it, Tommy S had previously been a vocal SNP tactical vote backer
The chances of a grand coalition in peacetime are slightly less than zero, something Stephen Fisher must know in his heart of hearts.
Cameron can't have his cake and eat it. He says cutting a deal with the SNP would be a disaster for the UK. We're told he will try and claim 'legitimacy' if the Tories are the largest party. But what if Labour plus nationalists have a majority? Cameron would have to decide. Does he cut a deal with Labour or the nationalists?
PfP - I have just put £10 on Clegg to be next PM at 1000-1. I am betting that there will be a grand coalition and that Ed and Dave will not agree to the other being PM - so who do they go to?
I laid 30p of Farage at 970-1 last night, not sure what the correct odds for Clegg are.
However it is worth pointing out that the ICM sample size is half of the Ashcroft ones. Before any of the filters were applied in the ICM poll Labour were ahead. Whilst I tend to agree, especially in such a high profile contest, that naming the candidates makes sense, I am much less convinced that using the standard national poll filters about turnout, previous vote etc is particularly valid in this case. Ashcroft has made his own set of assumptions about filters which also have an impact on the final figure. All of these filters are arguable and do introduce a bias of some sort into the final figures. I suspect that the basic figures for both polls are pretty similar, it is the interpretation that is different.
To the wider point about how accurate the Ashcroft constituency polls are, again difficult to say, though we dont have long to find out. The point raised in the New Statesman article that Greg Cook (Labour's in house pollster) has grave doubts about constituency polling seem to have some basis. Anyone who has run a campaign involving lots of canvassing will realise how difficult it really is to get an accurate estimate of likely votes, most canvassing will involve far bigger samples than any poll.
The poll that stood out for me was Battersea. The general feeling is that this constituency, surprisingly, is "too close to call", a few months back no one in the Labour party would have thought this likely. However a very good Labour candidate and a hugely energetic and focused campaign along with various rumours about the poor state of the local tory party seemed to have convinced many that Labour can win here. Unfortunately from my personal perspective, especially as I went to school in Battersea, I am more inclined to believe the Ashcroft poll than current media received wisdom. Even if the poll overstates the tory position (which seems likely) the gap is simply too big to be cause by wrong filter assumptions or a somewhat skewed sample.
In general the Ashcroft polls make a lot of sense, especially if you assume that a gap of a few points between the parties is actually "too close to call" not a definitive guide to the outcome. The polls have shown UKIP/Green/Libdem votes being progressively squeezed as the election approaches (see for example Wirral West, Croydon Central, Pudsey) exactly as logic suggests would happen in tight marginals.
Some pollsters are going to be left red faced come Friday morning but I dont think the Ashcroft polls will be too far out, certainly it isnt cut and dried in Sheffield, though as always has been the case, Clegg remains favourite.
You thought the BBC after the Newsnight MacApline debacle, might just want to maybe not publish "rumours". Imagine if they had put programs out about 70's DJ's when they heard rumours.....
From the allegations about the Labour politician Greville Janner, detailed claims about the Liberal MP Cyril Smith and rumours of a cover up about a sex ring involving Conservative politicians
"Earlier today, it was revealed that Kirsten Oswald, the SNP candidate standing against Jim Murphy in East Renfrewshire, has sent out a letter to Tory voters asking them to lend their support to the SNP instead – because the SNP “understands” Conservative party values, concerns and priorities."
The single funniest thing I've read since the campaign started. Can someone (ScottP seems best placed) post this in reply to every self-righteous Nat post we get tonight (heck, feel free to do it all week).
Jonathan Trott has retired from international cricket.
Sad but why did he come back for such a short time?
He thought he could handle 85 mph balls. Of course, he can't. I don't buy that psychological stuff. He was just sc**ed !
Or sane. For all the kit more batsmen seem to be getting seriously hurt than ever. I wonder if there was some inhibition in bowling at the head of a guy wearing a cap at 85mph which has been lost. Bodyline seems pretty quaint these days and batsmen are seriously brave.
I thought Broad was also brave to admit that he had psychological problems after that ball got through his grill. It may shorten his career since he is barely a number 11 these days but I have every sympathy.
The Indy is making the point I made yesterday, if Labour finish second in terms of seats and votes takes power with the assistance of the SNP would be utterly disastrous for Labour
Agreed, it increasingly looks like the major consequence of the rise of the SNP in Scotland is going to be a Tory-led government for the rest of us.
Labour has left very little scope for doing any sort of deal with the SNP as I think they know it would be a disaster longer term and it will mean that the only other alternative will be for the Lib Dems getting reluctantly sucked into another coalition with the Tories, albeit probably a minority government this time.
The rise of the SNP is also masking the reality that after failing to get a majority in perfect circumstances in 2010 the Tories will probably be a net loser of seats this time. Although the Mail et al will hail it as a great triumph it won't be.
Pulpstar Smarmeron Indeed, I tweeted it to Tommy Sheridan saying it looked like the best left of Labour option was now Green or TUSC and he favourited it, Tommy S had previously been a vocal SNP tactical vote backer
Huw Edwards will take over from David Dimbleby on the BBC's election programme at 7am on Friday morning. In 2010 Dimbleby continued until about 3:30pm (with a short break between 7 and 10am).
Watching him on sixty years of swing I dontbthink its sunk in with him yet that this is his last election night presenting as he said he wants to be carried out in a box still doing the job
Is there ever an event with a camera that Tom Watson isn't at? I presume this one wasn't segregated...doesn't look like there is enough people that you would even notice anyway...
Smarmeron Not only is that letter likely to be as effective with Renfrewshire Tories as the Guardian's 2004 letters were with Ohio swing voters, so it is also likely to infuriate the left to see any SNP links being made with the Tories
Quite agree, it's a fuck up.
That could seriously cost SNP seats. Stupid, stupid arrogant pricks - don't they think about my betting situation?
I wonder what these Tory tactical voters will make of Clegg's obvious inability to keep private conversations private? It plays right into the 'you can't trust the LibDems' narrative...
Danny Alexander's perfidy on Thursday is what pushed me out of the Clegg camp.
That said, most Tories in the seat I spoke to view as acceptable given the Lib Dem national polling.
You don;t have to keep trying to justify voting Conservative to us on here . You have made it clear in all your posts on here that you are a life long tribal Conservative and it was always clear to us who would end up voting for . It was equally clear that Casino Royale would do the same despite his dithering and dallying with voting UKIP .
How's the campaign going for you, Mark?
Medical problems and a recent minor op have kept me indoors .
PfP - I have just put £10 on Clegg to be next PM at 1000-1. I am betting that there will be a grand coalition and that Ed and Dave will not agree to the other being PM - so who do they go to?
The Bow Group old guard (Heseltine et al) are gunning for the BG young Turks for saying 'vote UKIP in a can't-win poll'. Old'uns insist: 'Always vote Tory regardless.'
Given Lord Heseltine's stage in life I feel quoting him is rather unfairly highlighting what is essentially a private medical matter.
Smarmeron Not only is that letter likely to be as effective with Renfrewshire Tories as the Guardian's 2004 letters were with Ohio swing voters, so it is also likely to infuriate the left to see any SNP links being made with the Tories
Quite agree, it's a fuck up.
That could seriously cost SNP seats. Stupid, stupid arrogant pricks - don't they think about my betting situation?
Well its not trending on twitter... yet... and the irony is that Murphy himself will nned Conservative votes to win !
Hopefully a minor impact - could cost Kirsten the seat tbh tho.
The chances of a grand coalition in peacetime are slightly less than zero, something Stephen Fisher must know in his heart of hearts.
Cameron can't have his cake and eat it. He says cutting a deal with the SNP would be a disaster for the UK. We're told he will try and claim 'legitimacy' if the Tories are the largest party. But what if Labour plus nationalists have a majority? Cameron would have to decide. Does he cut a deal with Labour or the nationalists?
Not at all - he governs as a minority and challenges anyone to bring him down. Labour and SNP voting together would result in the ultimate demise of labour in England and is also predicated on the assumption all labour mp's would vote against DC, which is not a certainty by a long way
The Bow Group old guard (Heseltine et al) are gunning for the BG young Turks for saying 'vote UKIP in a can't-win poll'. Old'uns insist: 'Always vote Tory regardless.'
Given Lord Heseltine's stage in life I feel quoting him is rather unfairly highlighting what is essentially a private medical matter.
I'm sure he worries a great deal about your sanity too.
@juliahobsbawm: Apoplexy caused by@Independent Leader hit big nerve. Bold and maybe right. Labour knows public nervous of Scotland holding balance of Power
I wonder what these Tory tactical voters will make of Clegg's obvious inability to keep private conversations private? It plays right into the 'you can't trust the LibDems' narrative...
Danny Alexander's perfidy on Thursday is what pushed me out of the Clegg camp.
That said, most Tories in the seat I spoke to view as acceptable given the Lib Dem national polling.
You don;t have to keep trying to justify voting Conservative to us on here . You have made it clear in all your posts on here that you are a life long tribal Conservative and it was always clear to us who would end up voting for . It was equally clear that Casino Royale would do the same despite his dithering and dallying with voting UKIP .
How's the campaign going for you, Mark?
Medical problems and a recent minor op have kept me indoors .
Pulpstar Alistair Doubt it will make a huge difference, but it could save Labour a few seats if some leftwingers switch from voting SNP to voting Green or TUSC as a result of that letter
I wonder what these Tory tactical voters will make of Clegg's obvious inability to keep private conversations private? It plays right into the 'you can't trust the LibDems' narrative...
Danny Alexander's perfidy on Thursday is what pushed me out of the Clegg camp.
That said, most Tories in the seat I spoke to view as acceptable given the Lib Dem national polling.
You don;t have to keep trying to justify voting Conservative to us on here . You have made it clear in all your posts on here that you are a life long tribal Conservative and it was always clear to us who would end up voting for . It was equally clear that Casino Royale would do the same despite his dithering and dallying with voting UKIP .
How's the campaign going for you, Mark?
Medical problems and a recent minor op have kept me indoors .
"Earlier today, it was revealed that Kirsten Oswald, the SNP candidate standing against Jim Murphy in East Renfrewshire, has sent out a letter to Tory voters asking them to lend their support to the SNP instead – because the SNP “understands” Conservative party values, concerns and priorities."
@juliahobsbawm: Apoplexy caused by@Independent Leader hit big nerve. Bold and maybe right. Labour knows public nervous of Scotland holding balance of Power
I wonder what these Tory tactical voters will make of Clegg's obvious inability to keep private conversations private? It plays right into the 'you can't trust the LibDems' narrative...
Danny Alexander's perfidy on Thursday is what pushed me out of the Clegg camp.
That said, most Tories in the seat I spoke to view as acceptable given the Lib Dem national polling.
You don;t have to keep trying to justify voting Conservative to us on here . You have made it clear in all your posts on here that you are a life long tribal Conservative and it was always clear to us who would end up voting for . It was equally clear that Casino Royale would do the same despite his dithering and dallying with voting UKIP .
How's the campaign going for you, Mark?
Medical problems and a recent minor op have kept me indoors .
Best wishes for a speedy recovery
I second that.
And a third from here. Hope you recover soon Mark.
Cathing up with the election news after a intense two days working on a short term contract.
I watched the BBC leaders debate of last night where Ruth Davidson and Jim Murphy spent some considerable time shouting liar liar pants on fire at each other. On balance this was the fault of Murphy who seems to have some real anger management issues. He comes across as threatening and barely under control - not a good thing for a man to do to any women, even a Tory women.
I watched further Murphy footage today and was reminded of a project I conducted with a special needs group who felt they had been evicted by the Commonwealth Games. Sean Clerkin presented himself as their representative at his own intitiative. He did not strike me as a bad person just an inveterate campaigner who loves publicity. When Sean is protesting against something some politicians handle it well, like Salmond who apparantly invited all of the protesters in for a cup of tea in a cafe. Some handle it badly like Ian Gray who once retreated into a Subway. Some seem to relish the agro like Murphy today.
I do wonder if the common factor in all of this nonsense is Murphy.
I wonder what these Tory tactical voters will make of Clegg's obvious inability to keep private conversations private? It plays right into the 'you can't trust the LibDems' narrative...
Danny Alexander's perfidy on Thursday is what pushed me out of the Clegg camp.
That said, most Tories in the seat I spoke to view as acceptable given the Lib Dem national polling.
You don;t have to keep trying to justify voting Conservative to us on here . You have made it clear in all your posts on here that you are a life long tribal Conservative and it was always clear to us who would end up voting for . It was equally clear that Casino Royale would do the same despite his dithering and dallying with voting UKIP .
How's the campaign going for you, Mark?
Medical problems and a recent minor op have kept me indoors .
So a theory... people who go away at bank holidays are the people with the most money to spend, in terms of disposable income. They can afford a weekend away. They might not actually be the best off in terms of income but they are the ones who can afford to spend. And maybe they are the ones most likely to vote for the Government and/or Tory, even if they voted otherwise last time - life is being good to them. Just a thought. Someone will come along in a moment and blow it out of the water,
Interesting - that would work as a possible theory. On the other hand, the most Conservative voters are retired, and they seem unlikely to be keen to go on bank holidays when the roads are crowded?
More data needed, really, but I do think the holiday theory is not proven. Another approach would be to look at past bank holidays. Have they shown unusual patterns?
The chances of a grand coalition in peacetime are slightly less than zero, something Stephen Fisher must know in his heart of hearts.
Cameron can't have his cake and eat it. He says cutting a deal with the SNP would be a disaster for the UK. We're told he will try and claim 'legitimacy' if the Tories are the largest party. But what if Labour plus nationalists have a majority? Cameron would have to decide. Does he cut a deal with Labour or the nationalists?
Not at all - he governs as a minority and challenges anyone to bring him down. Labour and SNP voting together would result in the ultimate demise of labour in England and is also predicated on the assumption all labour mp's would vote against DC, which is not a certainty by a long way
You think Labour will vote/abstain against any laws that Cameron's governments intends to because of fear that any time they do, it'll be with the SNP, and that single incident will 'destroy' Labour? Really? As even if Labour don't vote down the Queen's Speech, they are unlikely to vote for budgets, and anything else Cameron puts forward in the Commons', meaning they will probably be voting with the SNP - and depending on what happens, Plaid MPs, and even some LDs.
“in key areas his policy prescriptions suggest a party unready for government. Tampering with tuition fees would harm universities while benefiting wealthy rather than poor students. Taxing property more is smart, but rent controls won’t work and a mansion tax is a centralising, blunt tool: much better to reform council tax instead. And though he is right not to flirt with leaving the EU, far too many businesses of all sizes fear Labour”
What could non-dom Indy owner Evgeny Lebedev have against Labour…
So which papers endorsements are we waiting for still...the Mirror? the Metro?
The chances of a grand coalition in peacetime are slightly less than zero, something Stephen Fisher must know in his heart of hearts.
Cameron can't have his cake and eat it. He says cutting a deal with the SNP would be a disaster for the UK. We're told he will try and claim 'legitimacy' if the Tories are the largest party. But what if Labour plus nationalists have a majority? Cameron would have to decide. Does he cut a deal with Labour or the nationalists?
Not at all - he governs as a minority and challenges anyone to bring him down. Labour and SNP voting together would result in the ultimate demise of labour in England and is also predicated on the assumption all labour mp's would vote against DC, which is not a certainty by a long way
You think Labour will vote/abstain against any laws that Cameron's governments intends to because of fear that any time they do, it'll be with the SNP, and that single incident will 'destroy' Labour? Really? As even if Labour don't vote down the Queen's Speech, they are unlikely to vote for budgets, and anything else Cameron puts forward in the Commons', meaning they will probably be voting with the SNP - and depending on what happens, Plaid MPs, and even some LDs.
And end up infuriating the public who on present thinking believe the one who has most votes and seats should be given a chance to run the country
“in key areas his policy prescriptions suggest a party unready for government. Tampering with tuition fees would harm universities while benefiting wealthy rather than poor students. Taxing property more is smart, but rent controls won’t work and a mansion tax is a centralising, blunt tool: much better to reform council tax instead. And though he is right not to flirt with leaving the EU, far too many businesses of all sizes fear Labour”
What could non-dom Indy owner Evgeny Lebedev have against Labour…
So which papers endorsements are we waiting for still...the Mirror? the Metro?
Interesting point on Lebedev being non-dom. I think we've found our reason for the Indy's stance. As for rent controls - Germany hasn't collapsed and they use rent controls. It's only really, the incompetence of the Labour party that would be a concern - I don't trust them to successfully implement policy. Then again, I don't trust any of the political parties to successfully implement policy.
Pulpstar Alistair Doubt it will make a huge difference, but it could save Labour a few seats if some leftwingers switch from voting SNP to voting Green or TUSC as a result of that letter
Ye any effect should be marginal - perhaps helping save Murphy's own skin is the biggest potential effect. He hopes
The chances of a grand coalition in peacetime are slightly less than zero, something Stephen Fisher must know in his heart of hearts.
Cameron can't have his cake and eat it. He says cutting a deal with the SNP would be a disaster for the UK. We're told he will try and claim 'legitimacy' if the Tories are the largest party. But what if Labour plus nationalists have a majority? Cameron would have to decide. Does he cut a deal with Labour or the nationalists?
Not at all - he governs as a minority and challenges anyone to bring him down. Labour and SNP voting together would result in the ultimate demise of labour in England and is also predicated on the assumption all labour mp's would vote against DC, which is not a certainty by a long way
You think Labour will vote/abstain against any laws that Cameron's governments intends to because of fear that any time they do, it'll be with the SNP, and that single incident will 'destroy' Labour? Really? As even if Labour don't vote down the Queen's Speech, they are unlikely to vote for budgets, and anything else Cameron puts forward in the Commons', meaning they will probably be voting with the SNP - and depending on what happens, Plaid MPs, and even some LDs.
And end up infuriating the public who on present thinking believe the one who has most votes and seats should be given a chance to run the country
The public will get over it pretty swiftly, I am sure. A Tory civil war will in any case provide some distraction in the event any attempted Cameron ministry is brought down.
Ed Miliband plot to become Prime Minister even if he does not win election
Senior Labour figures considering coalition with Liberal Democrats to help 'lend legitimacy' to minority government and reduce reliance on SNP
Senior figures in the party are trying to woo the Liberal Democrats to help "lend legitimacy" to a minority Labour government and reduce the party's reliance on the SNP.
However it is worth pointing out that the ICM sample size is half of the Ashcroft ones. Before any of the filters were applied in the ICM poll Labour were ahead. Whilst I tend to agree, especially in such a high profile contest, that naming the candidates makes sense, I am much less convinced that using the standard national poll filters about turnout, previous vote etc is particularly valid in this case. Ashcroft has made his own set of assumptions about filters which also have an impact on the final figure. All of these filters are arguable and do introduce a bias of some sort into the final figures. I suspect that the basic figures for both polls are pretty similar, it is the interpretation that is different.
To the wider point about how accurate the Ashcroft constituency polls are, again difficult to say, though we dont have long to find out. The point raised in the New Statesman article that Greg Cook (Labour's in house pollster) has grave doubts about constituency polling seem to have some basis. Anyone who has run a campaign involving lots of canvassing will realise how difficult it really is to get an accurate estimate of likely votes, most canvassing will involve far bigger samples than any poll.
In general the Ashcroft polls make a lot of sense, especially if you assume that a gap of a few points between the parties is actually "too close to call" not a definitive guide to the outcome. The polls have shown UKIP/Green/Libdem votes being progressively squeezed as the election approaches (see for example Wirral West, Croydon Central, Pudsey) exactly as logic suggests would happen in tight marginals.
Some pollsters are going to be left red faced come Friday morning but I dont think the Ashcroft polls will be too far out, certainly it isnt cut and dried in Sheffield, though as always has been the case, Clegg remains favourite.
If anyone tells me that naming the Deputy Prime Minister who is also the sitting MP for two terms and is a candidate in this election with three days to go, increases his support then something is wrong.
I am sure there are some people who does not know or care the name of the candidate. Very likely they do not know who Clegg is either.
This poll is of a sample size of 501. I am not sure why anyone takes it seriously.
The chances of a grand coalition in peacetime are slightly less than zero, something Stephen Fisher must know in his heart of hearts.
Cameron can't have his cake and eat it. He says cutting a deal with the SNP would be a disaster for the UK. We're told he will try and claim 'legitimacy' if the Tories are the largest party. But what if Labour plus nationalists have a majority? Cameron would have to decide. Does he cut a deal with Labour or the nationalists?
Not at all - he governs as a minority and challenges anyone to bring him down. Labour and SNP voting together would result in the ultimate demise of labour in England and is also predicated on the assumption all labour mp's would vote against DC, which is not a certainty by a long way
You think Labour will vote/abstain against any laws that Cameron's governments intends to because of fear that any time they do, it'll be with the SNP, and that single incident will 'destroy' Labour? Really? As even if Labour don't vote down the Queen's Speech, they are unlikely to vote for budgets, and anything else Cameron puts forward in the Commons', meaning they will probably be voting with the SNP - and depending on what happens, Plaid MPs, and even some LDs.
And end up infuriating the public who on present thinking believe the one who has most votes and seats should be given a chance to run the country
I really, really doubt that the public expect Labour to prop up the existing government for months, years on end. Yes the public believe that those with the most seats should be given a chance to run the country - if Cameron can't push through majorities in the HoCs, that's on him for not being able to form a big enough majority. And rather than Labour looking bad, I think that Cameron's government will simply look weak and unstable.
Remember that scene at the end of the Ark of the Covenant where it gets stored away in a store so big no one is ever going to see it again? Its going to be a bit like that.
David Cameron tweeted this photo today saying: 'My best wishes to George Kirby (103) and Doreen Luckie (91), set to become the world's oldest newly-weds in June'
I don't think Labour will succeed in wooing the LDs while Clegg is leader. What they need is the parliamentary party, + grassroots of the LDs to actively reject a Con-LD coalition. That would pretty much signal the end of Clegg, opening up the leadership for a more Labour friendly LD leader.
Indy really has gone for Labour on so many fronts. Boggling.
Weirdest election ever, with the prophet of do-not-vote saying Vote Labour and nearly all the papers saying Do Not or if you have to, hold your nose. Still waiting for the Mirror...
Eff me the Indy are endorsing the coalition (I think)
A hung parliament is certain this week. For all his talk of no deals with the SNP, Miliband is bound to rely on that party to get his legislative programme through. This would be a disaster for the country, unleashing justified fury in England at the decisive influence of MPs who – unlike this title – do not wish the Union to exist. If that were to be the case while Labour were the second biggest party either in terms of vote share, or seats – or both – how could Labour govern with authority? They could not. Any partnership between Labour and the SNP will harm Britain’s fragile democracy. For all its faults, another Lib-Con Coalition would both prolong recovery and give our kingdom a better chance of continued existence.
This title casts no vote. But we prize strong, effective government, consider nationalism guilty until proven innocent, and say that if the present Coalition is to get another chance, we hope it is much less conservative, and much more liberal.
Indy really has gone for Labour on so many fronts. Boggling.
Weirdest election ever, with the prophet of do-not-vote saying Vote Labour and nearly all the papers saying Do Not or if you have to, hold your nose. Still waiting for the Mirror...
Another interesting day on the streets. Unless Labour are just tele-canvassing, then they are nowhere in SW London. The reds are spreading the word that their vote is not standing up. I don't know what that means but all the data I have got, the swing will be less than 1% Con to Lab.
CCHQ are more gung ho and are on the attack rather than defence. I hope it is good judgement, I am sure it will be. Still on for 306 seats a la Jack W.
Indy really has gone for Labour on so many fronts. Boggling.
Weirdest election ever, with the prophet of do-not-vote saying Vote Labour and nearly all the papers saying Do Not or if you have to, hold your nose. Still waiting for the Mirror...
So whose endorsement will be more influential: Brand's or the Indy's? On one hand Brand was more unequivocal (except for Scotland and Brighton), whilst the Indy's is more thoughtful.
The chances of a grand coalition in peacetime are slightly less than zero, something Stephen Fisher must know in his heart of hearts.
Cameron can't have his cake and eat it. He says cutting a deal with the SNP would be a disaster for the UK. We're told he will try and claim 'legitimacy' if the Tories are the largest party. But what if Labour plus nationalists have a majority? Cameron would have to decide. Does he cut a deal with Labour or the nationalists?
Not at all - he governs as a minority and challenges anyone to bring him down. Labour and SNP voting together would result in the ultimate demise of labour in England and is also predicated on the assumption all labour mp's would vote against DC, which is not a certainty by a long way
You think Labour will vote/abstain against any laws that Cameron's governments intends to because of fear that any time they do, it'll be with the SNP, and that single incident will 'destroy' Labour? Really? As even if Labour don't vote down the Queen's Speech, they are unlikely to vote for budgets, and anything else Cameron puts forward in the Commons', meaning they will probably be voting with the SNP - and depending on what happens, Plaid MPs, and even some LDs.
And end up infuriating the public who on present thinking believe the one who has most votes and seats should be given a chance to run the country
I really, really doubt that the public expect Labour to prop up the existing government for months, years on end. Yes the public believe that those with the most seats should be given a chance to run the country - if Cameron can't push through majorities in the HoCs, that's on him for not being able to form a big enough majority. And rather than Labour looking bad, I think that Cameron's government will simply look weak and unstable.
I would agree that it would be time limited but labour are not in a good place in this either and it may well have to end in a short term grand coalition. No one seems to be commenting on how much economic damage could be caused to UK PLC in all this
Sturgeon Tories will have no mandate to rule us - Telegraph Scotland.
As long as this is a united state, they do. In the same manner, a party that wants to destroy the union absolutely has a legitimate right to send MPs to Westminster and vote on all sorts of things in relation to the union. It's just a question of how sensible it would be for the parties in either scenario to push things too far.
If the Indy thinks Ed has failed to make the case for change I wonder how many voters who are centrist but left leaning will arrive at a similar conclusion?
The Mirror will back Labour, they aren't going to back the Tories or the LDs.
Don't really see how Indy going against Labour is /that/ 'significant'. Now that we know their owner is a non-dom, and looking at Labour's policy on non-dom the situation there is pretty much similar to the Barclay Brothers agenda at the Telegraph. It gives Labour one less ally in the press, which increases Labour's uphill battle to get any kind of positive press coverage, but that's about it. I don't think the public take notice of who newspapers endorse, these days. I think we saw how limited newspaper influence was in the last election.
Sturgeon Tories will have no mandate to rule us - Telegraph Scotland.
Showing an incredible lack of understanding of the UK constitutional settlement
Yes but OTOH even as a Tory and a Unionist I still feel slightly uncomfortable with the determination to exclude the democratically elected representatives of Scotland from the governance of the United Kingdom no matter how idiotic we have been.
I would agree that it would be time limited but labour are not in a good place in this either and it may well have to end in a short term grand coalition. No one seems to be commenting on how much economic damage could be caused to UK PLC in all this
I think we'll probably have Cameron as PM until a second election. The situation isn't ideal for any of the parties, but the PB narrative appears to be that this situation is fantastic for the Tories, when I for the life of me can't see how it is.
Sturgeon Tories will have no mandate to rule us - Telegraph Scotland.
i.e Indy referundum numero deux
I read today that "spending cuts" which weren't publicly endorsed by the SNP would be "reason for a new referendum", according to Sturgeon. So the indyref which was apparently "once in a generation" has become "once you do anything we don't like".
Fuck them. The country cannot be held hostage, politically, by these nutters. If they wish to break up Britain, and the Scots agree, let it happen, and happen soon. A more conservative England will regain itself.
You are making the same mistake as the Nats. The SNP do not speak for all of Scotland.
A second indyref defeat is more than they can risk, unless something substantial changes such as Brexit while Scotland votes to stay in (also likely to be a problem in Wales and NI, Brexit may mean English Independence).
Another interesting day on the streets. Unless Labour are just tele-canvassing, then they are nowhere in SW London. The reds are spreading the word that their vote is not standing up. I don't know what that means but all the data I have got, the swing will be less than 1% Con to Lab.
CCHQ are more gung ho and are on the attack rather than defence. I hope it is good judgement, I am sure it will be. Still on for 306 seats a la Jack W.
Ive been accused of ramping.., I've said the same thing. Constituency wide canvassing in several seats has shown no swing away from cons, like for like on 2010.... Cons on 37% of national vote.
So far don't like the set of the BBC election night - too many monitors for starters
Sky News will be the best. They don't panic about political correctness whilst backing the left as Beeb do. Sky will be in-depth, triumphant and favour the right wing. What's not to like. BBC is sanctimonious shit on current affairs.
Remember that scene at the end of the Ark of the Covenant where it gets stored away in a store so big no one is ever going to see it again? Its going to be a bit like that.
"Earlier today, it was revealed that Kirsten Oswald, the SNP candidate standing against Jim Murphy in East Renfrewshire, has sent out a letter to Tory voters asking them to lend their support to the SNP instead – because the SNP “understands” Conservative party values, concerns and priorities."
The single funniest thing I've read since the campaign started. Can someone (ScottP seems best placed) post this in reply to every self-righteous Nat post we get tonight (heck, feel free to do it all week).
Funniest leaflet from our odious Labour candidate in sending leaflet to larger houses saying 'look, if Labour win, you will only be paying another £250 a month extra for your very fair mansion tax.' I imagine the blues received quite a few quid in donation that night.
A day today delivering a tonnage of leaflets, rather than direct voter contact. But I did get the first voter raising fears about gay marriage. Although it was not going to stop her changing her vote from LibDem last time to Tory this!
Met various other people switching the right way for us - either to Con from LibDem or from LibDem to Labour - both of which work for us Cons in Torbay! If that is indicative of any wider picture, then.....
Plus our phone calls checking on our postal vote pledges are showing they are absolutely rock solid in sending them back already. No slippage...
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05v0975/broadcasts/upcoming
However it is worth pointing out that the ICM sample size is half of the Ashcroft ones. Before any of the filters were applied in the ICM poll Labour were ahead. Whilst I tend to agree, especially in such a high profile contest, that naming the candidates makes sense, I am much less convinced that using the standard national poll filters about turnout, previous vote etc is particularly valid in this case. Ashcroft has made his own set of assumptions about filters which also have an impact on the final figure. All of these filters are arguable and do introduce a bias of some sort into the final figures. I suspect that the basic figures for both polls are pretty similar, it is the interpretation that is different.
To the wider point about how accurate the Ashcroft constituency polls are, again difficult to say, though we dont have long to find out. The point raised in the New Statesman article that Greg Cook (Labour's in house pollster) has grave doubts about constituency polling seem to have some basis. Anyone who has run a campaign involving lots of canvassing will realise how difficult it really is to get an accurate estimate of likely votes, most canvassing will involve far bigger samples than any poll.
The poll that stood out for me was Battersea. The general feeling is that this constituency, surprisingly, is "too close to call", a few months back no one in the Labour party would have thought this likely. However a very good Labour candidate and a hugely energetic and focused campaign along with various rumours about the poor state of the local tory party seemed to have convinced many that Labour can win here. Unfortunately from my personal perspective, especially as I went to school in Battersea, I am more inclined to believe the Ashcroft poll than current media received wisdom. Even if the poll overstates the tory position (which seems likely) the gap is simply too big to be cause by wrong filter assumptions or a somewhat skewed sample.
In general the Ashcroft polls make a lot of sense, especially if you assume that a gap of a few points between the parties is actually "too close to call" not a definitive guide to the outcome. The polls have shown UKIP/Green/Libdem votes being progressively squeezed as the election approaches (see for example Wirral West, Croydon Central, Pudsey) exactly as logic suggests would happen in tight marginals.
Some pollsters are going to be left red faced come Friday morning but I dont think the Ashcroft polls will be too far out, certainly it isnt cut and dried in Sheffield, though as always has been the case, Clegg remains favourite.
From the allegations about the Labour politician Greville Janner, detailed claims about the Liberal MP Cyril Smith and rumours of a cover up about a sex ring involving Conservative politicians
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02qmvpm
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEK9X4-WIAAGJNT.jpg:large
(Sadly I'm sure it's a wind-up. Right?)
For all the kit more batsmen seem to be getting seriously hurt than ever. I wonder if there was some inhibition in bowling at the head of a guy wearing a cap at 85mph which has been lost. Bodyline seems pretty quaint these days and batsmen are seriously brave.
I thought Broad was also brave to admit that he had psychological problems after that ball got through his grill. It may shorten his career since he is barely a number 11 these days but I have every sympathy.
Labour has left very little scope for doing any sort of deal with the SNP as I think they know it would be a disaster longer term and it will mean that the only other alternative will be for the Lib Dems getting reluctantly sucked into another coalition with the Tories, albeit probably a minority government this time.
The rise of the SNP is also masking the reality that after failing to get a majority in perfect circumstances in 2010 the Tories will probably be a net loser of seats this time. Although the Mail et al will hail it as a great triumph it won't be.
Hopefully a minor impact - could cost Kirsten the seat tbh tho.
I am disappointed, I fully expected someone to post that she was nothing to do with the official SNP.
I watched the BBC leaders debate of last night where Ruth Davidson and Jim Murphy spent some considerable time shouting liar liar pants on fire at each other. On balance this was the fault of Murphy who seems to have some real anger management issues. He comes across as threatening and barely under control - not a good thing for a man to do to any women, even a Tory women.
I watched further Murphy footage today and was reminded of a project I conducted with a special needs group who felt they had been evicted by the Commonwealth Games. Sean Clerkin presented himself as their representative at his own intitiative. He did not strike me as a bad person just an inveterate campaigner who loves publicity. When Sean is protesting against something some politicians handle it well, like Salmond who apparantly invited all of the protesters in for a cup of tea in a cafe. Some handle it badly like Ian Gray who once retreated into a Subway. Some seem to relish the agro like Murphy today.
I do wonder if the common factor in all of this nonsense is Murphy.
More data needed, really, but I do think the holiday theory is not proven. Another approach would be to look at past bank holidays. Have they shown unusual patterns?
He's found form!
“in key areas his policy prescriptions suggest a party unready for government. Tampering with tuition fees would harm universities while benefiting wealthy rather than poor students. Taxing property more is smart, but rent controls won’t work and a mansion tax is a centralising, blunt tool: much better to reform council tax instead. And though he is right not to flirt with leaving the EU, far too many businesses of all sizes fear Labour”
What could non-dom Indy owner Evgeny Lebedev have against Labour…
So which papers endorsements are we waiting for still...the Mirror? the Metro?
Ah, the Edstone - I miss it already.
Senior Labour figures considering coalition with Liberal Democrats to help 'lend legitimacy' to minority government and reduce reliance on SNP
Senior figures in the party are trying to woo the Liberal Democrats to help "lend legitimacy" to a minority Labour government and reduce the party's reliance on the SNP.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11582095/Ed-Miliband-plot-to-become-Prime-Minister-even-he-does-not-win-election.html
I bet Uncle Vince is getting bombarded with friendly texts and calls.
I am sure there are some people who does not know or care the name of the candidate. Very likely they do not know who Clegg is either.
This poll is of a sample size of 501. I am not sure why anyone takes it seriously.
No?
Amazing insight.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03290/election-cameron-e_3290582k.jpg
David Cameron tweeted this photo today saying: 'My best wishes to George Kirby (103) and Doreen Luckie (91), set to become the world's oldest newly-weds in June'
http://t.co/ImQpPk07jt
Weirdest election ever, with the prophet of do-not-vote saying Vote Labour and nearly all the papers saying Do Not or if you have to, hold your nose. Still waiting for the Mirror...
CCHQ are more gung ho and are on the attack rather than defence. I hope it is good judgement, I am sure it will be. Still on for 306 seats a la Jack W.
Or will both, in fact, make little difference?
@neil -I can't read Sturgeon text on tweet of Telegraph Scotland.
Don't really see how Indy going against Labour is /that/ 'significant'. Now that we know their owner is a non-dom, and looking at Labour's policy on non-dom the situation there is pretty much similar to the Barclay Brothers agenda at the Telegraph. It gives Labour one less ally in the press, which increases Labour's uphill battle to get any kind of positive press coverage, but that's about it. I don't think the public take notice of who newspapers endorse, these days. I think we saw how limited newspaper influence was in the last election.
'Why are you so bothered? Your ground game is going so well you will have a majority on Friday, why worry?'
Maybe he met some real voters to-day ?
A second indyref defeat is more than they can risk, unless something substantial changes such as Brexit while Scotland votes to stay in (also likely to be a problem in Wales and NI, Brexit may mean English Independence).
Met various other people switching the right way for us - either to Con from LibDem or from LibDem to Labour - both of which work for us Cons in Torbay! If that is indicative of any wider picture, then.....
Plus our phone calls checking on our postal vote pledges are showing they are absolutely rock solid in sending them back already. No slippage...