Curious about the practice of writing NI 18 in seat projections. In a Parliament as close as is being forecast the breakdown of that 18 could be critical. Alliance for instance would probably go with Labour but if the Unionists recover that seat then it'd probably be more palatable for Tory and LD than Labour and SNP.
I think it's because most people (including me) only have a vague understanding of NI politics. That may be unkind to fellow posters, but that's my perception.
Furthermore, my impression is that sectarian gerrymandering has rendered most seats 'safe' for one party or another
There are quite a few competitive seats in Northern Ireland.
F&ST was the closest of all in 2010 and sees the DUP giving the UUP a clear run against SF. Sadly the UUP are totally crap at politics and the SF machine is legendary so that will probably be a SF hold.
Belfast East saw the leader of the DUP lose his seat in 2010. Nasty, ugly sectarian politics has reared its head since, the point that loyalists and others wanted to make back then has been made and the seat will probably go back to the DUP this time.
Belfast South is always a bit of a turkey shoot and with all parties contesting this time it would be a brave person to call it.
Belfast North is a sectarian headcount between the DUP and SF and is likely to be close.
SF would like to think they have a chance of finally winning Foyle (but tactical voting will hopefully see them off).
Potential shock of the night - Lady Hermon to lose!
That's not a bad proportion of seats that are competitive.
Curious about the practice of writing NI 18 in seat projections. In a Parliament as close as is being forecast the breakdown of that 18 could be critical. Alliance for instance would probably go with Labour but if the Unionists recover that seat then it'd probably be more palatable for Tory and LD than Labour and SNP.
I think it's because most people (including me) only have a vague understanding of NI politics. That may be unkind to fellow posters, but that's my perception.
Furthermore, my impression is that sectarian gerrymandering has rendered most seats 'safe' for one party or another
There are quite a few competitive seats in Northern Ireland.
F&ST was the closest of all in 2010 and sees the DUP giving the UUP a clear run against SF. Sadly the UUP are totally crap at politics and the SF machine is legendary so that will probably be a SF hold.
Belfast East saw the leader of the DUP lose his seat in 2010. Nasty, ugly sectarian politics has reared its head since, the point that loyalists and others wanted to make back then has been made and the seat will probably go back to the DUP this time.
Belfast South is always a bit of a turkey shoot and with all parties contesting this time it would be a brave person to call it.
Belfast North is a sectarian headcount between the DUP and SF and is likely to be close.
SF would like to think they have a chance of finally winning Foyle (but tactical voting will hopefully see them off).
Potential shock of the night - Lady Hermon to lose!
That's not a bad proportion of seats that are competitive.
I've had a tickle on the DUP in Belfast North and South at 4-9 and 3-1 respectively !
UKIP on Thursday will be sub 10%. Who gets most seats will be determined by where those few % go - if anywhere.
I doubt that very much but UKIP vs LibDems Most Votes could be close and Ladbrokes' 5/2 on the Yellow Team could yet prove to be a value bet. I'm expecting them to be within 1% of UKIP, bearing in mind their better organisation and ability to get their vote out.
“I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the fact that he’s carved them into stone means, you know, means that he will absolutely, you know, not going to break them or anything like that.”
The above quote from Lucy Powell on R5.
What I really loved on that was the interjection of interviewer Peter Allen who said:
"Was it really a good idea to say that?"
Lucy Powell:
"Well Yes,....." and continued to prattle on wallowing in her Labour intellectual self confidence.
She was given a get out of jail card and declined!
Lucy Powell has dropped another spectacular clanger. Asked on 5Live this morning whether having to carve their pledges into stone was a sign the public didn’t trust them, Labour’s election chief inexplicably replied:
“I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the fact that he’s carved them into stone means, you know, means that he will absolutely, you know, not going to break them or anything like that.”
More the fact that his central projection of Con 289, Lab 257 gives a 50-50 probability of PM Ed. It gives a good indication of why Ed should still be favourite for PM.
Even if mathematically possible I can't see Ed becoming PM with 257 seats and more than 30 seats behind Con...
Especially since Con + LD + DUP + UKIP > 323. This is the crucial consideration for a Con/LD government.
Just having a browse of the BBC Election feed, and it seems to be a never ending splurge of threats about the NHS from Labour. I know they're trusted on this issue, but to consistently push the "24 hours to save it" line smacks of utter desperation to me (alongside the 6000 nurse losses...)
I've noticed Labours panicky rhetoric more so in the last two days than at any other point in the campaign. Being that the polls are tied, is there any reason for them continue with this stance "if" they seem likely to become largest party?
Every seat counts.
The NHS is either the most important or 2nd most important issue in all the polls.
Over two thirds of hospitals have forecast deficits nearly all the clinical access standards are worse under the Tories.
It is valid for LAB to point this out.
Hospitals crippled by the costs of Labour's PFI schemes.
PFI was stupid I think the Tories still support it.
Much mor significant to Hospitals Financial Crisis is the marginal tariff for Emergency Care and the BCF monies stolen and given to councils for pot holes.
Not to mention Lansleys Conflict of Interest reforms
Just having a browse of the BBC Election feed, and it seems to be a never ending splurge of threats about the NHS from Labour. I know they're trusted on this issue, but to consistently push the "24 hours to save it" line smacks of utter desperation to me (alongside the 6000 nurse losses...)
I've noticed Labours panicky rhetoric more so in the last two days than at any other point in the campaign. Being that the polls are tied, is there any reason for them continue with this stance "if" they seem likely to become largest party?
Every seat counts.
The NHS is either the most important or 2nd most important issue in all the polls.
Over two thirds of hospitals have forecast deficits nearly all the clinical access standards are worse under the Tories.
It is valid for LAB to point this out.
Hospitals crippled by the costs of Labour's PFI schemes.
The PFI costs would be known.
So this is the Tory government stuffing up the amount required to keep the service running.
Just having a browse of the BBC Election feed, and it seems to be a never ending splurge of threats about the NHS from Labour. I know they're trusted on this issue, but to consistently push the "24 hours to save it" line smacks of utter desperation to me (alongside the 6000 nurse losses...)
I've noticed Labours panicky rhetoric more so in the last two days than at any other point in the campaign. Being that the polls are tied, is there any reason for them continue with this stance "if" they seem likely to become largest party?
Every seat counts.
The NHS is either the most important or 2nd most important issue in all the polls.
Over two thirds of hospitals have forecast deficits nearly all the clinical access standards are worse under the Tories.
It is valid for LAB to point this out.
Hospitals crippled by the costs of Labour's PFI schemes.
The PFI costs would be known.
So this is the Tory government stuffing up the amount required to keep the service running.
No, its due to the hiring of additional nursing staff so that scandals like Mid-Staffs never occur again and patients are properly cared for.
Greens to come close in Norwich South (have given it them above)
That would be a very pleasant surprise. I havent canvassed in Norwich in years so I had presumed from the outside it would be a very tough ask the way local results were going. I'd be more than happy with retaining Brighton Pavilion and getting one or two 2nd places. Anything more would be a bonus.
Greens to trounce the yellow peril in Sheffield Central I reckon.
That's a big hope. It would be a very distant second place if it came off but right now we have no second places to work on so we'll take what's going.
In terms of 2nd places - I reckon that you should have Bristol West, Norwich South (Assuming that you don't sneak a win in either of them). Then Sheffield Central (although a ridiculously long way behind). Other than that, there is an outside chance in Streatham in my view.
More the fact that his central projection of Con 289, Lab 257 gives a 50-50 probability of PM Ed. It gives a good indication of why Ed should still be favourite for PM.
Even if mathematically possible I can't see Ed becoming PM with 257 seats and more than 30 seats behind Con...
More the fact that his central projection of Con 289, Lab 257 gives a 50-50 probability of PM Ed. It gives a good indication of why Ed should still be favourite for PM.
Even if mathematically possible I can't see Ed becoming PM with 257 seats and more than 30 seats behind Con...
20 is the magic number IMO.
If LAB is more than 20 behind EICIPM is no more IMO
Curious about the practice of writing NI 18 in seat projections. In a Parliament as close as is being forecast the breakdown of that 18 could be critical. Alliance for instance would probably go with Labour but if the Unionists recover that seat then it'd probably be more palatable for Tory and LD than Labour and SNP.
I think it's because most people (including me) only have a vague understanding of NI politics. That may be unkind to fellow posters, but that's my perception.
Furthermore, my impression is that sectarian gerrymandering has rendered most seats 'safe' for one party or another
There are quite a few competitive seats in Northern Ireland.
F&ST was the closest of all in 2010 and sees the DUP giving the UUP a clear run against SF. Sadly the UUP are totally crap at politics and the SF machine is legendary so that will probably be a SF hold.
Belfast East saw the leader of the DUP lose his seat in 2010. Nasty, ugly sectarian politics has reared its head since, the point that loyalists and others wanted to make back then has been made and the seat will probably go back to the DUP this time.
Belfast South is always a bit of a turkey shoot and with all parties contesting this time it would be a brave person to call it.
Belfast North is a sectarian headcount between the DUP and SF and is likely to be close.
SF would like to think they have a chance of finally winning Foyle (but tactical voting will hopefully see them off).
Potential shock of the night - Lady Hermon to lose!
That's not a bad proportion of seats that are competitive.
I've had a tickle on the DUP in Belfast North and South at 4-9 and 3-1 respectively !
Belfast North is 1/9 now - I wonder whether people are paying more attention to the opening of postal ballots than they should be...
23:00 7th May Houghton & Sunderland South Richard Peter Elvin (UKIP) 5,150 Stewart Hay (Conservative) 8,277 Bridget Phillipson (Labour) 20,106 Others less than 1,000 Con-> Lab swing 2.3%
Caution - there is an MOE.
I think UKIP have a fair chance of coming second in Houghton & Sunderland South.
Curious about the practice of writing NI 18 in seat projections. In a Parliament as close as is being forecast the breakdown of that 18 could be critical. Alliance for instance would probably go with Labour but if the Unionists recover that seat then it'd probably be more palatable for Tory and LD than Labour and SNP.
I think it's because most people (including me) only have a vague understanding of NI politics. That may be unkind to fellow posters, but that's my perception.
Furthermore, my impression is that sectarian gerrymandering has rendered most seats 'safe' for one party or another
There are quite a few competitive seats in Northern Ireland.
F&ST was the closest of all in 2010 and sees the DUP giving the UUP a clear run against SF. Sadly the UUP are totally crap at politics and the SF machine is legendary so that will probably be a SF hold.
Belfast East saw the leader of the DUP lose his seat in 2010. Nasty, ugly sectarian politics has reared its head since, the point that loyalists and others wanted to make back then has been made and the seat will probably go back to the DUP this time.
Belfast South is always a bit of a turkey shoot and with all parties contesting this time it would be a brave person to call it.
Belfast North is a sectarian headcount between the DUP and SF and is likely to be close.
SF would like to think they have a chance of finally winning Foyle (but tactical voting will hopefully see them off).
Potential shock of the night - Lady Hermon to lose!
That's not a bad proportion of seats that are competitive.
Curious about the practice of writing NI 18 in seat projections. In a Parliament as close as is being forecast the breakdown of that 18 could be critical. Alliance for instance would probably go with Labour but if the Unionists recover that seat then it'd probably be more palatable for Tory and LD than Labour and SNP.
I think it's because most people (including me) only have a vague understanding of NI politics. That may be unkind to fellow posters, but that's my perception.
Furthermore, my impression is that sectarian gerrymandering has rendered most seats 'safe' for one party or another
There are quite a few competitive seats in Northern Ireland.
F&ST was the closest of all in 2010 and sees the DUP giving the UUP a clear run against SF. Sadly the UUP are totally crap at politics and the SF machine is legendary so that will probably be a SF hold.
Belfast East saw the leader of the DUP lose his seat in 2010. Nasty, ugly sectarian politics has reared its head since, the point that loyalists and others wanted to make back then has been made and the seat will probably go back to the DUP this time.
Belfast South is always a bit of a turkey shoot and with all parties contesting this time it would be a brave person to call it.
Belfast North is a sectarian headcount between the DUP and SF and is likely to be close.
SF would like to think they have a chance of finally winning Foyle (but tactical voting will hopefully see them off).
Potential shock of the night - Lady Hermon to lose!
That's not a bad proportion of seats that are competitive.
I've had a tickle on the DUP in Belfast North and South at 4-9 and 3-1 respectively !
Belfast North is 1/9 now - I wonder whether people are paying more attention to the opening of postal ballots than they should be...
I got my £25 to win £10 on when the pact was announced and prices hadn't been cut.
The fact its gone into 1-9 might be a bit of a pointer that McDonnell could be in trouble ?
Greens to come close in Norwich South (have given it them above)
That would be a very pleasant surprise. I havent canvassed in Norwich in years so I had presumed from the outside it would be a very tough ask the way local results were going. I'd be more than happy with retaining Brighton Pavilion and getting one or two 2nd places. Anything more would be a bonus.
Greens to trounce the yellow peril in Sheffield Central I reckon.
That's a big hope. It would be a very distant second place if it came off but right now we have no second places to work on so we'll take what's going.
In terms of 2nd places - I reckon that you should have Bristol West, Norwich South (Assuming that you don't sneak a win in either of them). Then Sheffield Central (although a ridiculously long way behind). Other than that, there is an outside chance in Streatham in my view.
Were you at the Matt Forde gig last week?
No. Why?
He asked who was voting for who and one youngish guy at the front said he was voting for the Pirate party
Curious about the practice of writing NI 18 in seat projections. In a Parliament as close as is being forecast the breakdown of that 18 could be critical. Alliance for instance would probably go with Labour but if the Unionists recover that seat then it'd probably be more palatable for Tory and LD than Labour and SNP.
I think it's because most people (including me) only have a vague understanding of NI politics. That may be unkind to fellow posters, but that's my perception.
Furthermore, my impression is that sectarian gerrymandering has rendered most seats 'safe' for one party or another
There are quite a few competitive seats in Northern Ireland.
F&ST was the closest of all in 2010 and sees the DUP giving the UUP a clear run against SF. Sadly the UUP are totally crap at politics and the SF machine is legendary so that will probably be a SF hold.
Belfast East saw the leader of the DUP lose his seat in 2010. Nasty, ugly sectarian politics has reared its head since, the point that loyalists and others wanted to make back then has been made and the seat will probably go back to the DUP this time.
Belfast South is always a bit of a turkey shoot and with all parties contesting this time it would be a brave person to call it.
Belfast North is a sectarian headcount between the DUP and SF and is likely to be close.
SF would like to think they have a chance of finally winning Foyle (but tactical voting will hopefully see them off).
Potential shock of the night - Lady Hermon to lose!
That's not a bad proportion of seats that are competitive.
I've had a tickle on the DUP in Belfast North and South at 4-9 and 3-1 respectively !
Belfast North is 1/9 now - I wonder whether people are paying more attention to the opening of postal ballots than they should be...
I got my £25 to win £10 on when the pact was announced and prices hadn't been cut.
The fact its gone into 1-9 might be a bit of a pointer that McDonnell could be in trouble ?
Totally different dynamics, I wouldnt read anything across to Belfast South. (Not that McDonnell doesnt have a battle on his hands .. the murder of a former IRA commander in the middle of his constituency last night will only serve to remind people what's at stake.)
Greens to come close in Norwich South (have given it them above)
That would be a very pleasant surprise. I havent canvassed in Norwich in years so I had presumed from the outside it would be a very tough ask the way local results were going. I'd be more than happy with retaining Brighton Pavilion and getting one or two 2nd places. Anything more would be a bonus.
Greens to trounce the yellow peril in Sheffield Central I reckon.
That's a big hope. It would be a very distant second place if it came off but right now we have no second places to work on so we'll take what's going.
In terms of 2nd places - I reckon that you should have Bristol West, Norwich South (Assuming that you don't sneak a win in either of them). Then Sheffield Central (although a ridiculously long way behind). Other than that, there is an outside chance in Streatham in my view.
Were you at the Matt Forde gig last week?
No. Why?
He asked who was voting for who and one youngish guy at the front said he was voting for the Pirate party
:-) That's awesome! Great that the party / name is getting out into the public consciousness in some ways. (Now just have to convert that to votes, members, finances, and more candidates next time!)
Surprised Mr Green hasn't got a new get rich scheme going...sell giant slabs of stone to suckers at over inflated prices...so everybody can have their motivational pledge card set in stone in their back gardens.
Mr. Urquhart, unsurprising but still displeasing. Let us hope Miliband fails.
Yes, I very much hope he fails on this. Depressing really how so-called progressive liberal parties are not at all progressive or liberal on the stuff that really matters e.g. free speech and our right to know what those in power are up to.
Or how they don't seem to care about rulers being subject to the rule of law e.g. Labour's paymaster supporting a man who has been found by a court to have committed multiple and serious breaches of electoral law and the total silence from EdM and others in the Labour hierarchy on such matters.
Is the rule of law optional in such matters when the person in breach is from some favoured minority?
Perhaps one of our Labour supporting posters might care to venture a view.
Who produced this - it looks like a joke. Eastleigh and Portsmouth South - "Tories can't win here .... let Labour in"???? LibDems or Tories will win or come second. Labour will be nowhere, but probably ahead of UKIP.
It's from UKIP. A bunch of nutters and fruitcakes who will achieve only one thing - a Labour-led Government which, backed by hard Left MPs from elsewhere, will over the next 5 years implement policies which are the complete antithesis of everything UKIP stands for.
So this joke effort with target constituencies is pretty tame in comparison to that...
Curious about the practice of writing NI 18 in seat projections. In a Parliament as close as is being forecast the breakdown of that 18 could be critical. Alliance for instance would probably go with Labour but if the Unionists recover that seat then it'd probably be more palatable for Tory and LD than Labour and SNP.
I think it's because most people (including me) only have a vague understanding of NI politics. That may be unkind to fellow posters, but that's my perception.
Furthermore, my impression is that sectarian gerrymandering has rendered most seats 'safe' for one party or another
There are quite a few competitive seats in Northern Ireland.
F&ST was the closest of all in 2010 and sees the DUP giving the UUP a clear run against SF. Sadly the UUP are totally crap at politics and the SF machine is legendary so that will probably be a SF hold.
Belfast East saw the leader of the DUP lose his seat in 2010. Nasty, ugly sectarian politics has reared its head since, the point that loyalists and others wanted to make back then has been made and the seat will probably go back to the DUP this time.
Belfast South is always a bit of a turkey shoot and with all parties contesting this time it would be a brave person to call it.
Belfast North is a sectarian headcount between the DUP and SF and is likely to be close.
SF would like to think they have a chance of finally winning Foyle (but tactical voting will hopefully see them off).
Potential shock of the night - Lady Hermon to lose!
That's not a bad proportion of seats that are competitive.
I've had a tickle on the DUP in Belfast North and South at 4-9 and 3-1 respectively !
Belfast North is 1/9 now - I wonder whether people are paying more attention to the opening of postal ballots than they should be...
I got my £25 to win £10 on when the pact was announced and prices hadn't been cut.
The fact its gone into 1-9 might be a bit of a pointer that McDonnell could be in trouble ?
Totally different dynamics, I wouldnt read anything across to Belfast South. (Not that McDonnell doesnt have a battle on his hands .. the murder of a former IRA commander in the middle of his constituency last night will only serve to remind people what's at stake.)
I'm on the DUP at 5/2 in Belfast South. This could be another heroic loser, but I have heard fro more than once source now that this contest is very close.
More the fact that his central projection of Con 289, Lab 257 gives a 50-50 probability of PM Ed. It gives a good indication of why Ed should still be favourite for PM.
Even if mathematically possible I can't see Ed becoming PM with 257 seats and more than 30 seats behind Con...
20 is the magic number IMO.
If LAB is more than 20 behind EICIPM is no more IMO
Genuine question: why do you say that, BJO? He could still get a majority in the Commons even if he were that far behind the Tories (I imagine). Or do you think the legitimacy issue kicks in, whatever the maths?
Of course, Labour, to use a phrase, are between a rock and a hard place - their defence might be 'It only cost £15,000'......which doesn't really sound much better, especially if your opponents have been characterising you as spendthrift....
Just having a browse of the BBC Election feed, and it seems to be a never ending splurge of threats about the NHS from Labour. I know they're trusted on this issue, but to consistently push the "24 hours to save it" line smacks of utter desperation to me (alongside the 6000 nurse losses...)
I've noticed Labours panicky rhetoric more so in the last two days than at any other point in the campaign. Being that the polls are tied, is there any reason for them continue with this stance "if" they seem likely to become largest party?
When Labour are really desperate they run home to the comfort blanket of the NHS.
last weekends Sunday Mirror surpassed itself as it had as a headline banner on the top of its front page
"200 hours to save the NHS"
I guess they have used every other figure/week/month combination and SURPRISE!!! the NHS is still here so it must be difficult to get a headline with traction or people are not going to laugh at. TBH that's really not bad hubris from a paper that supports the one party that has inflicted more damage on the NHS then anyone else but still. Also the one party that has the only Labour health minister that has ever privatised an NHS hospital.
Let's not talk about the PFI millstone levelled on the NHS during the Brown / Blair years the damage of which is Still yet to be fully realised.
Well this should get a few more UKIP waverers back to the Tories in Pudsey.
(and what was it Dave said about UKIP?)
LEEDS, England—Parliamentary candidates selected to represent the U.K. Independence Party have told The Daily Beast that they believe 9/11 was a hoax, claimed the British government was to blame for the July 7 London bombings, which killed more than 50 people, and refused to condemn those traveling to live in the so-called Islamic State.
The extraordinary claims cast doubt on UKIP’s credentials as a mainstream political party ahead of the General Election on Thursday. The party, which campaigns for the introduction of tougher immigration controls and an exit from the EU, won the largest share of the vote in Britain’s European elections last year.
Despite UKIP’s anti-immigration stance and history of members being expelled for making Islamophobic or racist remarks, two Muslim immigrants have been selected as candidates in Northern England. During interviews in the Pudsey suburb of Leeds, one of them told The Daily Beast that Tony Blair and George W. Bush had “invented terrorism,” while the other suggested vulnerable animals should be granted the right to claim asylum in Britain like refugees.
Can someone explain to me in short, pithy sentences, why so many esteemed pb-ers are predicting a Tory plurality when the majority of the polls indicate a Labour plurality, even and despite Scotland?
What are they pinning their hopes/fears on? Tory incumbency? Canvass returns? The betting markets? Tory out-performance in the marginals? Superiority of phone polls? A good hard stare into the scrying glass?
Can someone explain to me in short, pithy sentences, why so many esteemed pb-ers are predicting a Tory plurality when the majority of the polls indicate a Labour plurality, even and despite Scotland?
What are they pinning their hopes/fears on? Tory incumbency? Canvass returns? The betting markets? Tory out-performance in the marginals? Superiority of phone polls? A good hard stare into the scrying glass?
Que?
People believing / hoping that what they want to be true will be true. Happens all the time, not just in politics.
Can someone explain to me in short, pithy sentences, why so many esteemed pb-ers are predicting a Tory plurality when the majority of the polls indicate a Labour plurality, even and despite Scotland?
What are they pinning their hopes/fears on? Tory incumbency? Canvass returns? The betting markets? Tory out-performance in the marginals? Superiority of phone polls? A good hard stare into the scrying glass?
Que?
Labour most seats would probably win me a touch more money so there could be a touch of reverse psychology in my prediction.
Who produced this - it looks like a joke. Eastleigh and Portsmouth South - "Tories can't win here .... let Labour in"???? LibDems or Tories will win or come second. Labour will be nowhere, but probably ahead of UKIP.
It's from UKIP. A bunch of nutters and fruitcakes who will achieve only one thing - a Labour-led Government which, backed by hard Left MPs from elsewhere, will over the next 5 years implement policies which are the complete antithesis of everything UKIP stands for.
So this joke effort with target constituencies is pretty tame in comparison to that...
I doubt it's a clueless strategy. It probably reflects that the Tories have done all they can or think they need to do to defend the Lab/Con marginals and limit their potential losses to an acceptable level. Therefore there is more mileage in going after LibDem seats. This has been evident for a while as the Tories seem to have been bombarding the West Country.
Can someone explain to me in short, pithy sentences, why so many esteemed pb-ers are predicting a Tory plurality when the majority of the polls indicate a Labour plurality, even and despite Scotland?
What are they pinning their hopes/fears on? Tory incumbency? Canvass returns? The betting markets? Tory out-performance in the marginals? Superiority of phone polls? A good hard stare into the scrying glass?
Que?
Kellner has as well, when his own polling suggests nothing of the sort. At one point, not in the too distant past he was predicting a easy win on the popular vote for the Tories.
I haven't heard any explanation from him for his difference, it would be interesting to know.
Mr. T, Labour will lose badly in Scotland. Conservatives will make gains at the expense of Lib Dems, and although the blues will lose some seats to the red in England, I think people remain unenthused by the prospect of 40 years in the wilderness to which Miliband will lead us.
There's also the mood music (Lib Dem desperation, Labour gloomy, Conservatives confident).
Can someone explain to me in short, pithy sentences, why so many esteemed pb-ers are predicting a Tory plurality when the majority of the polls indicate a Labour plurality, even and despite Scotland?
What are they pinning their hopes/fears on? Tory incumbency? Canvass returns? The betting markets? Tory out-performance in the marginals? Superiority of phone polls? A good hard stare into the scrying glass?
Que?
People believing / hoping that what they want to be true will be true. Happens all the time, not just in politics.
I think for some it's poll cherry-picking based on post-hoc reasoning ("ICM is better", "phone polls are better") which may yet turn out to be correct. For others it's "feeling on the ground"/"the voters will suddenly realise they actually have exactly the same opinions as me when they're in the privacy of the polling booth"/"something something 1992 something", etc.
Can someone explain to me in short, pithy sentences, why so many esteemed pb-ers are predicting a Tory plurality when the majority of the polls indicate a Labour plurality, even and despite Scotland?
What are they pinning their hopes/fears on? Tory incumbency? Canvass returns? The betting markets? Tory out-performance in the marginals? Superiority of phone polls? A good hard stare into the scrying glass?
Que?
I'm operating under the assumption that the UKIP vote is making the Con vote way, way more efficient - also Labour are going to be nibbled to death by Greens here and there.
Even after that I only have the Cons ahead by 10, 269 to 279.
Can someone explain to me in short, pithy sentences, why so many esteemed pb-ers are predicting a Tory plurality when the majority of the polls indicate a Labour plurality, even and despite Scotland?
What are they pinning their hopes/fears on? Tory incumbency? Canvass returns? The betting markets? Tory out-performance in the marginals? Superiority of phone polls? A good hard stare into the scrying glass?
Que?
My thoughts entirely. Everything points to Labour having most seats and has done consistently throughout the campaign. If the SNP don't indeed sweep away swathes of Labour MPs - and I don't think they will - then Ed won't be that far off a majority.
It's got me foxed....
About 2 weeks ago I predicted something like 290 Lab, 270 Tory and that assumed big Labour losses in Scotland, and I see no reason to depart from something in that ballpark - I might even have been a bit too generous to the Tories who look set to lose 40-50 seats in E&W, which would mean making up to 15 gains from the LDs. I can't see them doing that.
Anyway the Scottish Sun continues to push hard for the SNP, it will be interesting to see what impact, if any, their support will have when we see the last Scottish polls:
Can someone explain to me in short, pithy sentences, why so many esteemed pb-ers are predicting a Tory plurality when the majority of the polls indicate a Labour plurality, even and despite Scotland?
What are they pinning their hopes/fears on? Tory incumbency? Canvass returns? The betting markets? Tory out-performance in the marginals? Superiority of phone polls? A good hard stare into the scrying glass?
Que?
Quite a lot of the pollsters have the Cons ahead.
ICM, Ipsos Mori, Opinium, Ashcroft, BMG.
Two of the most accurate pollsters at the last election have the Tories ahead.
Well this should get a few more UKIP waverers back to the Tories in Pudsey.
(and what was it Dave said about UKIP?)
LEEDS, England—Parliamentary candidates selected to represent the U.K. Independence Party have told The Daily Beast that they believe 9/11 was a hoax, claimed the British government was to blame for the July 7 London bombings, which killed more than 50 people, and refused to condemn those traveling to live in the so-called Islamic State.
The extraordinary claims cast doubt on UKIP’s credentials as a mainstream political party ahead of the General Election on Thursday. The party, which campaigns for the introduction of tougher immigration controls and an exit from the EU, won the largest share of the vote in Britain’s European elections last year.
Despite UKIP’s anti-immigration stance and history of members being expelled for making Islamophobic or racist remarks, two Muslim immigrants have been selected as candidates in Northern England. During interviews in the Pudsey suburb of Leeds, one of them told The Daily Beast that Tony Blair and George W. Bush had “invented terrorism,” while the other suggested vulnerable animals should be granted the right to claim asylum in Britain like refugees.
Can someone explain to me in short, pithy sentences, why so many esteemed pb-ers are predicting a Tory plurality when the majority of the polls indicate a Labour plurality, even and despite Scotland?
What are they pinning their hopes/fears on? Tory incumbency? Canvass returns? The betting markets? Tory out-performance in the marginals? Superiority of phone polls? A good hard stare into the scrying glass?
Que?
The only hope for Tories is if the phone polls are right and the online polls are wrong
Can someone explain to me in short, pithy sentences, why so many esteemed pb-ers are predicting a Tory plurality when the majority of the polls indicate a Labour plurality, even and despite Scotland?
What are they pinning their hopes/fears on? Tory incumbency? Canvass returns? The betting markets? Tory out-performance in the marginals? Superiority of phone polls? A good hard stare into the scrying glass?
Que?
Kellner has as well, when his own polling suggests nothing of the sort. At one point, not in the too distant past he was predicting a easy win on the popular vote for the Tories.
I haven't heard any explanation from him for his difference, it would be interesting to know.
I've seen the Voter Intentions for the blues and been reading Labour's view on their stats. The reds are very good at crunching numbers and if you read Labour List they will tell you they are in trouble. The blues stats are good for Con to be largest party. Only outlying opinion polls agree but I don't know what to think of that. Jack W at 304 is plausible according to the data I've seen.
On the legitimacy of minority government point: I agree with the view that beyond a certain level, Ed could be constitutionally able to form a government, but politically incapable of so doing. The delegitimisation manoeuvres in the Tory-friendly press are only going to intensify if it's a live issue and there's little chance of a collective vow to give a fair representation of the constitution to the public.
What I'm not sure about is what his opponents expect him to do. Assuming that Cameron can't command the confidence of the house, is the idea that Labour should respect the "winners" (as newly defined) and abstain on the Queen's Speech? How far does this go? To abstaining on every Tory bill? Or refraining for voting no confidence but blocking all legislation? Is it an outrage if Labour introduce their own legislation through the various channels open to the opposition, and a majority of MPs (potentially including SNP) vote to enact it? This seems a route that gets absurd pretty quickly.
Or is the correct approach that Labour act in line with the likely wishes of their voters and oppose a Tory QS, leading to Ed being asked to form a government, but then decline to govern due to perceived illegitimacy and trigger a second GE?
Can someone explain to me in short, pithy sentences, why so many esteemed pb-ers are predicting a Tory plurality when the majority of the polls indicate a Labour plurality, even and despite Scotland?
What are they pinning their hopes/fears on? Tory incumbency? Canvass returns? The betting markets? Tory out-performance in the marginals? Superiority of phone polls? A good hard stare into the scrying glass?
Who produced this - it looks like a joke. Eastleigh and Portsmouth South - "Tories can't win here .... let Labour in"???? LibDems or Tories will win or come second. Labour will be nowhere, but probably ahead of UKIP.
It's from UKIP. A bunch of nutters and fruitcakes who will achieve only one thing - a Labour-led Government which, backed by hard Left MPs from elsewhere, will over the next 5 years implement policies which are the complete antithesis of everything UKIP stands for.
So this joke effort with target constituencies is pretty tame in comparison to that...
I doubt it's a clueless strategy. It probably reflects that the Tories have done all they can or think they need to do to defend the Lab/Con marginals and limit their potential losses to an acceptable level. Therefore there is more mileage in going after LibDem seats. This has been evident for a while as the Tories seem to have been bombarding the West Country.
That's my read of the situation to. Either a marginal has long gone or there is nothing more to do and it is safe. Certainly they are focussing on LD seats now.
Well this should get a few more UKIP waverers back to the Tories in Pudsey.
(and what was it Dave said about UKIP?)
LEEDS, England—Parliamentary candidates selected to represent the U.K. Independence Party have told The Daily Beast that they believe 9/11 was a hoax, claimed the British government was to blame for the July 7 London bombings, which killed more than 50 people, and refused to condemn those traveling to live in the so-called Islamic State.
The extraordinary claims cast doubt on UKIP’s credentials as a mainstream political party ahead of the General Election on Thursday. The party, which campaigns for the introduction of tougher immigration controls and an exit from the EU, won the largest share of the vote in Britain’s European elections last year.
Despite UKIP’s anti-immigration stance and history of members being expelled for making Islamophobic or racist remarks, two Muslim immigrants have been selected as candidates in Northern England. During interviews in the Pudsey suburb of Leeds, one of them told The Daily Beast that Tony Blair and George W. Bush had “invented terrorism,” while the other suggested vulnerable animals should be granted the right to claim asylum in Britain like refugees.
More the fact that his central projection of Con 289, Lab 257 gives a 50-50 probability of PM Ed. It gives a good indication of why Ed should still be favourite for PM.
Even if mathematically possible I can't see Ed becoming PM with 257 seats and more than 30 seats behind Con...
20 is the magic number IMO.
If LAB is more than 20 behind EICIPM is no more IMO
Genuine question: why do you say that, BJO? He could still get a majority in the Commons even if he were that far behind the Tories (I imagine). Or do you think the legitimacy issue kicks in, whatever the maths?
I think MPs like John Mann, Simon Danczuk, Frank Field would Scupper EICIPM if the seat margin is over 20
Who produced this - it looks like a joke. Eastleigh and Portsmouth South - "Tories can't win here .... let Labour in"???? LibDems or Tories will win or come second. Labour will be nowhere, but probably ahead of UKIP.
It's from UKIP. A bunch of nutters and fruitcakes who will achieve only one thing - a Labour-led Government which, backed by hard Left MPs from elsewhere, will over the next 5 years implement policies which are the complete antithesis of everything UKIP stands for.
So this joke effort with target constituencies is pretty tame in comparison to that...
I doubt it's a clueless strategy. It probably reflects that the Tories have done all they can or think they need to do to defend the Lab/Con marginals and limit their potential losses to an acceptable level. Therefore there is more mileage in going after LibDem seats. This has been evident for a while as the Tories seem to have been bombarding the West Country.
Going after the west country does nothing to reduce Labour seats though.
It's a great strategy to make an Ed Miliband Gov't look illegitimate.
CON Gain Yeovil could be a monster scalp... for Ed !
Just having a browse of the BBC Election feed, and it seems to be a never ending splurge of threats about the NHS from Labour. I know they're trusted on this issue, but to consistently push the "24 hours to save it" line smacks of utter desperation to me (alongside the 6000 nurse losses...)
I've noticed Labours panicky rhetoric more so in the last two days than at any other point in the campaign. Being that the polls are tied, is there any reason for them continue with this stance "if" they seem likely to become largest party?
When Labour are really desperate they run home to the comfort blanket of the NHS.
last weekends Sunday Mirror surpassed itself as it had as a headline banner on the top of its front page
"200 hours to save the NHS"
I guess they have used every other figure/week/month combination and SURPRISE!!! the NHS is still here so it must be difficult to get a headline with traction or people are not going to laugh at. TBH that's really not bad hubris from a paper that supports the one party that has inflicted more damage on the NHS then anyone else but still. Also the one party that has the only Labour health minister that has ever privatised an NHS hospital.
Let's not talk about the PFI millstone levelled on the NHS during the Brown / Blair years the damage of which is Still yet to be fully realised.
According to Labour leaflets, every single hospital will be closed for good if the Tories win! Effing liars.
SeanT The key is UKIP are on 12/13%+, if Cameron squeezes that vote down to 10% or so he would be on 36%+ and have done a Netanyahu and lead the largest party, even if he wins over not one further Labour or LD voter by polling day
Can someone explain to me in short, pithy sentences, why so many esteemed pb-ers are predicting a Tory plurality when the majority of the polls indicate a Labour plurality, even and despite Scotland?
What are they pinning their hopes/fears on? Tory incumbency? Canvass returns? The betting markets? Tory out-performance in the marginals? Superiority of phone polls? A good hard stare into the scrying glass?
Que?
National swing being overweighted by large movement in already-red areas like London?
Both of my election game entries have Labour with (a few) more seats than the Tories, but I'm now in the too-close-to-call camp, mostly cos I underestimated the SNP surge (or at least thought it would tail off a bit as we got closer).
Ed's stones was the moment I knew he'd never be PM.
It's a "Thick of It" moment which resonates with folk like us, but passes by most people - like The Thick of It did itself.
I remember that fantastic afternoon on here when Brown had his Gillian Duffy "disaster", the highlight of GE2010 for many of us, yet it resonated nothing with voters. Indeed, it may have caused Brown to get a sympathy uplift.
On the Vote-2012 website Robert Waller has given more details on the Cheltenham constituency polling he did for Harris back in 1987 . Without candidates names the Lib Dems were in the lead by 5% . Polling with candidates names had the Conservatives 7% in the lead . The final margin was in fact 7.8% .
Can someone explain to me in short, pithy sentences, why so many esteemed pb-ers are predicting a Tory plurality when the majority of the polls indicate a Labour plurality, even and despite Scotland?
What are they pinning their hopes/fears on? Tory incumbency? Canvass returns? The betting markets? Tory out-performance in the marginals? Superiority of phone polls? A good hard stare into the scrying glass?
Que?
Quite a lot of the pollsters have the Cons ahead.
ICM, Ipsos Mori, Opinium, Ashcroft, BMG.
Two of the most accurate pollsters at the last election have the Tories ahead.
But most of them, IIRC, are showing swings to Labour, in E&W, sufficient to give Miliband a narrow edge.
The one hope for Tories is that the electoral bias to Labour has almost vanished, thanks to Scotland, the rise of UKIP, LDs going Blue, changing demogs, etc.
If I were a Tory I'd cling to that.
Anyway now I gotta work to pay the vicious extra taxes the Sturgeon-Miliband government will be imposing on me, early Friday morning.
Later.
IMHO, an outcome similar to the last ICM poll would lead to a Conservative plurality.
Can someone explain to me in short, pithy sentences, why so many esteemed pb-ers are predicting a Tory plurality when the majority of the polls indicate a Labour plurality, even and despite Scotland?
What are they pinning their hopes/fears on? Tory incumbency? Canvass returns? The betting markets? Tory out-performance in the marginals? Superiority of phone polls? A good hard stare into the scrying glass?
Que?
1. Discard the online polls ENTIRELY. A pbtory would say that, wouldn't he, but their model is much more flawed than the standard flawed Literary Digest model which gets rubbished as an example of how not to do it in chapter 1 of any statistics textbook.
2. The Sheffield effect, the point of which has always been that it doesn't show up in the polls, only at the moment of truth in the polling booth. The hope was always that people will face up to the fact that ed is crap, which they've secretly known since 2010, at the last minute. The Edstone is an unexpected bonus, genuinely worth - I think - 0.5% off the Lab national vote share.
Realistically though both points should be filed under "hope" rather than "expectation".
More the fact that his central projection of Con 289, Lab 257 gives a 50-50 probability of PM Ed. It gives a good indication of why Ed should still be favourite for PM.
Even if mathematically possible I can't see Ed becoming PM with 257 seats and more than 30 seats behind Con...
20 is the magic number IMO.
If LAB is more than 20 behind EICIPM is no more IMO
Genuine question: why do you say that, BJO? He could still get a majority in the Commons even if he were that far behind the Tories (I imagine). Or do you think the legitimacy issue kicks in, whatever the maths?
I think MPs like John Mann, Simon Danczuk, Frank Field would Scupper EICIPM if the seat margin is over 20
Can someone explain to me in short, pithy sentences, why so many esteemed pb-ers are predicting a Tory plurality when the majority of the polls indicate a Labour plurality, even and despite Scotland?
What are they pinning their hopes/fears on? Tory incumbency? Canvass returns? The betting markets? Tory out-performance in the marginals? Superiority of phone polls? A good hard stare into the scrying glass?
Que?
I expect the ICM numbers to be broadly correct.
It is easy to be blindsided by "the Polls" as if they are some homogenous whole. There have been a great number of internet polls, only a few phone polls. This represents an excess of quantity over quality IMO. But we shall see ...
AndyJS looks probable though the LDs will likely lose Berwickshire to the Tories while the SNP gain Dumfrieshire
I suspect the LDs will end up holding Berwickshire thanks to misplaced Conservative tactical votes. And I suspect the Conservatives will benefit similarly in Dumfrieshire.
How closely does the Ashcroft constituency polling methodology resemble the Ashcroft national methodology?
i.e. When deciding whether a party is over or under-performing in the marginals, does it make more sense to compare Ashcroft constituency polls with Ashcroft national, or with poll-of-polls?
More the fact that his central projection of Con 289, Lab 257 gives a 50-50 probability of PM Ed. It gives a good indication of why Ed should still be favourite for PM.
Even if mathematically possible I can't see Ed becoming PM with 257 seats and more than 30 seats behind Con...
20 is the magic number IMO.
If LAB is more than 20 behind EICIPM is no more IMO
Genuine question: why do you say that, BJO? He could still get a majority in the Commons even if he were that far behind the Tories (I imagine). Or do you think the legitimacy issue kicks in, whatever the maths?
I think MPs like John Mann, Simon Danczuk, Frank Field would Scupper EICIPM if the seat margin is over 20
Thank you BJO.
Never mind the specific MPs, isn't it blindingly obvious that the Labour Party would be better served by a short spell in opposition, a new leader, and then trying to force a new GE, rather than installing Ed in those circumstances (and having a short spell in government)? I'm curious as to Labour posters' views on this.
But there is somewhat unexpected comfort for the Tories in Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk, where I found them a single point ahead in a three-party scrap (Conservative 30%, SNP 29%, Lib Dems 28%). Clearly this seat could go any one of three ways, and all three parties will try to tell potential tactical voters that they are the only way to stop the other two. Labour voters here say they are more likely to rule out the Tories than the Lib Dems, but how much further can the party’s 9% share be squeezed?
How closely does the Ashcroft constituency polling methodology resemble the Ashcroft national methodology?
i.e. When deciding whether a party is over or under-performing in the marginals, does it make more sense to compare Ashcroft constituency polls with Ashcroft national, or with poll-of-polls?
The methodologies are the same, when it comes to DKs.
I looked at this a while back, his national poll is more consistent with his constituency Q1 findings than his Q2 findings.
AndyJS looks probable though the LDs will likely lose Berwickshire to the Tories while the SNP gain Dumfrieshire
I suspect the LDs will end up holding Berwickshire thanks to misplaced Conservative tactical votes. And I suspect the Conservatives will benefit similarly in Dumfrieshire.
I'm willing to bet the tactical vote in Dumfriesshire is piling in behind the SNP even as we speak.
Can someone explain to me in short, pithy sentences, why so many esteemed pb-ers are predicting a Tory plurality when the majority of the polls indicate a Labour plurality, even and despite Scotland?
What are they pinning their hopes/fears on? Tory incumbency? Canvass returns? The betting markets? Tory out-performance in the marginals? Superiority of phone polls? A good hard stare into the scrying glass?
Que?
Any overwhelming desire for change is confined to Scotland. Pithy enough?
AndyJS looks probable though the LDs will likely lose Berwickshire to the Tories while the SNP gain Dumfrieshire
I suspect the LDs will end up holding Berwickshire thanks to misplaced Conservative tactical votes. And I suspect the Conservatives will benefit similarly in Dumfrieshire.
I got on Con Dumfrieshire at 7/1 a while back as a long shot. I still think it's a long shot.
AndyJS looks probable though the LDs will likely lose Berwickshire to the Tories while the SNP gain Dumfrieshire
I suspect the LDs will end up holding Berwickshire thanks to misplaced Conservative tactical votes. And I suspect the Conservatives will benefit similarly in Dumfrieshire.
I got on Con Dumfrieshire at 7/1 a while back as a long shot. I still think it's a long shot.
You are thinking Dumfries & Galloway
Dumfriesshire is where they are incumbent with Mundell.
Can someone explain to me in short, pithy sentences, why so many esteemed pb-ers are predicting a Tory plurality when the majority of the polls indicate a Labour plurality, even and despite Scotland?
What are they pinning their hopes/fears on? Tory incumbency? Canvass returns? The betting markets? Tory out-performance in the marginals? Superiority of phone polls? A good hard stare into the scrying glass?
Que?
Any overwhelming desire for change is confined to Scotland. Pithy enough?
Can someone explain to me in short, pithy sentences, why so many esteemed pb-ers are predicting a Tory plurality when the majority of the polls indicate a Labour plurality, even and despite Scotland?
What are they pinning their hopes/fears on? Tory incumbency? Canvass returns? The betting markets? Tory out-performance in the marginals? Superiority of phone polls? A good hard stare into the scrying glass?
Que?
Any overwhelming desire for change is confined to Scotland. Pithy enough?
Can someone explain to me in short, pithy sentences, why so many esteemed pb-ers are predicting a Tory plurality when the majority of the polls indicate a Labour plurality, even and despite Scotland?
What are they pinning their hopes/fears on? Tory incumbency? Canvass returns? The betting markets? Tory out-performance in the marginals? Superiority of phone polls? A good hard stare into the scrying glass?
Que?
My reasons are:
1. Superiority of phone polls. 2. Not a "change" election - eg more people still blame Labour for cuts, favour Tories on economic management, etc. 3. More Lib Dem seats are vulnerable to Tory challengers than Labour. 4. Scotland wipeout and differential Lib Dem gains imply a target of 50 Labour gains from Tories to reach parity, which is not supported by Ashcroft marginal polling. 5. Some plausible UKIP gains - eg Thurrock, Thanet South - are in Conservative seats that would have been likely Labour gains in UKIPs absence, so are in some sense Labour losses when you look at their target list. 6. History of Labour losing vote share in election after being ejected from government - see 1955, 1974 (Feb) and 1983.
AndyJS looks probable though the LDs will likely lose Berwickshire to the Tories while the SNP gain Dumfrieshire
I suspect the LDs will end up holding Berwickshire thanks to misplaced Conservative tactical votes. And I suspect the Conservatives will benefit similarly in Dumfrieshire.
I got on Con Dumfrieshire at 7/1 a while back as a long shot. I still think it's a long shot.
You are thinking Dumfries & Galloway
Dumfriesshire is where they are incumbent with Mundell.
Oh yes, of course. Should know better seeing as my auntie lives there (D&G).
Comments
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Berwickshire-Roxburgh-Selkirk-April-2015-Full-tables.S3.pdf
If you add in named candidates the Lib Dems could well be ahead. The Ashcroft pre spiral of silence points to an SNP gain.
Personally I think the Conservatives are the least likely to take the seat.
F&ST was the closest of all in 2010 and sees the DUP giving the UUP a clear run against SF. Sadly the UUP are totally crap at politics and the SF machine is legendary so that will probably be a SF hold.
Belfast East saw the leader of the DUP lose his seat in 2010. Nasty, ugly sectarian politics has reared its head since, the point that loyalists and others wanted to make back then has been made and the seat will probably go back to the DUP this time.
Belfast South is always a bit of a turkey shoot and with all parties contesting this time it would be a brave person to call it.
Belfast North is a sectarian headcount between the DUP and SF and is likely to be close.
SF would like to think they have a chance of finally winning Foyle (but tactical voting will hopefully see them off).
Potential shock of the night - Lady Hermon to lose!
That's not a bad proportion of seats that are competitive.
What I really loved on that was the interjection of interviewer Peter Allen who said:
"Was it really a good idea to say that?"
Lucy Powell:
"Well Yes,....." and continued to prattle on wallowing in her Labour intellectual self confidence.
She was given a get out of jail card and declined!
“I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the fact that he’s carved them into stone means, you know, means that he will absolutely, you know, not going to break them or anything like that.”
Freudian slip?
Much mor significant to Hospitals Financial Crisis is the marginal tariff for Emergency Care and the BCF monies stolen and given to councils for pot holes.
Not to mention Lansleys Conflict of Interest reforms
So this is the Tory government stuffing up the amount required to keep the service running.
No, its due to the hiring of additional nursing staff so that scandals like Mid-Staffs never occur again and patients are properly cared for.
It's a very weak Gov't though.
If LAB is more than 20 behind EICIPM is no more IMO
Con 300
Lab 254
Lib 18
SNP 53
UKIP 3
Plaid 3
Green 1
NI 18
Given what we know, and the expected election result, would AV have passed now?
(I know, we don't discuss AV enough)
The fact its gone into 1-9 might be a bit of a pointer that McDonnell could be in trouble ?
£30,000 !!!!!!!!!!
Perhaps a sign Labour under Axelrod's sway. Or that someone is trying to blame Axelrod for a daft idea...
Or how they don't seem to care about rulers being subject to the rule of law e.g. Labour's paymaster supporting a man who has been found by a court to have committed multiple and serious breaches of electoral law and the total silence from EdM and others in the Labour hierarchy on such matters.
Is the rule of law optional in such matters when the person in breach is from some favoured minority?
Perhaps one of our Labour supporting posters might care to venture a view.
I'd say both on the evidence thusfar. It's from UKIP. A bunch of nutters and fruitcakes who will achieve only one thing - a Labour-led Government which, backed by hard Left MPs from elsewhere, will over the next 5 years implement policies which are the complete antithesis of everything UKIP stands for.
So this joke effort with target constituencies is pretty tame in comparison to that...
Of course, Labour, to use a phrase, are between a rock and a hard place - their defence might be 'It only cost £15,000'......which doesn't really sound much better, especially if your opponents have been characterising you as spendthrift....
https://audioboom.com/boos/3151117-lucy-powell-ed-miliband-might-break-edstone-promises
When Labour are really desperate they run home to the comfort blanket of the NHS.
last weekends Sunday Mirror surpassed itself as it had as a headline banner on the top of its front page
"200 hours to save the NHS"
I guess they have used every other figure/week/month combination and SURPRISE!!! the NHS is still here so it must be difficult to get a headline with traction or people are not going to laugh at. TBH that's really not bad hubris from a paper that supports the one party that has inflicted more damage on the NHS then anyone else but still. Also the one party that has the only Labour health minister that has ever privatised an NHS hospital.
Let's not talk about the PFI millstone levelled on the NHS during the Brown / Blair years the damage of which is Still yet to be fully realised.
(and what was it Dave said about UKIP?)
LEEDS, England—Parliamentary candidates selected to represent the U.K. Independence Party have told The Daily Beast that they believe 9/11 was a hoax, claimed the British government was to blame for the July 7 London bombings, which killed more than 50 people, and refused to condemn those traveling to live in the so-called Islamic State.
The extraordinary claims cast doubt on UKIP’s credentials as a mainstream political party ahead of the General Election on Thursday. The party, which campaigns for the introduction of tougher immigration controls and an exit from the EU, won the largest share of the vote in Britain’s European elections last year.
Despite UKIP’s anti-immigration stance and history of members being expelled for making Islamophobic or racist remarks, two Muslim immigrants have been selected as candidates in Northern England. During interviews in the Pudsey suburb of Leeds, one of them told The Daily Beast that Tony Blair and George W. Bush had “invented terrorism,” while the other suggested vulnerable animals should be granted the right to claim asylum in Britain like refugees.
http://thebea.st/1zw9yHN
I haven't heard any explanation from him for his difference, it would be interesting to know.
There's also the mood music (Lib Dem desperation, Labour gloomy, Conservatives confident).
Even after that I only have the Cons ahead by 10, 269 to 279.
It's got me foxed....
About 2 weeks ago I predicted something like 290 Lab, 270 Tory and that assumed big Labour losses in Scotland, and I see no reason to depart from something in that ballpark - I might even have been a bit too generous to the Tories who look set to lose 40-50 seats in E&W, which would mean making up to 15 gains from the LDs. I can't see them doing that.
ICM, Ipsos Mori, Opinium, Ashcroft, BMG.
Two of the most accurate pollsters at the last election have the Tories ahead.
Oh - the SNP were saying on radio 5-live that they were prepared to work democratically in the next parliament.
Does that square with "Any party as long as it is Labour"?
What I'm not sure about is what his opponents expect him to do. Assuming that Cameron can't command the confidence of the house, is the idea that Labour should respect the "winners" (as newly defined) and abstain on the Queen's Speech? How far does this go? To abstaining on every Tory bill? Or refraining for voting no confidence but blocking all legislation? Is it an outrage if Labour introduce their own legislation through the various channels open to the opposition, and a majority of MPs (potentially including SNP) vote to enact it? This seems a route that gets absurd pretty quickly.
Or is the correct approach that Labour act in line with the likely wishes of their voters and oppose a Tory QS, leading to Ed being asked to form a government, but then decline to govern due to perceived illegitimacy and trigger a second GE?
It's a great strategy to make an Ed Miliband Gov't look illegitimate.
CON Gain Yeovil could be a monster scalp... for Ed !
According to Labour leaflets, every single hospital will be closed for good if the Tories win! Effing liars.
Both of my election game entries have Labour with (a few) more seats than the Tories, but I'm now in the too-close-to-call camp, mostly cos I underestimated the SNP surge (or at least thought it would tail off a bit as we got closer).
You can just imagine the Monty Python skit where they decide what their new instrument of torture should be called...
"Well itl looks like a Pear"
"Yes, but, that doesn't sound very painful does it..."
Etc, etc
I remember that fantastic afternoon on here when Brown had his Gillian Duffy "disaster", the highlight of GE2010 for many of us, yet it resonated nothing with voters. Indeed, it may have caused Brown to get a sympathy uplift.
Without candidates names the Lib Dems were in the lead by 5% . Polling with candidates names had the Conservatives 7% in the lead . The final margin was in fact 7.8% .
2. The Sheffield effect, the point of which has always been that it doesn't show up in the polls, only at the moment of truth in the polling booth. The hope was always that people will face up to the fact that ed is crap, which they've secretly known since 2010, at the last minute. The Edstone is an unexpected bonus, genuinely worth - I think - 0.5% off the Lab national vote share.
Realistically though both points should be filed under "hope" rather than "expectation".
i.e. When deciding whether a party is over or under-performing in the marginals, does it make more sense to compare Ashcroft constituency polls with Ashcroft national, or with poll-of-polls?
I looked at this a while back, his national poll is more consistent with his constituency Q1 findings than his Q2 findings.
Labour 272
Con 271
SNP 55
LD 27
DUP 9,
SF 5,
PC 3
SDLP 3
UKIP 2
Green 1
Others 2.
LAB most seats 5.5 CON most seats 1.21 Betfair
Oh look, I have indeed bet that!
Labour on THIRTY SEVEN % in Hallam is a very strong indicator that they're doing quite well tbh.
Hallam is simply not the sort of place Labour should be picking up 37%.
Dumfriesshire is where they are incumbent with Mundell.
:-)
1. Superiority of phone polls.
2. Not a "change" election - eg more people still blame Labour for cuts, favour Tories on economic management, etc.
3. More Lib Dem seats are vulnerable to Tory challengers than Labour.
4. Scotland wipeout and differential Lib Dem gains imply a target of 50 Labour gains from Tories to reach parity, which is not supported by Ashcroft marginal polling.
5. Some plausible UKIP gains - eg Thurrock, Thanet South - are in Conservative seats that would have been likely Labour gains in UKIPs absence, so are in some sense Labour losses when you look at their target list.
6. History of Labour losing vote share in election after being ejected from government - see 1955, 1974 (Feb) and 1983.