The trouble with UKIP is that many of their members believe in an ideology of hate; towards ethnic minorities, women, gays, blame foreigners for nearly every problem in the country - there's an awful lot of people they don't like. For that reason, I doubt they'll become a mainstream force. Realistically, someone less extreme - like Carswell - needs to lead that party. But I don't sense Kippers are very keen on him. And looking at the new Mirror comments section, it looks like the Kippers have invaded there, too.
I don't think that is accurate at all. In my experience most UKIP supporters are decent people, who are mainly motivated to vote UKIP by high levels of immigration and disillusionment with the political class. The image of them as some sort of neo-Nazis is simply not one I recognise and I can not believe anyone that has gone out talking to voters genuinely believes such a thing.
I also find this stereotyping highly counter-productive to the Conservative cause. If you tell people they are awful people, it just puts their backs up and gets them to hate the elitist mentality even more. The best way to win back Kippers into the Conservative fold is to do make sure their concerns are addressed, and then present clear evidence of that to them.
All parties have there stupids; this suspended kipper is an ex Tory, so go figure. A kipper was badly beaten up by 5 thugs yesterday. The fact is UKIP is growing and getting stronger and both @TSE and @rcs1000 cannot stand it, hence their bile and a smear whenever they see a chance.
And what bile? The only poster for whom I have bile on this site is @FalseFlag, a man whose sole mission in life is to big up Vladamir Putin.
My ambition - as I've often stated - is a looser relationship with the EU, but one which preserves freedom of labour. (This means EFTA/EEA - and which results in i., no benefits for migrants, ii. no right to remain if without a job, and iii., the ability to kick people out if they commit a crime.) I realise this is less than what UKIP stands for. And I realise there are few people standing up for freedom of people to work where they like, and to hire who they like.
I think the rise of UKIP makes my dream far less likely. Sometimes I wonder if Nigel Farage is in the pay of the EU; essentially creating a caricature of Eurosceptics.
This is naive. UKIP are not creating a caricature of eurosceptics, they are eurosceptics, therefore they are being caricatured.
Amazing that we have three polls today, UKIP on 12, 13 & 16%, and people are saying 1-2 seats
How?
People that used to say 6-7% and no seats before Carswell defected, now think that vote share will double with, in effect, no seats gained
Wishful thinking
No, FPTP. It's rough after all. There was a great chart someone posted yesterday showing Liberal/SDP/LD vote shares barely wavering over several decades but the number of seats varying wildly (shooting up after 1997). It's hard to cluster the vote is all. I'm saying 3-5.
Calder Valley is an interesting one. I had a few quid on Labour at 9/4 earlier today, following a favorable comment from a well-respected source.
It's at the outer limit of likely Labour gains, but local factors seem to be helping them.
I think the same, a notable omission from Ashcroft's marginal polling.
It's Target Seat 91 according to Antony Wells but that may be a bit misleading.
Labour stuffed up the candidacy in 2010 and nearly dropped to 3rd place behind the LDs as a consequence. They have a much better candidate this time around, and of course a lot of LD votes to squeeze. Now I hear the Tory Candidate has got himself into a little local tangle.
Source suggested Labour should be 5/4 so naturally I had to take the 9/4 on offer with B365.
"Labour still believes it could form a more durable coalition than the Tories even if it comes 20 or 30 seats behind David Cameron’s party and has identified “considerable overlap” in policy with the Lib Dems.
Senior Labour figures believe that it will become obvious quickly on Friday if Mr Cameron “doesn’t have the numbers” at which point Ed Miliband would urge him to quit.
If Mr Cameron clung on and put together a Queen’s Speech with no majority Labour MPs would have no qualms in joining forces with the SNP in voting it down, according to eight party candidates who have spoken to the FT.
Some senior party figures recognise that putting together a rival grouping could prove difficult if the public believe that the Tories “won” the election."
If Labour are 20-30 seats behind the Tories then it's pretty likely that Con > Lab + LD. The press would have a field day.
Amazing that we have three polls today, UKIP on 12, 13 & 16%, and people are saying 1-2 seats
How?
People that used to say 6-7% and no seats before Carswell defected, now think that vote share will double with, in effect, no seats gained
Wishful thinking
Not from me. I don't think that 6-7% will double. I think that 6-7% will increase by 33-14%. Farage, Reckless or the other one. One of them will get a seat. No idea which.
Calder Valley is an interesting one. I had a few quid on Labour at 9/4 earlier today, following a favorable comment from a well-respected source.
It's at the outer limit of likely Labour gains, but local factors seem to be helping them.
I think the same, a notable omission from Ashcroft's marginal polling.
It's Target Seat 91 according to Antony Wells but that may be a bit misleading.
Labour stuffed up the candidacy in 2010 and nearly dropped to 3rd place behind the LDs as a consequence. They have a much better candidate this time around, and of course a lot of LD votes to squeeze. Now I hear the Tory Candidate has got himself into a little local tangle.
Source suggested Labour should be 5/4 so naturally I had to take the 9/4 on offer with B365.
Seems a value bet at the odds you found. Good work.
The anecdotal evidence and the mood music continues to be much better for the Tories than the polls. In my opinion the 2010 Tory vote is pretty rock solid where it matters with the drift to UKIP only being significant where Labour are not competitive.
In some seats this will not be enough as the red Liberals get Labour over the top. I expect Broxtowe to be one of these but the number is not large. Labour are likely to lose at least 35 seats in Scotland. Will they make that number of gains to get back to their current level? The polls say yes but the anecdotes say not.
It is possible that this is all some Romneyian delusion, that the polls are right and that Labour are going to walk this. It just does not feel like that.
Today, driving home in monsoon conditions from Glasgow I was listening to R5 in Warwickshire. Almost everyone they spoke to was voting tory or UKIP. They eventually found a Labour voter but he was only 95%. The 5% was Miliband, he was just not sure about him.
This is Labour's number 1 target and Ed was there today. Why is he in a target lower than 50? Are their polling figures that bad?
I can think of a few reasons why Ed might pop into North Warwickshire. It's on the way to a lot of other places, for example
There was a sign not too far from us which said "welcome to bedfordshire, central to the Oxford-Cambridge arc"
Which is almost unparalleled in its desperate barrel-scraping banality. Somehow I was reminded of this reading your post :-)
I assume a legacy of what I think was a Cambridge - Bedford - Oxford rail link in the old days.
I may miss remember this. I expect there is a rail expert on here who will know!
The trouble with UKIP is that many of their members believe in an ideology of hate; towards ethnic minorities, women, gays, blame foreigners for nearly every problem in the country - there's an awful lot of people they don't like. For that reason, I doubt they'll become a mainstream force. Realistically, someone less extreme - like Carswell - needs to lead that party. But I don't sense Kippers are very keen on him. And looking at the new Mirror comments section, it looks like the Kippers have invaded there, too.
I don't think that is accurate at all. In my experience most UKIP supporters are decent people, who are mainly motivated to vote UKIP by high levels of immigration and disillusionment with the political class. The image of them as some sort of neo-Nazis is simply not one I recognise and I can not believe anyone that has gone out talking to voters genuinely believes such a thing.
I also find this stereotyping highly counter-productive to the Conservative cause. If you tell people they are awful people, it just puts their backs up and gets them to hate the elitist mentality even more. The best way to win back Kippers into the Conservative fold is to do make sure their concerns are addressed, and then present clear evidence of that to them.
I'm not a conservative - I don't belong to any political party, although I'm centre-left. And well, I guess that my impression of the UKIP support base is from what they say online - and an awful lot of Ukippers appear to express thoughts along the lines I've outlined.
That explains it. I do not believe the internet is a good representation of any group. Whether UKIP voters, feminists or animal rights proponents, every group seems like intolerant extremists online if you try to debate them. I guess it is just a small handful that are particularly animated dominating the conversation, because they can do it behind the veil of anonymity.
I truly hope that's the case - UKIP's popularity is such a new phenomenon it's hard to tell what the views of your average UKIP supporter is. Because some of the comments' on the Telegraph comments section, I find very scary, and would hope they do not represent an insight into the views of the your average UKIP supporter.
The trouble with UKIP is that many of their members believe in an ideology of hate; towards ethnic minorities, women, gays, blame foreigners for nearly every problem in the country - there's an awful lot of people they don't like. For that reason, I doubt they'll become a mainstream force. Realistically, someone less extreme - like Carswell - needs to lead that party. But I don't sense Kippers are very keen on him. And looking at the new Mirror comments section, it looks like the Kippers have invaded there, too.
Committed left wingers believe that the Conservatives have an ideology of hate; Scottish Nationalists believe that their opponents have an ideology of hate; and vice versa; plenty of Tories argue that socialists hate Britain.
Outside the ranks of partisans, none of this is very persuasive.
RT I think UKIP will get 10% and 4 seats including Farage winning Thanet South
Given Cameron will probably need DUP and UKIP support for a majority he will have to stick to a referendum though I agree he would likely end up on the In side
There is no 'likely' about it. He has made it absolutely clear he would never countenance the UK withdrawing from the EU.
I think one of the problems that Conservative Europhiles have is that they talk about UKIP as wanting a referendum. A referendum is not the ultimate goal of UKIP; leaving the EU is the ultimate goal. If Cameron delivers a referendum, and Britain votes to stay in the EU, that will not make Kippers say "Oh! We voted to stay in, well that's OK then...", on the contrary, like Scots nats, they will continue to work towards their aim.
And I think you're absolutely right that having Cameron as head of a Conservative government leading a referendum makes it very difficult for Out to win. But I also think that the Out side is its own worst enemy. I've made my views very clear, and I think a government committed to EFTA/EEA would win the support of much business, and would win a referendum.
I think an Out campaign run by Farage, and which could be painted as isolationist and backward looking would lose.
(Did anyone read the UKIP paper on leaving the EU? There was a whole chapter on recreating the Commonwealth as a trading block. It was seemingly unaware that the two largest members of the Commonwealth are nuclear weapon wielding enemies who are as likely to get into bed together as TSE and MikeK.)
Just on that point of GDP. The Commonwealth GDP is currently 2.6% larger than the Eurozone and according to the IMF the Commonwealth GDP is expected to grow by almost 30% by 2050 whereas the Eurozone GDP is expected to shrink slightly in the same period.
Whilst personally I do not agree with any sort of trade isolation from the EU, the idea that we should remained shackled to a stagnating economic bloc whilst the rest of the world powers ahead seems pretty ludicrous to me. And that is just the economics. Of course the cost to the UK of EU membership is far higher than just pounds and pence.
Just on relative GDPs, the IMF has nominal GDP (which is the one we need to use, as that's the value of trade) of the Commonwealth as $10.5trn, and the EU as $18.5trn. On a PPP basis, the Commonwealth goes to $14.5trn.
This is not to invalidate your general point, of course :-)
"Labour still believes it could form a more durable coalition than the Tories even if it comes 20 or 30 seats behind David Cameron’s party and has identified “considerable overlap” in policy with the Lib Dems.
Senior Labour figures believe that it will become obvious quickly on Friday if Mr Cameron “doesn’t have the numbers” at which point Ed Miliband would urge him to quit.
If Mr Cameron clung on and put together a Queen’s Speech with no majority Labour MPs would have no qualms in joining forces with the SNP in voting it down, according to eight party candidates who have spoken to the FT.
Some senior party figures recognise that putting together a rival grouping could prove difficult if the public believe that the Tories “won” the election."
If Labour are 20-30 seats behind the Tories then it's pretty likely that Con > Lab + LD. The press would have a field day.
We do seem to have come quite a distance from the day when Jim Murphy pronounced: "Only the biggest party after the general election can form a government".
The trouble with UKIP is that many of their members believe in an ideology of hate; towards ethnic minorities, women, gays, blame foreigners for nearly every problem in the country - there's an awful lot of people they don't like. For that reason, I doubt they'll become a mainstream force. Realistically, someone less extreme - like Carswell - needs to lead that party. But I don't sense Kippers are very keen on him. And looking at the new Mirror comments section, it looks like the Kippers have invaded there, too.
I don't think that is accurate at all. In my experience most UKIP supporters are decent people, who are mainly motivated to vote UKIP by high levels of immigration and disillusionment with the political class. The image of them as some sort of neo-Nazis is simply not one I recognise and I can not believe anyone that has gone out talking to voters genuinely believes such a thing.
I also find this stereotyping highly counter-productive to the Conservative cause. If you tell people they are awful people, it just puts their backs up and gets them to hate the elitist mentality even more. The best way to win back Kippers into the Conservative fold is to do make sure their concerns are addressed, and then present clear evidence of that to them.
I'm not a conservative - I don't belong to any political party, although I'm centre-left. And well, I guess that my impression of the UKIP support base is from what they say online - and an awful lot of Ukippers appear to express thoughts along the lines I've outlined.
That explains it. I do not believe the internet is a good representation of any group. Whether UKIP voters, feminists or animal rights proponents, every group seems like intolerant extremists online if you try to debate them. I guess it is just a small handful that are particularly animated dominating the conversation, because they can do it behind the veil of anonymity.
In general people are angrier and less tolerant online than in person.. its the same for everyone, but some like to pick and choose who it applies to
"Labour still believes it could form a more durable coalition than the Tories even if it comes 20 or 30 seats behind David Cameron’s party and has identified “considerable overlap” in policy with the Lib Dems.
Senior Labour figures believe that it will become obvious quickly on Friday if Mr Cameron “doesn’t have the numbers” at which point Ed Miliband would urge him to quit.
If Mr Cameron clung on and put together a Queen’s Speech with no majority Labour MPs would have no qualms in joining forces with the SNP in voting it down, according to eight party candidates who have spoken to the FT.
Some senior party figures recognise that putting together a rival grouping could prove difficult if the public believe that the Tories “won” the election."
If Labour are 20-30 seats behind the Tories then it's pretty likely that Con > Lab + LD. The press would have a field day.
Plus it doesn't square with Nick's "greatest mandate" line.
I suppose it may be that Kellner, an old and very experienced election hand, holds entirely different views, based on vast personal experience and contacts, from what his company's teenage IT geeks are getting from their stats. Which would mean that he knows the poll methods are hopelessly unsuited to this new electoral world but, even as company owner, there's nothing he can do about it during *this* GE. Alea jacta est. So YG can only plough on. (And what goes for YG goes for all the others. It's the whole map that has changed, and they have all yet to adapt.)
On the other hand, Kellner himself, knowing all this to be so (if indeed it is), has to safeguard his personal reputation as a pundit of integrity and long standing (whether one shares his opinions or not, and I usually do not). So he makes the odd *personal* remark, subtly as he can so as not to undermine his company and employees or upset clients. Not much else he can do without unacceptably high business risk. At least he knows his competitors are all in the same boat.
What I take from all this, and only Thursday will give the answer, is that Sunil is probably largely right. The online polls are redundant. Personal nous counts. Whose? YPYMATYP.
Calder Valley is an interesting one. I had a few quid on Labour at 9/4 earlier today, following a favorable comment from a well-respected source.
It's at the outer limit of likely Labour gains, but local factors seem to be helping them.
I think the same, a notable omission from Ashcroft's marginal polling.
If Labour gain Calder Valley they should be on 290+ MPs.
Possible but very unlikely IMO and there's much better odds on Lab most seats.
As the Conservatives now seem to think that Halifax is their one remaining chance of a gain from Labour it means someone is reading Calderdale borough all wrong.
No, that's not right, Richard.
Labour could win just 30 seats and Calder Valley be one of them. Conversely they could win 60 and lose Halifax.
Local factors. (These have been mentioned here on earlier threads.)
I'm reading that some posters believe that private polling by Conservatives and Labour may be showing a greater Conservative lead than the polls of which we have visibility.
Can anyone tell me why this might be the case? Is it because it is more detailed and shows up local variations from the mean that might change things? Or because they are asking more searching questions?
Otherwise I am at a loss to understand why some might believe the situation is more favourable to the Conservatives than the published polling figures might suggest.
Not read anyone say its private polling. Seems to be more like canvass returns.
But why should this be so out of step with the opinion polls?
That's the million dollar question.
Well, it is certainly baffling me. I have voted in every election since 1970 and I have never felt such a disconnect between what the polls are telling me and what I feel will be the result. I've usually been pretty accurate what the election will bring. On the performance of the opposition and the record of the government I would be expecting this time a healthy win by the Conservatives and yet the polls are suggesting it's neck and neck.
I am having the same problem with the polls as well. Running up to the election I felt the following were the "most" likely outcome; 83 Easy Con win 87 Easy Con win 92 Initially Labour but the campaign shifted opinions and I thought it would be tight. 97 Blair Landslide 01 Lab not quite so shiny but easy win 05 Cons more competitive but Country didn't feel any great need for change 10 Labour out but Cons hadn't done enough to convince what they would do. 15 Coalition have been OK -sky hasn't fallen in and things overall are on the up- more of the same.
BUT Fall of Lib Dems and rise of UKIP and SNP in a FPTP system play havoc with the numbers.
Risking my hard earned cash on suitable bets is proving VERY difficult to call !!
Wow I had not noticed the OxWAb boundary changes - I was in that seat when at Oxford (voted for the Tory Harris in 1997), but would have been Oxford East now.
So the posh part of Oxford (North) stayed in, but most of the students in the centre moved to Ox East. Con hold then
The trouble with UKIP is that many of their members believe in an ideology of hate; towards ethnic minorities, women, gays, blame foreigners for nearly every problem in the country - there's an awful lot of people they don't like. For that reason, I doubt they'll become a mainstream force. Realistically, someone less extreme - like Carswell - needs to lead that party. But I don't sense Kippers are very keen on him. And looking at the new Mirror comments section, it looks like the Kippers have invaded there, too.
I don't think that is accurate at all. In my experience most UKIP supporters are decent people, who are mainly motivated to vote UKIP by high levels of immigration and disillusionment with the political class. The image of them as some sort of neo-Nazis is simply not one I recognise and I can not believe anyone that has gone out talking to voters genuinely believes such a thing.
I also find this stereotyping highly counter-productive to the Conservative cause. If you tell people they are awful people, it just puts their backs up and gets them to hate the elitist mentality even more. The best way to win back Kippers into the Conservative fold is to do make sure their concerns are addressed, and then present clear evidence of that to them.
I wish there were more Conservatives like you.
That's very kind of you to say Casino_Royale. It is just my approach to politics, I guess. There are a few issues where you really do need to make a trade-off, but I feel most division in politics is deliberately stirred up for political reasons. If you put the ideologues to one side, I don't see why it isn't possible to govern in a small 'c' conservative manner that addresses most voters' concerns. Of course, that's not very fun for the media to cover.
For anyone suffering from an excess of election hysteria, there is an excellent program on BBC 4 at the moment featuring a journey along the whole of the Kennet and Avon Canal. A thoroughly relaxing watch.
Although without the wife-swapping at Wootton Rivers (*)
The trouble with UKIP is that many of their members believe in an ideology of hate; towards ethnic minorities, women, gays, blame foreigners for nearly every problem in the country - there's an awful lot of people they don't like. For that reason, I doubt they'll become a mainstream force. Realistically, someone less extreme - like Carswell - needs to lead that party. But I don't sense Kippers are very keen on him. And looking at the new Mirror comments section, it looks like the Kippers have invaded there, too.
Committed left wingers believe that the Conservatives have an ideology of hate; Scottish Nationalists believe that their opponents have an ideology of hate; and vice versa; plenty of Tories argue that socialists hate Britain.
Outside the ranks of partisans, none of this is very persuasive.
It wasn't intended to persuade; it was an expression of an opinion. I don't believe the Conservatives have an ideology of hate; just that they have some very unpleasant people within their ranks. Beside rapid Cyber-Nats I doubt SNP supporters actually believe any who disagrees with them believes in an ideology of hate. And given how divisive UKIP are, I'd say there are many who do view them in this way - just as there are many who do not.
Calder Valley is an interesting one. I had a few quid on Labour at 9/4 earlier today, following a favorable comment from a well-respected source.
It's at the outer limit of likely Labour gains, but local factors seem to be helping them.
I think the same, a notable omission from Ashcroft's marginal polling.
If Labour gain Calder Valley they should be on 290+ MPs.
Possible but very unlikely IMO and there's much better odds on Lab most seats.
As the Conservatives now seem to think that Halifax is their one remaining chance of a gain from Labour it means someone is reading Calderdale borough all wrong.
I agree with the yougov thing. Why is Keller so adamant the Tories will win most seats when the polls as a whole tell us otherwise? Or is this just an 'unpollable' election. Probably just best waiting for the actual result now, as this election is just bizarre.
If you take the raw yougov number, and assume UNS on E&W, labour should come out ahead. Ashcroft polls suggest UNS is not likely, and may (by not naming candidates) masking an incumbancy effect.
That said, the evidence suggests level pegging nationally, and tories very slightly ahead in E&W. This would suggest (not accounting for incumbancy effect) that labour and the tories will be very close in total seats.
Yet Tories are 1.23 most seats
Lab 5.2
Bizarre, I think the Lab being largest party might be good value.
That said I really believe in forecast modelling. Electionforecast is predicting 267-281 margin on a simulated 1.9% tory lead and the LDs close to 12%, and UKIP on 11%. Recent polls show the LDs doing worse, and UKIP doing a lot better than their model suggests.
That's probably not good for Mr Palmer - she's more awful than Ed!
It's one thing feeling we know politicians well enough to declare them to be awful people - but their inoffensive, largely anonymous spouses? I mean whatever makes you happy but how you can feel you know enough to dismiss her as awful is beyond me.
Thing is one of the things I remember about my teens is Hardwicke House which I didn't know was called that till recently. But I remember the controversy and it being cancelled after the first episode and have always wanted to watch the whole thing.
The trouble with UKIP is that many of their members believe in an ideology of hate; towards ethnic minorities, women, gays, blame foreigners for nearly every problem in the country - there's an awful lot of people they don't like. For that reason, I doubt they'll become a mainstream force. Realistically, someone less extreme - like Carswell - needs to lead that party. But I don't sense Kippers are very keen on him. And looking at the new Mirror comments section, it looks like the Kippers have invaded there, too.
I don't think that is accurate at all. In my experience most UKIP supporters are decent people, who are mainly motivated to vote UKIP by high levels of immigration and disillusionment with the political class. The image of them as some sort of neo-Nazis is simply not one I recognise and I can not believe anyone that has gone out talking to voters genuinely believes such a thing.
I also find this stereotyping highly counter-productive to the Conservative cause. If you tell people they are awful people, it just puts their backs up and gets them to hate the elitist mentality even more. The best way to win back Kippers into the Conservative fold is to do make sure their concerns are addressed, and then present clear evidence of that to them.
I wish there were more Conservatives like you.
One hears plenty of arguments that the Conservatives "hate" the poor, disabled, ethnic minorities etc. And of course, these arguments are bollocks. Why some Conservatives think it serves their interests to parrot these arguments against UKIP is strange.
The anecdotal evidence and the mood music continues to be much better for the Tories than the polls. In my opinion the 2010 Tory vote is pretty rock solid where it matters with the drift to UKIP only being significant where Labour are not competitive.
In some seats this will not be enough as the red Liberals get Labour over the top. I expect Broxtowe to be one of these but the number is not large. Labour are likely to lose at least 35 seats in Scotland. Will they make that number of gains to get back to their current level? The polls say yes but the anecdotes say not.
It is possible that this is all some Romneyian delusion, that the polls are right and that Labour are going to walk this. It just does not feel like that.
Today, driving home in monsoon conditions from Glasgow I was listening to R5 in Warwickshire. Almost everyone they spoke to was voting tory or UKIP. They eventually found a Labour voter but he was only 95%. The 5% was Miliband, he was just not sure about him.
This is Labour's number 1 target and Ed was there today. Why is he in a target lower than 50? Are their polling figures that bad?
I can think of a few reasons why Ed might pop into North Warwickshire. It's on the way to a lot of other places, for example
There was a sign not too far from us which said "welcome to bedfordshire, central to the Oxford-Cambridge arc"
Which is almost unparalleled in its desperate barrel-scraping banality. Somehow I was reminded of this reading your post :-)
I assume a legacy of what I think was a Cambridge - Bedford - Oxford rail link in the old days.
I may miss remember this. I expect there is a rail expert on here who will know!
It lasted about 2 years. It was replaced with "welcome to Bedfordshire - a progressive county"
All parties have there stupids; this suspended kipper is an ex Tory, so go figure. A kipper was badly beaten up by 5 thugs yesterday. The fact is UKIP is growing and getting stronger and both @TSE and @rcs1000 cannot stand it, hence their bile and a smear whenever they see a chance.
And what bile? The only poster for whom I have bile on this site is @FalseFlag, a man whose sole mission in life is to big up Vladamir Putin.
My ambition - as I've often stated - is a looser relationship with the EU, but one which preserves freedom of labour. (This means EFTA/EEA - and which results in i., no benefits for migrants, ii. no right to remain if without a job, and iii., the ability to kick people out if they commit a crime.) I realise this is less than what UKIP stands for. And I realise there are few people standing up for freedom of people to work where they like, and to hire who they like.
I think the rise of UKIP makes my dream far less likely. Sometimes I wonder if Nigel Farage is in the pay of the EU; essentially creating a caricature of Eurosceptics.
This is naive. UKIP are not creating a caricature of eurosceptics, they are eurosceptics, therefore they are being caricatured.
Actually, very few of the "137" links on that page refer to members of the LibLabConspiracy being guilty (or even being accused) of paedophillia, racism, etc. etc. And many of the links refer to things that happened some time in the past. And a number of them are duplicates.
So, there are two stories about Oxford council having swept alleagations under the carpet. But while incompetence, lazyness and political correctness are serious issues, they are not the same as Oxford councillors being guilty of paedophilia, etc.
If your point was: there are scumbags in all political parties, then no shit sherlock.
The trouble with UKIP is that many of their members believe in an ideology of hate; towards ethnic minorities, women, gays, blame foreigners for nearly every problem in the country - there's an awful lot of people they don't like. For that reason, I doubt they'll become a mainstream force. Realistically, someone less extreme - like Carswell - needs to lead that party. But I don't sense Kippers are very keen on him. And looking at the new Mirror comments section, it looks like the Kippers have invaded there, too.
I don't think that is accurate at all. In my experience most UKIP supporters are decent people, who are mainly motivated to vote UKIP by high levels of immigration and disillusionment with the political class. The image of them as some sort of neo-Nazis is simply not one I recognise and I can not believe anyone that has gone out talking to voters genuinely believes such a thing.
I also find this stereotyping highly counter-productive to the Conservative cause. If you tell people they are awful people, it just puts their backs up and gets them to hate the elitist mentality even more. The best way to win back Kippers into the Conservative fold is to do make sure their concerns are addressed, and then present clear evidence of that to them.
I wish there were more Conservatives like you.
One hears plenty of arguments that the Conservatives "hate" the poor, disabled, ethnic minorities etc. And of course, these arguments are bollocks. Why some Conservatives think it serves their interests to parrot these arguments against UKIP is strange.
The trouble with UKIP is that many of their members believe in an ideology of hate; towards ethnic minorities, women, gays, blame foreigners for nearly every problem in the country - there's an awful lot of people they don't like. For that reason, I doubt they'll become a mainstream force. Realistically, someone less extreme - like Carswell - needs to lead that party. But I don't sense Kippers are very keen on him. And looking at the new Mirror comments section, it looks like the Kippers have invaded there, too.
I don't think that is accurate at all. In my experience most UKIP supporters are decent people, who are mainly motivated to vote UKIP by high levels of immigration and disillusionment with the political class. The image of them as some sort of neo-Nazis is simply not one I recognise and I can not believe anyone that has gone out talking to voters genuinely believes such a thing.
I also find this stereotyping highly counter-productive to the Conservative cause. If you tell people they are awful people, it just puts their backs up and gets them to hate the elitist mentality even more. The best way to win back Kippers into the Conservative fold is to do make sure their concerns are addressed, and then present clear evidence of that to them.
I wish there were more Conservatives like you.
One hears plenty of arguments that the Conservatives "hate" the poor, disabled, ethnic minorities etc. And of course, these arguments are bollocks. Why some Conservatives think it serves their interests to parrot these arguments against UKIP is strange.
To be fair to Dave (and I'm not often) when he made his famous remarks about Ukip they probably won't polling above 1%. Yet his remarks in 2006(?) have been turned into an insult to all Ukip supporters of 2015 which is obviously nonsense.
The anecdotal evidence and the mood music continues to be much better for the Tories than the polls. In my opinion the 2010 Tory vote is pretty rock solid where it matters with the drift to UKIP only being significant where Labour are not competitive.
In some seats this will not be enough as the red Liberals get Labour over the top. I expect Broxtowe to be one of these but the number is not large. Labour are likely to lose at least 35 seats in Scotland. Will they make that number of gains to get back to their current level? The polls say yes but the anecdotes say not.
It is possible that this is all some Romneyian delusion, that the polls are right and that Labour are going to walk this. It just does not feel like that.
Today, driving home in monsoon conditions from Glasgow I was listening to R5 in Warwickshire. Almost everyone they spoke to was voting tory or UKIP. They eventually found a Labour voter but he was only 95%. The 5% was Miliband, he was just not sure about him.
This is Labour's number 1 target and Ed was there today. Why is he in a target lower than 50? Are their polling figures that bad?
I can think of a few reasons why Ed might pop into North Warwickshire. It's on the way to a lot of other places, for example
There was a sign not too far from us which said "welcome to bedfordshire, central to the Oxford-Cambridge arc"
Which is almost unparalleled in its desperate barrel-scraping banality. Somehow I was reminded of this reading your post :-)
I assume a legacy of what I think was a Cambridge - Bedford - Oxford rail link in the old days.
I may miss remember this. I expect there is a rail expert on here who will know!
It lasted about 2 years. It was replaced with "welcome to Bedfordshire - a progressive county"
Which means precisely f*ck all as well.
now it says
"welcome to Bedfordshire"
...
Perhaps they no longer have enough money to pay some marketing consultant to invent idiotic slogans.
rcs1000/RT It is all relative of course, in 50-100 years time the average European will still be richer than the average citizen of the rest of the world, however the rest of the world is certainly going to grow faster than the EU. Personally I would want to keep strong links with both the EU and Commonwealth, although it was certainly sensible that we stayed out of the Euro
I agree with the yougov thing. Why is Keller so adamant the Tories will win most seats when the polls as a whole tell us otherwise? Or is this just an 'unpollable' election. Probably just best waiting for the actual result now, as this election is just bizarre.
If you take the raw yougov number, and assume UNS on E&W, labour should come out ahead. Ashcroft polls suggest UNS is not likely, and may (by not naming candidates) masking an incumbancy effect.
That said, the evidence suggests level pegging nationally, and tories very slightly ahead in E&W. This would suggest (not accounting for incumbancy effect) that labour and the tories will be very close in total seats.
Yet Tories are 1.23 most seats
Lab 5.2
Bizarre, I think the Lab being largest party might be good value.
That said I really believe in forecast modelling. Electionforecast is predicting 267-281 margin on a simulated 1.9% tory lead and the LDs close to 12%, and UKIP on 11%. Recent polls show the LDs doing worse, and UKIP doing a lot better than their model suggests.
If your model is accurate, the two prices should be much closer together - say 1.5 Con, 3.1 Labour.
The anecdotal evidence and the mood music continues to be much better for the Tories than the polls. In my opinion the 2010 Tory vote is pretty rock solid where it matters with the drift to UKIP only being significant where Labour are not competitive.
In some seats this will not be enough as the red Liberals get Labour over the top. I expect Broxtowe to be one of these but the number is not large. Labour are likely to lose at least 35 seats in Scotland. Will they make that number of gains to get back to their current level? The polls say yes but the anecdotes say not.
It is possible that this is all some Romneyian delusion, that the polls are right and that Labour are going to walk this. It just does not feel like that.
Today, driving home in monsoon conditions from Glasgow I was listening to R5 in Warwickshire. Almost everyone they spoke to was voting tory or UKIP. They eventually found a Labour voter but he was only 95%. The 5% was Miliband, he was just not sure about him.
This is Labour's number 1 target and Ed was there today. Why is he in a target lower than 50? Are their polling figures that bad?
I can think of a few reasons why Ed might pop into North Warwickshire. It's on the way to a lot of other places, for example
There was a sign not too far from us which said "welcome to bedfordshire, central to the Oxford-Cambridge arc"
Which is almost unparalleled in its desperate barrel-scraping banality. Somehow I was reminded of this reading your post :-)
I assume a legacy of what I think was a Cambridge - Bedford - Oxford rail link in the old days.
I may miss remember this. I expect there is a rail expert on here who will know!
It lasted about 2 years. It was replaced with "welcome to Bedfordshire - a progressive county"
Which means precisely f*ck all as well.
now it says
"welcome to Bedfordshire"
...
Perhaps they no longer have enough money to pay some marketing consultant to invent idiotic slogans.
More likely the Labour council was ousted by some sensible tories ;-)
All parties have there stupids; this suspended kipper is an ex Tory, so go figure. A kipper was badly beaten up by 5 thugs yesterday. The fact is UKIP is growing and getting stronger and both @TSE and @rcs1000 cannot stand it, hence their bile and a smear whenever they see a chance.
And what bile? The only poster for whom I have bile on this site is @FalseFlag, a man whose sole mission in life is to big up Vladamir Putin.
My ambition - as I've often stated - is a looser relationship with the EU, but one which preserves freedom of labour. (This means EFTA/EEA - and which results in i., no benefits for migrants, ii. no right to remain if without a job, and iii., the ability to kick people out if they commit a crime.) I realise this is less than what UKIP stands for. And I realise there are few people standing up for freedom of people to work where they like, and to hire who they like.
I think the rise of UKIP makes my dream far less likely. Sometimes I wonder if Nigel Farage is in the pay of the EU; essentially creating a caricature of Eurosceptics.
This is naive. UKIP are not creating a caricature of eurosceptics, they are eurosceptics, therefore they are being caricatured.
I don't want to get too excited (although it is pretty exciting) but I got an e-mail from SamCam today. She's been out with that other slightly less interesting David don't you know.
Calder Valley is an interesting one. I had a few quid on Labour at 9/4 earlier today, following a favorable comment from a well-respected source.
It's at the outer limit of likely Labour gains, but local factors seem to be helping them.
I think the same, a notable omission from Ashcroft's marginal polling.
If Labour gain Calder Valley they should be on 290+ MPs.
Possible but very unlikely IMO and there's much better odds on Lab most seats.
As the Conservatives now seem to think that Halifax is their one remaining chance of a gain from Labour it means someone is reading Calderdale borough all wrong.
It's also next to Colne Valley which had a very similar 2010 result to it, with a high LD share to squeeze. Ashcroft had Colne Valley TCTC, so Calder Valley is probably in play as well. Labour seem to be trying hard there.
Amazing that we have three polls today, UKIP on 12, 13 & 16%, and people are saying 1-2 seats
How?
People that used to say 6-7% and no seats before Carswell defected, now think that vote share will double with, in effect, no seats gained
Wishful thinking
No right thinking person wants a racist party to get any seats.
Indeed, dress it up as they want, NF, BNP, EDL, UKIP, they are all parties that no-one should ever consider voting for.
Whats your predicted vote share for the EDL and NF?
Sam your party has done brilliantly. It has set a major element of Conservative Party policy and has, through thick and thin and no few insults, continued to bring up the issue of EU immigration which everyone appears to want to do something about but which no one seems to have any answers to or policy actually to address.
All that is great.
But.
UKIP is no political party. It is a pressure group, an effective one but no more than that. In addition, as you and I have discussed before, some, perhaps a lot of its election literature has been written and designed by the "old guard". Or at least I hope it has because it reeks of old-fashioned NF/BNP dog-whistle anti-immigrant rhetoric which, frankly, I find abhorrent. And so do plenty of others (sadly, it attracts yet others).
You as a party will have learned a lot from all this so I wish you well in future but you really need to address that element.
I agree with the yougov thing. Why is Keller so adamant the Tories will win most seats when the polls as a whole tell us otherwise? Or is this just an 'unpollable' election. Probably just best waiting for the actual result now, as this election is just bizarre.
If you take the raw yougov number, and assume UNS on E&W, labour should come out ahead. Ashcroft polls suggest UNS is not likely, and may (by not naming candidates) masking an incumbancy effect.
That said, the evidence suggests level pegging nationally, and tories very slightly ahead in E&W. This would suggest (not accounting for incumbancy effect) that labour and the tories will be very close in total seats.
Yet Tories are 1.23 most seats
Lab 5.2
Bizarre, I think the Lab being largest party might be good value.
That said I really believe in forecast modelling. Electionforecast is predicting 267-281 margin on a simulated 1.9% tory lead and the LDs close to 12%, and UKIP on 11%. Recent polls show the LDs doing worse, and UKIP doing a lot better than their model suggests.
In that case you may be interested to learn that as of today Prof. Stephen Fisher's Elections, etc., who let's be honest OGH has largely chosen to ignore from the outset, has the Tories on 289 seats, comfortably ahead of Labour on 257 seats. You pays yer money .....
Amazing that we have three polls today, UKIP on 12, 13 & 16%, and people are saying 1-2 seats
How?
People that used to say 6-7% and no seats before Carswell defected, now think that vote share will double with, in effect, no seats gained
Wishful thinking
No right thinking person wants a racist party to get any seats.
Oooh cutting
But what does it matter what people want to happen? How is that relevant? Who was talking about that?
Square root of nothing added, as per
You can whine all you like... UKIP are a racist party.. they just try to hide it..
Really? How?
What is racist about wanting independence from the EU or restricting immigration?
Of course, there are racist UKIP members and even candidates. But there nutjobs (and worse) in all political parties. I think the "power" thing tends to attract the wrong sorts :-)
Calder Valley is an interesting one. I had a few quid on Labour at 9/4 earlier today, following a favorable comment from a well-respected source.
It's at the outer limit of likely Labour gains, but local factors seem to be helping them.
I think the same, a notable omission from Ashcroft's marginal polling.
If Labour gain Calder Valley they should be on 290+ MPs.
Possible but very unlikely IMO and there's much better odds on Lab most seats.
As the Conservatives now seem to think that Halifax is their one remaining chance of a gain from Labour it means someone is reading Calderdale borough all wrong.
Halifax Con gain and Calder Valley Lab gain would be mind blowing weird.
Back in 1974 Romford went from Lab to Con and whilst Hornchurch went from Con to Lab but that was down to boundary changes with the sitting two MPs swapping constituencies.
Likewise Plymouth Sutton and Plymouth Devonport swapped allegiance in 1974 because of the boundary changes.
"Labour still believes it could form a more durable coalition than the Tories even if it comes 20 or 30 seats behind David Cameron’s party and has identified “considerable overlap” in policy with the Lib Dems.
Senior Labour figures believe that it will become obvious quickly on Friday if Mr Cameron “doesn’t have the numbers” at which point Ed Miliband would urge him to quit.
If Mr Cameron clung on and put together a Queen’s Speech with no majority Labour MPs would have no qualms in joining forces with the SNP in voting it down, according to eight party candidates who have spoken to the FT.
Some senior party figures recognise that putting together a rival grouping could prove difficult if the public believe that the Tories “won” the election."
If Labour are 20-30 seats behind the Tories then it's pretty likely that Con > Lab + LD. The press would have a field day.
I always thought in a parliamentary democracy you had to win the votes in the HoC. If I accepted the argument that the Tories had somehow "won", even though they were nowhere near 323 MPs even with their allies, what is the opposition supposed to do, just meekly accept it ?
I bet Cameron is pleased tomorrow isn't polling day.
London weather, tomorrow:
13 degrees, heavy rain, 47 mph winds.
In that sort of weather a lot of pensioners wouldn't make it out of the front door, which would hit the Tory vote very hard I guess (in the south-east area).
"Labour still believes it could form a more durable coalition than the Tories even if it comes 20 or 30 seats behind David Cameron’s party and has identified “considerable overlap” in policy with the Lib Dems.
Senior Labour figures believe that it will become obvious quickly on Friday if Mr Cameron “doesn’t have the numbers” at which point Ed Miliband would urge him to quit.
If Mr Cameron clung on and put together a Queen’s Speech with no majority Labour MPs would have no qualms in joining forces with the SNP in voting it down, according to eight party candidates who have spoken to the FT.
Some senior party figures recognise that putting together a rival grouping could prove difficult if the public believe that the Tories “won” the election."
If Labour are 20-30 seats behind the Tories then it's pretty likely that Con > Lab + LD. The press would have a field day.
I always thought in a parliamentary democracy you had to win the votes in the HoC. If I accepted the argument that the Tories had somehow "won", even though they were nowhere near 323 MPs even with their allies, what is the opposition supposed to do, just meekly accept it ?
We both know that. However that is also completely irrelevant to the general public. They will see losers ganging up to try and lock the rightful winners out of power - and will give them a kicking in the ballot booth for it.
WELL DONE CROSBY - should have stuck to the economy.
I'd really wait until the early Friday morning before being too confident of that. I'm more sympathetic towards Labour than the Tories, but I'm not discounting the possibility of a Tory surge until Friday 8th May, around 6:30am time.
Don't be daft - that would be a gift for the Tories. All the pensioners have already voted by post.
Its Lab with the turnout operation - apart from in Scotland where I hope a great ice freeze shuts the whole country down so only postal votes count. Then I will laugh as the SNP win less than 10 seats.
I think if this argument gets hold that if the Tories were the largest party , therefore, they had "won", then the best way for Labour to deal with it is let Cameron become the Prime Minister.
Then, keep on defeating him on the floor of the Commons time and time again. Proving without doubt , in a practical sense, that the Tories did not win the election.
Once Cameron resigns, and the Queens asks Miliband to form a government, this so called legitimacy will be conferred on Miliband, simply because the Queen had invited him.
Wearing my orange tinted sun glasses and seven years of spani Sh beer and wine, possibly coupled with too much sun my take on lib dem prospects are
Scotland hold 4/5 there are reasons but no time to post them We will lose Burnley Withington Bradford East May hold berwick but difficult We will also lose Cardiff Cental, BristolWest, Wells, Taunton, Somerton&Frome, the one in Norfolk, Brent Central, possibly Redcar There will be gains, Watford, OXWAB, and possibly two others so net 52/53 gbut that is too silly so I'll settle for 40
You do realise that because of boundary changes between 05 and 10 OXWAB will almost certainly remain a Tory stronghold now, don't you? Add in registration changes and I think Con maj of 6000. Some of my favourite watering holes in that constituency; it couldn't be more Tory in a university town.
What were the changes?
Any recommendations on watering holes?
Have to agree on OxWAb staying blue, although last time the Tory Nicola Blackwood ousted Evan Harris by just 176 votes, so 6,000 majority is pretty fanciful. The LibDems have a good team and candidate on the ground here in Layla Moran. It's been a bit strange here in Abingdon, because aside from both Clegg and Cameron arriving at the start of the campaign, and a so-called morale-boosting visit by Boris Johnson at the weekend, it's all been a bit quiet.
The boundary changes that happened before 2010 took Carfax (including approx 8,000 students) off into 'Oxford East' and brought in Yarnton (formerly DC's Witney constituency) and Appleton (formerly part of Ed Vaizey's patch).
Despite what you might think, Harris was quite a popular local MP, and the 2010 campaign was quite bruising (a shady US right-wing Christian outfit sponsored anti LibDem material and an activist actually stood against him, protesting about him as 'Dr Death' for his stand on abortion and euthanasia). So I think it will be close again, but probably around 500-600 votes.
That's just my feel on the ground here. Oh, and try the real-ale troika of Crown and Thistle, Hags Head on the Thames and 'Kings Head and Bell' here in Abingdon for decent beer ;-)
For anyone suffering from an excess of election hysteria, there is an excellent program on BBC 4 at the moment featuring a journey along the whole of the Kennet and Avon Canal. A thoroughly relaxing watch.
Although without the wife-swapping at Wootton Rivers (*)
(*) Don't ask.
Quite right. Happy memories of a stroll from Burbage in the 1980s when there were still plenty of water voles - there was a series of them plumping into the water as one came close to them. Haven't seen the beam engines at Crofton, the ones which raised water to the summit level, since then (but did buy the new history of the pumping station last year).
How is that an interesting poll? It's pretty much in the same vein as all the other polls we've seen.
Last week it looked like the polls were swinging towards the Conservatives, now they seem to be swinging back to parity.
If this latest swing continues then Labour will be ahead on votes in the election.
That is a big if though.
It isn't widely remembered but in 1992 the polls had been swinging towards the Conservatives for the week prior to the election - from Labour having a solid lead (which is what got Kinnock so fired up in Sheffield) to parity. That swing continued in 1992 right up until the last minute - literally so the BBC exit poll was initially going to put Labour ahead but as the data came in on the Thursday evening the Conservatives took the lead.
Amazing that we have three polls today, UKIP on 12, 13 & 16%, and people are saying 1-2 seats
How?
People that used to say 6-7% and no seats before Carswell defected, now think that vote share will double with, in effect, no seats gained
Wishful thinking
No right thinking person wants a racist party to get any seats.
Indeed, dress it up as they want, NF, BNP, EDL, UKIP, they are all parties that no-one should ever consider voting for.
Whats your predicted vote share for the EDL and NF?
It's all been swallowed up by their current UKIP brand.
Ooh nasty I am hurt!
You swine!
Pathetic, clueless creature
Not sure I would be concerned about your attempt at sarcasm. There is no doubt UKIP is the current political incarnation of NF/BNP/EDL. These racist parties evolve in that way until they get a fluffy outside and a television platform.
For some reason Nick Robinson decided UKIP should get a platform. It will probably haunt him for the rest of his days (which I should add I hope are many). But it will always be his fault to decide to promote a marginal, fringe, race-hate party like UKIP on the national television stage.
Wearing my orange tinted sun glasses and seven years of spani Sh beer and wine, possibly coupled with too much sun my take on lib dem prospects are
Scotland hold 4/5 there are reasons but no time to post them We will lose Burnley Withington Bradford East May hold berwick but difficult We will also lose Cardiff Cental, BristolWest, Wells, Taunton, Somerton&Frome, the one in Norfolk, Brent Central, possibly Redcar There will be gains, Watford, OXWAB, and possibly two others so net 52/53 gbut that is too silly so I'll settle for 40
You do realise that because of boundary changes between 05 and 10 OXWAB will almost certainly remain a Tory stronghold now, don't you? Add in registration changes and I think Con maj of 6000. Some of my favourite watering holes in that constituency; it couldn't be more Tory in a university town.
What were the changes?
Any recommendations on watering holes?
Have to agree on OxWAb staying blue, although last time the Tory Nicola Blackwood ousted Evan Harris by just 176 votes, so 6,000 majority is pretty fanciful. The LibDems have a good team and candidate on the ground here in Layla Moran. It's been a bit strange here in Abingdon, because aside from both Clegg and Cameron arriving at the start of the campaign, and a so-called morale-boosting visit by Boris Johnson at the weekend, it's all been a bit quiet.
The boundary changes that happened before 2010 took Carfax (including approx 8,000 students) off into 'Oxford East' and brought in Yarnton (formerly DC's Witney constituency) and Appleton (formerly part of Ed Vaizey's patch).
Despite what you might think, Harris was quite a popular local MP, and the 2010 campaign was quite bruising (a shady US right-wing Christian outfit sponsored anti LibDem material and an activist actually stood against him, protesting about him as 'Dr Death' for his stand on abortion and euthanasia). So I think it will be close again, but probably around 500-600 votes.
That's just my feel on the ground here. Oh, and try the real-ale troika of Crown and Thistle, Hags Head on the Thames and 'Kings Head and Bell' here in Abingdon for decent beer ;-)
Agree with what a few of the others have suggested upthread. OUT needs to coalesce to a looser arrangement such as the EEA/EFTA to succeed because it won't scare the horses amongst business/the public and is an easier sell that would garner more crossparty support. And Farage should definitely NOT be near the top table for OUT. He'd scare off as many as he converted. It needs people from UKIP, the Tories and Labour who are not going to be drawn into getting portrayed as swivel eyed headbangers. So that'd rule out much of Cameron's awkward squad as well.
Who knows, maybe the other EU leaders will suggest it as a compromise if they don't want to make changes themselves when Cameron comes knocking.
All parties have there stupids; this suspended kipper is an ex Tory, so go figure. A kipper was badly beaten up by 5 thugs yesterday. The fact is UKIP is growing and getting stronger and both @TSE and @rcs1000 cannot stand it, hence their bile and a smear whenever they see a chance.
And what bile? The only poster for whom I have bile on this site is @FalseFlag, a man whose sole mission in life is to big up Vladamir Putin.
My ambition - as I've often stated - is a looser relationship with the EU, but one which preserves freedom of labour. (This means EFTA/EEA - and which results in i., no benefits for migrants, ii. no right to remain if without a job, and iii., the ability to kick people out if they commit a crime.) I realise this is less than what UKIP stands for. And I realise there are few people standing up for freedom of people to work where they like, and to hire who they like.
I think the rise of UKIP makes my dream far less likely. Sometimes I wonder if Nigel Farage is in the pay of the EU; essentially creating a caricature of Eurosceptics.
This is naive. UKIP are not creating a caricature of eurosceptics, they are eurosceptics, therefore they are being caricatured.
"Labour still believes it could form a more durable coalition than the Tories even if it comes 20 or 30 seats behind David Cameron’s party and has identified “considerable overlap” in policy with the Lib Dems.
Senior Labour figures believe that it will become obvious quickly on Friday if Mr Cameron “doesn’t have the numbers” at which point Ed Miliband would urge him to quit.
If Mr Cameron clung on and put together a Queen’s Speech with no majority Labour MPs would have no qualms in joining forces with the SNP in voting it down, according to eight party candidates who have spoken to the FT.
Some senior party figures recognise that putting together a rival grouping could prove difficult if the public believe that the Tories “won” the election."
If Labour are 20-30 seats behind the Tories then it's pretty likely that Con > Lab + LD. The press would have a field day.
I always thought in a parliamentary democracy you had to win the votes in the HoC. If I accepted the argument that the Tories had somehow "won", even though they were nowhere near 323 MPs even with their allies, what is the opposition supposed to do, just meekly accept it ?
You should have realised by now that some people only want to play the game if they're allowed to win.
Comments
A minor detail I know if you are intent on smearing .
Labour stuffed up the candidacy in 2010 and nearly dropped to 3rd place behind the LDs as a consequence. They have a much better candidate this time around, and of course a lot of LD votes to squeeze. Now I hear the Tory Candidate has got himself into a little local tangle.
Source suggested Labour should be 5/4 so naturally I had to take the 9/4 on offer with B365.
http://may2015.com/featured/election-2015-do-polls-and-predictions-now-suggest-david-cameron-can-win/
I may miss remember this. I expect there is a rail expert on here who will know!
Outside the ranks of partisans, none of this is very persuasive.
This is not to invalidate your general point, of course :-)
On the other hand, Kellner himself, knowing all this to be so (if indeed it is), has to safeguard his personal reputation as a pundit of integrity and long standing (whether one shares his opinions or not, and I usually do not). So he makes the odd *personal* remark, subtly as he can so as not to undermine his company and employees or upset clients. Not much else he can do without unacceptably high business risk. At least he knows his competitors are all in the same boat.
What I take from all this, and only Thursday will give the answer, is that Sunil is probably largely right. The online polls are redundant. Personal nous counts. Whose? YPYMATYP.
Labour could win just 30 seats and Calder Valley be one of them. Conversely they could win 60 and lose Halifax.
Local factors. (These have been mentioned here on earlier threads.)
83 Easy Con win
87 Easy Con win
92 Initially Labour but the campaign shifted opinions and I thought it would be tight.
97 Blair Landslide
01 Lab not quite so shiny but easy win
05 Cons more competitive but Country didn't feel any great need for change
10 Labour out but Cons hadn't done enough to convince what they would do.
15 Coalition have been OK -sky hasn't fallen in and things overall are on the up- more of the same.
BUT Fall of Lib Dems and rise of UKIP and SNP in a FPTP system play havoc with the numbers.
Risking my hard earned cash on suitable bets is proving VERY difficult to call !!
UKIP will be doing well with 2 seats. You should be happy with that.
So the posh part of Oxford (North) stayed in, but most of the students in the centre moved to Ox East. Con hold then
But what does it matter what people want to happen? How is that relevant? Who was talking about that?
Square root of nothing added, as per
For anyone suffering from an excess of election hysteria, there is an excellent program on BBC 4 at the moment featuring a journey along the whole of the Kennet and Avon Canal. A thoroughly relaxing watch.
Although without the wife-swapping at Wootton Rivers (*)
(*) Don't ask.
That said I really believe in forecast modelling. Electionforecast is predicting 267-281 margin on a simulated 1.9% tory lead and the LDs close to 12%, and UKIP on 11%. Recent polls show the LDs doing worse, and UKIP doing a lot better than their model suggests.
Seems the unbroadcast episodes are unavailable.
Which means precisely f*ck all as well.
now it says
"welcome to Bedfordshire"
...
You said 7%, what happened to that?
Actually, very few of the "137" links on that page refer to members of the LibLabConspiracy being guilty (or even being accused) of paedophillia, racism, etc. etc. And many of the links refer to things that happened some time in the past. And a number of them are duplicates.
So, there are two stories about Oxford council having swept alleagations under the carpet. But while incompetence, lazyness and political correctness are serious issues, they are not the same as Oxford councillors being guilty of paedophilia, etc.
If your point was: there are scumbags in all political parties, then no shit sherlock.
DYOR
Amusing if, just for once, they wrote: "another boring poll tonight".
Are they only announced on GE night? They have to be available then in order to calculate the turnout %.
Sounds like my kind of girl
All that is great.
But.
UKIP is no political party. It is a pressure group, an effective one but no more than that. In addition, as you and I have discussed before, some, perhaps a lot of its election literature has been written and designed by the "old guard". Or at least I hope it has because it reeks of old-fashioned NF/BNP dog-whistle anti-immigrant rhetoric which, frankly, I find abhorrent. And so do plenty of others (sadly, it attracts yet others).
You as a party will have learned a lot from all this so I wish you well in future but you really need to address that element.
You pays yer money .....
What is racist about wanting independence from the EU or restricting immigration?
Of course, there are racist UKIP members and even candidates. But there nutjobs (and worse) in all political parties. I think the "power" thing tends to attract the wrong sorts :-)
Latest BMG poll (03 - 05 May):
CON - 34% (-1)
LAB - 34% (+2)
UKIP - 12% (-2)
LDEM - 10% (-1)
GRN - 4% (+1)
Back in 1974 Romford went from Lab to Con and whilst Hornchurch went from Con to Lab but that was down to boundary changes with the sitting two MPs swapping constituencies.
Likewise Plymouth Sutton and Plymouth Devonport swapped allegiance in 1974 because of the boundary changes.
Latest BMG poll (03 - 05 May):
CON - 34% (-1)
LAB - 34% (+2)
UKIP - 12% (-2)
LDEM - 10% (-1)
GRN - 4% (+1)
WELL DONE CROSBY - should have stuck to the economy.
Will be very interesting to see if ICM and MORI move to the same territory.
Still 5.2
London weather, tomorrow:
13 degrees, heavy rain, 47 mph winds.
In that sort of weather a lot of pensioners wouldn't make it out of the front door, which would hit the Tory vote very hard I guess (in the south-east area).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2643743
Meanwhile, Ladbrokes quoting 4.5 on Labour being the largest party.
You swine!
Pathetic, clueless creature
Don't be daft - that would be a gift for the Tories. All the pensioners have already voted by post.
Its Lab with the turnout operation - apart from in Scotland where I hope a great ice freeze shuts the whole country down so only postal votes count. Then I will laugh as the SNP win less than 10 seats.
But the final electorates surely won't be much different to the figures from 1st Dec 2014.
Then, keep on defeating him on the floor of the Commons time and time again. Proving without doubt , in a practical sense, that the Tories did not win the election.
Once Cameron resigns, and the Queens asks Miliband to form a government, this so called legitimacy will be conferred on Miliband, simply because the Queen had invited him.
The boundary changes that happened before 2010 took Carfax (including approx 8,000 students) off into 'Oxford East' and brought in Yarnton (formerly DC's Witney constituency) and Appleton (formerly part of Ed Vaizey's patch).
Despite what you might think, Harris was quite a popular local MP, and the 2010 campaign was quite bruising (a shady US right-wing Christian outfit sponsored anti LibDem material and an activist actually stood against him, protesting about him as 'Dr Death' for his stand on abortion and euthanasia). So I think it will be close again, but probably around 500-600 votes.
That's just my feel on the ground here. Oh, and try the real-ale troika of Crown and Thistle, Hags Head on the Thames and 'Kings Head and Bell' here in Abingdon for decent beer ;-)
If this latest swing continues then Labour will be ahead on votes in the election.
That is a big if though.
It isn't widely remembered but in 1992 the polls had been swinging towards the Conservatives for the week prior to the election - from Labour having a solid lead (which is what got Kinnock so fired up in Sheffield) to parity. That swing continued in 1992 right up until the last minute - literally so the BBC exit poll was initially going to put Labour ahead but as the data came in on the Thursday evening the Conservatives took the lead.
For some reason Nick Robinson decided UKIP should get a platform. It will probably haunt him for the rest of his days (which I should add I hope are many). But it will always be his fault to decide to promote a marginal, fringe, race-hate party like UKIP on the national television stage.
Who knows, maybe the other EU leaders will suggest it as a compromise if they don't want to make changes themselves when Cameron comes knocking.