@keiranpedley: "Claiming polls wrong smacks of Romney supporter desperation"
I am one of those who believes the Tories will defy the polls, but after watching this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFAJCzuSW3g I am starting to wonder if I am burying my head in the sand!
Labour ahead by 42% to 35% in Conservative held marginals in England & Wales. Small base size of 136, but that makes this ICM an amazingly good poll for Labour.
I think Brand is a cock, but with 700,000,000,000,000 Twitter followers and skateboarders, dopers and smackheads everywhere worshipping his mystique, he must have some power.
I bet he made a difference.
He did it artfully too, getting coverage for the past couple of years with his political offerings and all that 'don't-vote' crap, and then weighing in at the 11th hour with a vote-for-Labour speech. That's clever.
I am not sure about this report about Tory Party having a weak ground game - Just spent day in Tory target seat - really well resourced and organised team - with lots of external support inbound - Fairly impressed by the Get out the vote operation,
The ground game is about the months, even years, leading to the election. Not the last few days.
precisely.
you could tell back in 2012/2013 that Cameron just wasn't doing enough to win a majority, his continued reliance on Ed will scare the voters back is probably one of the worst pieces of political judgement is quite some time.
I don't agree with this level of ruthlessness but I'm sure Cameron knows he won't make it to the men's room if he loses.
He'll quit within hours if all is lost.
I'm sort of left scratching my head how Cameron screwed up.
As has been pointed out before he didn't win against Brown and at best he's got a score draw against Miliband. Really all he had to do was court the centre ( right man for it ) but keep his right wing on board. He's be plus 40% if he'd bothered. But his ridiculous "detox" frankly just saw a whole slice of his supporters walk off or go on vote strike. This election was his for the taking but he lost the plot somewhere along the line.
Labour ahead by 42% to 35% in Conservative held marginals in England & Wales. Small base size of 136, but that makes this ICM an amazingly good poll for Labour.
I am not sure about this report about Tory Party having a weak ground game - Just spent day in Tory target seat - really well resourced and organised team - with lots of external support inbound - Fairly impressed by the Get out the vote operation,
The ground game is about the months, even years, leading to the election. Not the last few days.
precisely.
you could tell back in 2012/2013 that Cameron just wasn't doing enough to win a majority, his continued reliance on Ed will scare the voters back is probably one of the worst pieces of political judgement is quite some time.
I don't agree with this level of ruthlessness but I'm sure Cameron knows he won't make it to the men's room if he loses.
He'll quit within hours if all is lost.
I'm sort of left scratching my head how Cameron screwed up.
As has been pointed out before he didn't win against Brown and at best he's got a score draw against Miliband. Really all he had to do was court the centre ( right man for it ) but keep his right wing on board. He's be plus 40% if he'd bothered. But his ridiculous "detox" frankly just saw a whole slice of his supporters walk off or go on vote strike. This election was his for the taking but he lost the plot somewhere along the line.
It's weird - Cameron gained an impressive number of seats in 2010. And its not enough. And he could well equal or come close to equaling the percentage of the vote he got in 2010 even after 5 years with a middling record and plenty of cuts, which is also fairly impressive. But it won't be enough.
Perhaps his biography should be entitled David Cameron: The Nearly Man.
Let's not forget that, even if some think it would be a mistake for Ed to take over in such a scenario, Con plurality is not enough even on those few polls which might predict it. They need a big plurality. Not on the cards.
With the most recent Ashcroft poll for Castle Point, there was 5% support for "Others". But in reality there are no other candidates apart from Con, Lab, LD, UKIP, Green. If those "Others" vote for UKIP they would have a good chance of winning the constituency:
With the most recent Ashcroft poll for Castle Point, there was 5% support for "Others". But in reality there are no other candidates apart from Con, Lab, LD, UKIP, Green. If those "Others" vote for UKIP they would have a good chance of winning the constituency:
You could have saved yourselves a lot of angst just by listening to me for the last two months.
Narrow Ed Miliband plurality. As I said. Many many times.
We haven't actually had the election yet.
No. But what's your hunch now? ALL the polls are wrong? ALL of them?
Since the polls are converging, they will either be all right or all wrong. Neither of which is any likelier than the other surely.
I have no special insight or specific hunch. It would not surprise me if UKIP get seats above their polling, as their vote may have become more efficient, and they could be being weighted innacurately. But that is probably because I want it to be true.
I just think it's a bit early to be confirming everything the day before!
I already have. Do keep up. Stop slouching at the back.
I'm a bit disappointed by the lack of creativity - for my part, I was assuming that the main driver of these polls is that true countryside Tories have been involved in bucolic and pastoral revels in celebration of Beltane since Friday, and the sloe gin and elderflower champagne hangovers are traditionally so severe that they are unable to respond to polls for at least 6 days.
(Well enough to turn out and vote immediately thereafter, of course).
Convergence of opinion polls: the opinion polls for the Scottish referendum converged very closely on 48:52. The actual result was 45:55.
A similar divergence of the actual polling result from the current convergence around Con 34 Lab 33 could result in Con 37 Lab 30 or Lab 36 Con 31. In either case, an overall majority would be in the offing.
I don't see the polling in this election as any more reliable than it was in the Scottish referendum.
Its an interesting comparison.
The referendum should have been quite a simple thing to poll - it was a case of measuring;
Yes (and will vote) No (and will vote) Irrelevant (won't vote).
The main problem (and the element of uncertainty) was that we didn't have any previous comparable indyrefs to calibrate ^ against.
GE2015 is a much harder beast, with loads more variables. We have a huge amount of form though, with gazillions of previous polls and dozens of actual elections to use to calibrate against.
If I had to put %ages on it, I'd guess there is a...
90% chance the result will be within +-5% of the poll average for all the parties.
50% chance the result will be within +-3% of the poll average for all the parties.
The problem the pollsters had for Indyref was they had no idea what figure would bottle it on the day, who who fully intend to walk into the polling station to cross Yes but ended up crossing No. I think the polls accurately captured people's intent but couldn't capture what they would actually do when faced with such a momentous decision.
The YouGov pseudo exit-poll got it right to within a percentage point. So we now know that you need to subtract 3 percentage points from the Yes score to calculate current Independence support. I expect if there is a future Indyref in the immediate future then the polling will be spot on throughout - especially as they will be able to weigh by previous Indyref vote
Watching GOD on the TV (and earlier hearing him on the radio) the following strikes me:
If, after Cons get more votes than Lab but we are in no-mans land (ie Cons 270-290, LD 20-25) so Dave + Nick don't have enough votes for a majority, why should Dave accept that Ed can form or even try to form a govt when Ed has specifically ruled out an SNP pact?
Dave can point out that Lab + SNP is, according to Ed, a no-no; while Ed can’t say “but we’ve got the SNP.”
Labour ahead by 42% to 35% in Conservative held marginals in England & Wales. Small base size of 136, but that makes this ICM an amazingly good poll for Labour.
I already have. Do keep up. Stop slouching at the back.
I'm a bit disappointed by the lack of creativity - for my part, I was assuming that the main driver of these polls is that true countryside Tories have been involved in bucolic and pastoral revels in celebration of Beltane since Friday, and the sloe gin and elderflower champagne hangovers are traditionally so severe that they are unable to respond to polls for at least 6 days.
(Well enough to turn out and vote immediately thereafter, of course).
This ICM poll had fieldwork 3-6 May so covered bank holiday period.
With the most recent Ashcroft poll for Castle Point, there was 5% support for "Others". But in reality there are no other candidates apart from Con, Lab, LD, UKIP, Green. If those "Others" vote for UKIP they would have a good chance of winning the constituency:
My personal view is UKIP will win Castle Point but not win Rochester. Canvey is massively purple at the moment.
Wasn't Reckless deemed only just behind Tolhurst in a poll that weighted based on 2010 voting without any reference to the actual previous election, his fairly emphatic win? It could even be the case that several UKIP by-election voters may have been confused by this question and said 'UKIP', and their likelihood to vote down-weighted accordingly.
Also going to make the call on whether phone or internet has done best more complicated. Very large convergence.
OTOH it's a bad poll for the Nats (in Westminster terms). Their ideal result was a Tory maj, or a Tory led Coalition, able to completely ignore all the new SNP MPs. Then Sturgeon could have said the London government was illegitimate, we want a referendum by tea-time, etc
With Miliband highly likely to edge it in seats, Miliband will be forming a government that relies in part on Nat support. So the Nats won't be able to whinge that Scotland has no say in London.
I suppose the risk is that Miliband does so well he can form a Coalition with just the LDs and SDLP, but he'll need 300+ seats for that? Not likely.
If you are so sure Lab will 'edge it' in seats, may you please take the offer of a 500% ROI in about 36 hours?
I have a massive position on Lab most seats and would like the odds to change!
Lab Most seats is going to stay irrational right up until the seat declarations.
With the most recent Ashcroft poll for Castle Point, there was 5% support for "Others". But in reality there are no other candidates apart from Con, Lab, LD, UKIP, Green. If those "Others" vote for UKIP they would have a good chance of winning the constituency:
My personal view is UKIP will win Castle Point but not win Rochester. Canvey is massively purple at the moment.
Wasn't Reckless deemed only just behind Tolhurst in a poll that weighted based on 2010 voting without any reference to the actual previous election, his fairly emphatic win? It could even be the case that several UKIP by-election voters may have been confused by this question and said 'UKIP', and their likelihood to vote down-weighted accordingly.
it's certainly possible Reckless will win, obviously he will gain the incumbency bonus. time will tell.
Watching GOD on the TV (and earlier hearing him on the radio) the following strikes me:
If, after Cons get more votes than Lab but we are in no-mans land (ie Cons 270-290, LD 20-25) so Dave + Nick don't have enough votes for a majority, why should Dave accept that Ed can form or even try to form a govt when Ed has specifically ruled out an SNP pact?
Dave can point out that Lab + SNP is, according to Ed, a no-no; while Ed can’t say “but we’ve got the SNP.”
Or can he?
I think in that situation Cameron is entitled to stick around and give it a go, so I don't think in that situation he'd go immediately. I'd expect some sort of arrangement between Lab and the SNP would be made in the next week (short of a 'deal' they would try to say) which makes clear the SNP would vote down the Tories and not abstain or vote against an Ed government. At which point even though there's no formal coalition agreement between Ed and the SNP on the cards, Cameron will see that he doesn't have the votes and will resign - I don't think he'll try or be allowed by his own team knifing him to take it to a humiliating vote which they will lose - and Ed will be called.
Watching GOD on the TV (and earlier hearing him on the radio) the following strikes me:
If, after Cons get more votes than Lab but we are in no-mans land (ie Cons 270-290, LD 20-25) so Dave + Nick don't have enough votes for a majority, why should Dave accept that Ed can form or even try to form a govt when Ed has specifically ruled out an SNP pact?
Dave can point out that Lab + SNP is, according to Ed, a no-no; while Ed can’t say “but we’ve got the SNP.”
Or can he?
It doesn't work like that. Dave has to reasonably believe that he can pass a QS/confidence vote or resign like a decent chap. That's the case even if it's dead certain that nobody else can form a government. He doesn't get to hang on just because he has the "best" claim to be PM - if it's not good enough, he has to go.
With the most recent Ashcroft poll for Castle Point, there was 5% support for "Others". But in reality there are no other candidates apart from Con, Lab, LD, UKIP, Green. If those "Others" vote for UKIP they would have a good chance of winning the constituency:
My personal view is UKIP will win Castle Point but not win Rochester. Canvey is massively purple at the moment.
I don't know of course but I have a suspicion the 5% support for Others in Castle Point were BNP and/or English Democrat supporters. Neither party is standing there.
I am not sure about this report about Tory Party having a weak ground game - Just spent day in Tory target seat - really well resourced and organised team - with lots of external support inbound - Fairly impressed by the Get out the vote operation,
The ground game is about the months, even years, leading to the election. Not the last few days.
precisely.
you could tell back in 2012/2013 that Cameron just wasn't doing enough to win a majority, his continued reliance on Ed will scare the voters back is probably one of the worst pieces of political judgement is quite some time.
I don't agree with this level of ruthlessness but I'm sure Cameron knows he won't make it to the men's room if he loses.
He'll quit within hours if all is lost.
I'm sort of left scratching my head how Cameron screwed up.
As has been pointed out before he didn't win against Brown and at best he's got a score draw against Miliband. Really all he had to do was court the centre ( right man for it ) but keep his right wing on board. He's be plus 40% if he'd bothered. But his ridiculous "detox" frankly just saw a whole slice of his supporters walk off or go on vote strike. This election was his for the taking but he lost the plot somewhere along the line.
It's weird - Cameron gained an impressive number of seats in 2010. And its not enough. And he could well equal or come close to equaling the percentage of the vote he got in 2010 even after 5 years with a middling record and plenty of cuts, which is also fairly impressive. But it won't be enough.
Perhaps his biography should be entitled David Cameron: The Nearly Man.
Let's not forget that, even if some think it would be a mistake for Ed to take over in such a scenario, Con plurality is not enough even on those few polls which might predict it. They need a big plurality. Not on the cards.
In defence of Cameron's electoral record he gained the second highest number of seats in any GE for the last 60 years in 2010 - not really his fault that the Conservative Party started so far behind that it still left him short of an overall majority.
This time he is set to win another dozen or two seats from the Liberal Democrats, finishing the job of seeing off the yellow peril, and making it a heck of a lot easier for a future Conservative Party leader to win an outright majority.
It's all down to turnout now, a bit like an American election. If turnout is 1% higher than expected in X party's constituencies and 1% lower in Y party's seats, party X will win the popular vote.
I know he can't say much else, but really... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32605147 Prime Minister David Cameron says he still believes his party can win a majority in Thursday's election.
Straw clutching... might in think this tie is an outlier and so want to extend the survey to check if it really is going to be the poll they are judged on in term of gold standard reputation?
Dunno if anyone's interested, but I thought I'd jot down a few betting thoughts;
It seems to me there's been one outstanding bet in this GE - SNP seats over 11.5. It seems I backed this at 1.87. Only in 20 quid tho, and then I laid almost all of it at shorter prices. Why didn't I call my bank manager at the time? Perhaps the best bet I'll ever have and I laid some of it off!
It's been downhill rather since then - although I did correctly identify the now almost certain fact that Clegg, Cameron, and Milliband would be contesting the election.
All sorts of oddities in the portfolio - almost all of the long-term stuff I've done well on - but token profits here and there. In recent months though I've taken bigger positions, and there's a rather nasty counterbalancing UKIP sore - really need them to get over 5 seats. I think they might do that, but I've lost all hope of the 25+ stuff coming in.
The LDs are perhaps my strongest theme bet-wise. I can't work out how Cable can hold on to Twickenham with any confidence, and I have my biggest seat bet there. Slightly against Clegg too, and a couple of hundred Omnium pounds riding on the LDs being below 25.
I'm generally with anything other than what the polls predict. 170-1 on Labour for an overall majority is I think a plainly wrong price. I don't imagine it'll happen though, but Xmas if it does (although I'd count it as a disaster). Equally a Tory majority is a little too long, and that'd be wonderful for me.
Net-net the worst outcome for me would be Labour with less seats than the Tories forming a government with the LDs including Vince. (and my opposing Clegg is in part to hedge against that)
I'd be interested to hear anyone else's tales of electoral betting endeavour, and I fully accept all the rotten fruit that you might care to throw at me for my betting!
In general you should bet against your desired outcome, you use a clearer head, that way.
That's poor betting advice I'm afraid.
It's not. Betting on something you really really want to happen, and betting that it will happen, is a recipe for losing money. Your emotions get in the way. See how many Nats lost money on indyref (some of it to me).
If you take a long hard look at a wager, and feel, reluctantly, that what you want is not going to happen, and that it is better to wager on the outcome you DON'T want, then that, by definition, is your head ruling your heart. Which is what any bettor wants.
It's clearly not a hard and fast rule for every occasion. Very often what you want is the right bet. But it's a nice rule of thumb.
You can go just as wrong betting on what you fear.
The best way to bet is not to care too much about the outcome in the first place. Then you have a chance of being truly dispassionate.
I know he can't say much else, but really... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32605147 Prime Minister David Cameron says he still believes his party can win a majority in Thursday's election.
He should talk to Clegg about how to appear confident when every piece of evidence points in the opposite direction to that which you want.
Watching GOD on the TV (and earlier hearing him on the radio) the following strikes me:
If, after Cons get more votes than Lab but we are in no-mans land (ie Cons 270-290, LD 20-25) so Dave + Nick don't have enough votes for a majority, why should Dave accept that Ed can form or even try to form a govt when Ed has specifically ruled out an SNP pact?
Dave can point out that Lab + SNP is, according to Ed, a no-no; while Ed can’t say “but we’ve got the SNP.”
Or can he?
It doesn't work like that. Dave has to reasonably believe that he can pass a QS/confidence vote or resign like a decent chap. That's the case even if it's dead certain that nobody else can form a government. He doesn't get to hang on just because he has the "best" claim to be PM - if it's not good enough, he has to go.
Yes I get that - I added, subsequently, that we are therefore looking at GE II unless, as @kle4 says, Lab finesse an SNP non-pact which I don't think would pass the smell test.
Watching GOD on the TV (and earlier hearing him on the radio) the following strikes me:
If, after Cons get more votes than Lab but we are in no-mans land (ie Cons 270-290, LD 20-25) so Dave + Nick don't have enough votes for a majority, why should Dave accept that Ed can form or even try to form a govt when Ed has specifically ruled out an SNP pact?
Dave can point out that Lab + SNP is, according to Ed, a no-no; while Ed can’t say “but we’ve got the SNP.”
Or can he?
Edit: so it's GE II surely...
Labour do not need to be any sort of agreement to have the SNP support their Queens Speech, in fact it is rather likely they would given the alternative would be seen to be bringing about a Tory government which would not play well for them in the Scottish elections next year.
If Tories cannot get Queens speech through parliament then over to the next largest party to try.
Watching GOD on the TV (and earlier hearing him on the radio) the following strikes me:
If, after Cons get more votes than Lab but we are in no-mans land (ie Cons 270-290, LD 20-25) so Dave + Nick don't have enough votes for a majority, why should Dave accept that Ed can form or even try to form a govt when Ed has specifically ruled out an SNP pact?
Dave can point out that Lab + SNP is, according to Ed, a no-no; while Ed can’t say “but we’ve got the SNP.”
Or can he?
Edit: so it's GE II surely...
He can say that unless the LDs and/or DUP can get him over the line, it is clear from the SNP's clear public statements that they will only work to lock him out of No 10 that he has no hope of commanding the confidence of the House, and he will resign. It's not his concern whether Ed can or cannot manage it.
I do think Dave has some honour and will act in the best interest of the country. If he cannot hope to govern, he will go.
I think it's academic anyway because, as basically ALL the polls now show, Ed will lead the largest party. So Dave will probably have had to concede before I even get out of bed on Friday morning.
I know he can't say much else, but really... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32605147 Prime Minister David Cameron says he still believes his party can win a majority in Thursday's election.
You know in 1997 on election day the Tories really believed that they were going to win a majority. It came to them as a real shock that they lost and lost so badly, because of their 1992 experience they thought that the polls must be wrong.
In general you should bet against your desired outcome, you use a clearer head, that way.
That's poor betting advice I'm afraid.
It's not. Betting on something you really really want to happen, and betting that it will happen, is a recipe for losing money. Your emotions get in the way. See how many Nats lost money on indyref (some of it to me).
If you take a long hard look at a wager, and feel, reluctantly, that what you want is not going to happen, and that it is better to wager on the outcome you DON'T want, then that, by definition, is your head ruling your heart. Which is what any bettor wants.
It's clearly not a hard and fast rule for every occasion. Very often what you want is the right bet. But it's a nice rule of thumb.
Obviously betting on your preferred outcome is poor too, but so is betting against your preferred outcome. I see it all over the site, even with the shrewd punters, on both sides of the Red-Blue fence here. Even some "purple" bets.
I was quite pleased in the Indy Ref to win a couple of bets from both the Nats and the 40% No crew. It all got given back to the site with that Oil bet !
Neil Yes, he needs to lose some weight again, however if he wins Iowa and SC he has a shot at the nomination
He wont win the nomination (see the diabetes cure thing, I know the GOP doesnt do science but they're not going to nominate completely crazy either) but he could definitely lower the chances of some other god-bother-er winning.
With the most recent Ashcroft poll for Castle Point, there was 5% support for "Others". But in reality there are no other candidates apart from Con, Lab, LD, UKIP, Green. If those "Others" vote for UKIP they would have a good chance of winning the constituency:
My personal view is UKIP will win Castle Point but not win Rochester. Canvey is massively purple at the moment.
I don't know of course but I have a suspicion the 5% support for Others in Castle Point were BNP and/or English Democrat supporters. Neither party is standing there.
Straw clutching... might in think this tie is an outlier and so want to extend the survey to check if it really is going to be the poll they are judged on in term of gold standard reputation?
Labour ahead by 42% to 35% in Conservative held marginals in England & Wales. Small base size of 136, but that makes this ICM an amazingly good poll for Labour.
I am not sure about this report about Tory Party having a weak ground game - Just spent day in Tory target seat - really well resourced and organised team - with lots of external support inbound - Fairly impressed by the Get out the vote operation,
The ground game is about the months, even years, leading to the election. Not the last few days.
precisely.
you could tell back in 2012/2013 that Cameron just wasn't doing enough to win a majority, his continued reliance on Ed will scare the voters back is probably one of the worst pieces of political judgement is quite some time.
I don't agree with this level of ruthlessness but I'm sure Cameron knows he won't make it to the men's room if he loses.
He'll quit within hours if all is lost.
I'm sort of left scratching my head how Cameron screwed up.
As has been pointed out before he didn't win against Brown and at best he's got a score draw against Miliband. Really all he had to do was court the centre ( right man for it ) but keep his right wing on board. He's be plus 40% if he'd bothered. But his ridiculous "detox" frankly just saw a whole slice of his supporters walk off or go on vote strike. This election was his for the taking but he lost the plot somewhere along the line.
He got nearly 20% more votes than Brown. He became PM. He got about double the lead over Brown, than Blair got over Howard. That's a win.
My memory is that when things are nip and tuck between the Tories and Labour, the Tories always overperform and Labour always underperforms. If,in addition, Labour's Scottish malaise is factored in, Tories can look forward to an enjoyable result.
I know he can't say much else, but really... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32605147 Prime Minister David Cameron says he still believes his party can win a majority in Thursday's election.
You know in 1997 on election day the Tories really believed that they were going to win a majority. It came to them as a real shock that they lost and lost so badly, because of their 1992 experience they thought that the polls must be wrong.
For my own part, that is definitely not true. After queuing at the polling station for the first time ever, the only suspense available after all the polling evidence was for the margin of defeat.
The Messianic nature of the Labour campaign and the media's fawning overt Blair was truly frightening and left no room for any hope on Conservative supporters' part.
I am not sure about this report about Tory Party having a weak ground game - Just spent day in Tory target seat - really well resourced and organised team - with lots of external support inbound - Fairly impressed by the Get out the vote operation,
The ground game is about the months, even years, leading to the election. Not the last few days.
precisely.
you could tell back in 2012/2013 that Cameron just wasn't doing enough to win a majority, his continued reliance on Ed will scare the voters back is probably one of the worst pieces of political judgement is quite some time.
I don't agree with this level of ruthlessness but I'm sure Cameron knows he won't make it to the men's room if he loses.
He'll quit within hours if all is lost.
I'm sort of left scratching my head how Cameron screwed up.
As has been pointed out before he didn't win against Brown and at best he's got a score draw against Miliband. Really all he had to do was court the centre ( right man for it ) but keep his right wing on board. He's be plus 40% if he'd bothered. But his ridiculous "detox" frankly just saw a whole slice of his supporters walk off or go on vote strike. This election was his for the taking but he lost the plot somewhere along the line.
He got nearly 20% more votes than Brown. He became PM. He got about double the lead over Brown, than Blair got over Howard. That's a win.
Labour ahead by 42% to 35% in Conservative held marginals in England & Wales. Small base size of 136, but that makes this ICM an amazingly good poll for Labour.
I am not sure about this report about Tory Party having a weak ground game - Just spent day in Tory target seat - really well resourced and organised team - with lots of external support inbound - Fairly impressed by the Get out the vote operation,
The ground game is about the months, even years, leading to the election. Not the last few days.
precisely.
you could tell back in 2012/2013 that Cameron just wasn't doing enough to win a majority, his continued reliance on Ed will scare the voters back is probably one of the worst pieces of political judgement is quite some time.
I don't agree with this level of ruthlessness but I'm sure Cameron knows he won't make it to the men's room if he loses.
He'll quit within hours if all is lost.
I'm sort of left scratching my head how Cameron screwed up.
As has been pointed out before he didn't win against Brown and at best he's got a score draw against Miliband. Really all he had to do was court the centre ( right man for it ) but keep his right wing on board. He's be plus 40% if he'd bothered. But his ridiculous "detox" frankly just saw a whole slice of his supporters walk off or go on vote strike. This election was his for the taking but he lost the plot somewhere along the line.
He got nearly 20% more votes than Brown. He became PM. He got about double the lead over Brown, than Blair got over Howard. That's a win.
ROFL
a win ? Yeah a win like the Nats won the Indyref.
No. He became PM, that counts as a win - it just wasn't a complete win, or the win many of his side had hoped for.
I know he can't say much else, but really... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32605147 Prime Minister David Cameron says he still believes his party can win a majority in Thursday's election.
You know in 1997 on election day the Tories really believed that they were going to win a majority. It came to them as a real shock that they lost and lost so badly, because of their 1992 experience they thought that the polls must be wrong.
I don't think that's true at all. I was sure that the Tories would lose. I don't even think anyone was surprised at the scale of the loss. The last years of the Major government were pretty awful after all. It all just seemed a mess, but of course we'd never heard of Gordo then.
My memory is that when things are nip and tuck between the Tories and Labour, the Tories always overperform and Labour always underperforms. If,in addition, Labour's Scottish malaise is factored in, Tories can look forward to an enjoyable result.
With the most recent Ashcroft poll for Castle Point, there was 5% support for "Others". But in reality there are no other candidates apart from Con, Lab, LD, UKIP, Green. If those "Others" vote for UKIP they would have a good chance of winning the constituency:
My personal view is UKIP will win Castle Point but not win Rochester. Canvey is massively purple at the moment.
Wasn't Reckless deemed only just behind Tolhurst in a poll that weighted based on 2010 voting without any reference to the actual previous election, his fairly emphatic win? It could even be the case that several UKIP by-election voters may have been confused by this question and said 'UKIP', and their likelihood to vote down-weighted accordingly.
it's certainly possible Reckless will win, obviously he will gain the incumbency bonus. time will tell.
Same scenario, same candidates -not like he's killed any babies in his short UKIP parliamentary career, so I don't know what his voters would have to feel remorseful about.
Watching GOD on the TV (and earlier hearing him on the radio) the following strikes me:
If, after Cons get more votes than Lab but we are in no-mans land (ie Cons 270-290, LD 20-25) so Dave + Nick don't have enough votes for a majority, why should Dave accept that Ed can form or even try to form a govt when Ed has specifically ruled out an SNP pact?
Dave can point out that Lab + SNP is, according to Ed, a no-no; while Ed can’t say “but we’ve got the SNP.”
Or can he?
Edit: so it's GE II surely...
He can say that unless the LDs and/or DUP can get him over the line, it is clear from the SNP's clear public statements that they will only work to lock him out of No 10 that he has no hope of commanding the confidence of the House, and he will resign. It's not his concern whether Ed can or cannot manage it.
I do think Dave has some honour and will act in the best interest of the country. If he cannot hope to govern, he will go.
I think it's academic anyway because, as basically ALL the polls now show, Ed will lead the largest party. So Dave will probably have had to concede before I even get out of bed on Friday morning.
If basically ALL the polls show Ed will lead the largest party why do Electoral Calculus, Anthony Wells, Election Forecast, Nate Silver and The Guardian all show Cons with most seats?
Watching GOD on the TV (and earlier hearing him on the radio) the following strikes me:
If, after Cons get more votes than Lab but we are in no-mans land (ie Cons 270-290, LD 20-25) so Dave + Nick don't have enough votes for a majority, why should Dave accept that Ed can form or even try to form a govt when Ed has specifically ruled out an SNP pact?
Dave can point out that Lab + SNP is, according to Ed, a no-no; while Ed can’t say “but we’ve got the SNP.”
Or can he?
Edit: so it's GE II surely...
He can say that unless the LDs and/or DUP can get him over the line, it is clear from the SNP's clear public statements that they will only work to lock him out of No 10 that he has no hope of commanding the confidence of the House, and he will resign. It's not his concern whether Ed can or cannot manage it.
I do think Dave has some honour and will act in the best interest of the country. If he cannot hope to govern, he will go.
I think it's academic anyway because, as basically ALL the polls now show, Ed will lead the largest party. So Dave will probably have had to concede before I even get out of bed on Friday morning.
If basically ALL the polls show Ed will lead the largest party why do Electoral Calculus, Anthony Wells, Election Forecast, Nate Silver and The Guardian all show Cons with most seats?
They think that the polls are wrong/UN(/R)S is completely dead.
Conservatives 293 Labour 260 SNP 50 LD 20 DUP 9 SF 5 UKIP 4 SDLP 3 Green 2 Plaid 2 Others 2
Really? REALLY? Despite all the poll you think Cameron will be more than 30 seats ahead of Labour??
Are you guys all sitting in a room, gathered around the same bong?
To be fair, it's hardly out of the question that the polls are off by this kind of amount. But it does seem beyond rational justification to say you're predicting it as the most likely result
I am not sure about this report about Tory Party having a weak ground game - Just spent day in Tory target seat - really well resourced and organised team - with lots of external support inbound - Fairly impressed by the Get out the vote operation,
The ground game is about the months, even years, leading to the election. Not the last few days.
precisely.
you could tell back in 2012/2013 that Cameron just wasn't doing enough to win a majority, his continued reliance on Ed will scare the voters back is probably one of the worst pieces of political judgement is quite some time.
I don't agree with this level of ruthlessness but I'm sure Cameron knows he won't make it to the men's room if he loses.
He'll quit within hours if all is lost.
I'm sort of left scratching my head how Cameron screwed up.
As has been pointed out before he didn't win against Brown and at best he's got a score draw against Miliband. Really all he had to do was court the centre ( right man for it ) but keep his right wing on board. He's be plus 40% if he'd bothered. But his ridiculous "detox" frankly just saw a whole slice of his supporters walk off or go on vote strike. This election was his for the taking but he lost the plot somewhere along the line.
He got nearly 20% more votes than Brown. He became PM. He got about double the lead over Brown, than Blair got over Howard. That's a win.
ROFL
a win ? Yeah a win like the Nats won the Indyref.
No. He became PM, that counts as a win - it just wasn't a complete win, or the win many of his side had hoped for.
Labour ahead by 42% to 35% in Conservative held marginals in England & Wales. Small base size of 136, but that makes this ICM an amazingly good poll for Labour.
No prompting for UKIP. Can't see this makes sense given they're polling above the Lib Dems.
They are there in table 2
In the question? I thought the question was this?
Q.B The Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrat s, and other parties are fighting the general elect ion in your area. In the general election on May 7th which party do you think you wi ll vote for?
I am not sure about this report about Tory Party having a weak ground game - Just spent day in Tory target seat - really well resourced and organised team - with lots of external support inbound - Fairly impressed by the Get out the vote operation,
The ground game is about the months, even years, leading to the election. Not the last few days.
precisely.
you could tell back in 2012/2013 that Cameron just wasn't doing enough to win a majority, his continued reliance on Ed will scare the voters back is probably one of the worst pieces of political judgement is quite some time.
I don't agree with this level of ruthlessness but I'm sure Cameron knows he won't make it to the men's room if he loses.
He'll quit within hours if all is lost.
I'm sort of left scratching my head how Cameron screwed up.
As has been pointed out before he didn't win against Brown and at best he's got a score draw against Miliband. Really all he had to do was court the centre ( right man for it ) but keep his right wing on board. He's be plus 40% if he'd bothered. But his ridiculous "detox" frankly just saw a whole slice of his supporters walk off or go on vote strike. This election was his for the taking but he lost the plot somewhere along the line.
He got nearly 20% more votes than Brown. He became PM. He got about double the lead over Brown, than Blair got over Howard. That's a win.
ROFL
a win ? Yeah a win like the Nats won the Indyref.
No. He became PM, that counts as a win - it just wasn't a complete win, or the win many of his side had hoped for.
Total nonsense.
I find it completely bizarre anyone could say a situation where someone ends up as Prime Minister is not a win, even if it clearly is not as much as that person hoped for. I literally cannot understand the reasoning that would explain that interpretation, and I can see the reasoning in things the Greens say (occasionally).
SeanT Yes, I believe enough of the UKIP vote will come back to give the Tories about 37%, this ICM was taken over the bank holiday when many Tories were away which is why it gives the Tories a lower figure compared to other ICMs. Labour's losses to the SNP will almost outweight their gains in England and Wales. I may be wrong but we shall see by Friday morning
The problem is that if a party's undecideds drop (for example), it's hard to tell the difference between:
-Undecideds who were leaning towards that party now lean towards another -Undecideds who were leaning towards that party have made their mind up and will definitely vote for them
So it's hard to say whether a movement of that line in one direction is good or bad
Labour ahead by 42% to 35% in Conservative held marginals in England & Wales. Small base size of 136, but that makes this ICM an amazingly good poll for Labour.
No prompting for UKIP. Can't see this makes sense given they're polling above the Lib Dems.
They are there in table 2
In the question? I thought the question was this?
Q.B The Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrat s, and other parties are fighting the general elect ion in your area. In the general election on May 7th which party do you think you wi ll vote for?
I am not sure about this report about Tory Party having a weak ground game - Just spent day in Tory target seat - really well resourced and organised team - with lots of external support inbound - Fairly impressed by the Get out the vote operation,
The ground game is about the months, even years, leading to the election. Not the last few days.
precisely.
you could tell back in 2012/2013 that Cameron just wasn't doing enough to win a majority, his continued reliance on Ed will scare the voters back is probably one of the worst pieces of political judgement is quite some time.
I don't agree with this level of ruthlessness but I'm sure Cameron knows he won't make it to the men's room if he loses.
He'll quit within hours if all is lost.
I'm sort of left scratching my head how Cameron screwed up.
As has been pointed out before he didn't win against Brown and at best he's got a score draw against Miliband. Really all he had to do was court the centre ( right man for it ) but keep his right wing on board. He's be plus 40% if he'd bothered. But his ridiculous "detox" frankly just saw a whole slice of his supporters walk off or go on vote strike. This election was his for the taking but he lost the plot somewhere along the line.
He got nearly 20% more votes than Brown. He became PM. He got about double the lead over Brown, than Blair got over Howard. That's a win.
ROFL
a win ? Yeah a win like the Nats won the Indyref.
No. He became PM, that counts as a win - it just wasn't a complete win, or the win many of his side had hoped for.
Checking out the details - Lab is ahead by 3 in the poll before adjustments for shy Tories etc., and ahead by 7 in Con-Lab marginals (subsample warning).
Straw clutching... might in think this tie is an outlier and so want to extend the survey to check if it really is going to be the poll they are judged on in term of gold standard reputation?
The polls do not point to the Tories getting enough seats. They seem to show the Tory vote is stable and Labour have picked up from somewhere. Maybe the appalling rubbish served up by Coogan in the PPB and which sums up the regular lies peddled by Labour has had an effect late on. But lets remember that ICM had the Tories on 39 a few days ago in what was instantly recognised as an outlier.
If people are taking note of this poll what will they do? What the logic of the polls says is that people do not want a referendum on the EU in 2017. ie ever. Nor do they seem to be saying they are too concerned about their economic welfare.
Nevertheless the head exploding conflicting conundrums surrounding this election should still make it worth waiting for the first result. Normally I would then add that this would make reading the responses on PB worthwhile and fun - but to be honest what this election has increasingly proved is that most PBers are as clueless as the rest of the world. I'm not sure there is much room for enlightenment despite all the 'betting' hype.
I am not sure about this report about Tory Party having a weak ground game - Just spent day in Tory target seat - really well resourced and organised team - with lots of external support inbound - Fairly impressed by the Get out the vote operation,
The ground game is about the months, even years, leading to the election. Not the last few days.
precisely.
you could tell back in 2012/2013 that Cameron just wasn't doing enough to win a majority, his continued reliance on Ed will scare the voters back is probably one of the worst pieces of political judgement is quite some time.
I don't agree with this level of ruthlessness but I'm sure Cameron knows he won't make it to the men's room if he loses.
He'll quit within hours if all is lost.
I'm sort of left scratching my head how Cameron screwed up.
As has been pointed out before he didn't win against Brown and at best he's got a score draw against Miliband. Really all he had to do was court the centre ( right man for it ) but keep his right wing on board. He's be plus 40% if he'd bothered. But his ridiculous "detox" frankly just saw a whole slice of his supporters walk off or go on vote strike. This election was his for the taking but he lost the plot somewhere along the line.
He got nearly 20% more votes than Brown. He became PM. He got about double the lead over Brown, than Blair got over Howard. That's a win.
ROFL
a win ? Yeah a win like the Nats won the Indyref.
No. He became PM, that counts as a win - it just wasn't a complete win, or the win many of his side had hoped for.
Total nonsense.
I find it completely bizarre anyone could say a situation where someone ends up as Prime Minister is not a win, even if it clearly is not as much as that person hoped for. I literally cannot understand the reasoning that would explain that interpretation, and I can see the reasoning in things the Greens say (occasionally).
The goal is to get his party over the winning line not himself.
Comments
"I'm signed up to knock up the voters tomorrow."
Do they allow that sort of thing in Yorkshire?
I think Brand is a cock, but with 700,000,000,000,000 Twitter followers and skateboarders, dopers and smackheads everywhere worshipping his mystique, he must have some power.
I bet he made a difference.
He did it artfully too, getting coverage for the past couple of years with his political offerings and all that 'don't-vote' crap, and then weighing in at the 11th hour with a vote-for-Labour speech. That's clever.
As has been pointed out before he didn't win against Brown and at best he's got a score draw against Miliband. Really all he had to do was court the centre ( right man for it ) but keep his right wing on board. He's be plus 40% if he'd bothered. But his ridiculous "detox" frankly just saw a whole slice of his supporters walk off or go on vote strike. This election was his for the taking but he lost the plot somewhere along the line.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/594825574788509696
PS - Great to meet you.
Ashcroft: 32-30 - Con +2
BMG: 33-33
ComRes: 35-32 - Con +3
ICM: 35-35
Ipsos: 35-30 - Con +5
Opinium: 35-34 - Con+1
Panelbase: 32-34 - Lab +2
Populus: 33-33
Survation: 33-34 - Lab+1
TNS: 33-32 - Con+1
YG: 33-33
Perhaps his biography should be entitled David Cameron: The Nearly Man.
Let's not forget that, even if some think it would be a mistake for Ed to take over in such a scenario, Con plurality is not enough even on those few polls which might predict it. They need a big plurality. Not on the cards.
The lower limit for Tory most seats is CON lead of 3%.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/04/castle-point-2/
I have no special insight or specific hunch. It would not surprise me if UKIP get seats above their polling, as their vote may have become more efficient, and they could be being weighted innacurately. But that is probably because I want it to be true.
I just think it's a bit early to be confirming everything the day before!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCFB2akLh4s
(Well enough to turn out and vote immediately thereafter, of course).
The YouGov pseudo exit-poll got it right to within a percentage point. So we now know that you need to subtract 3 percentage points from the Yes score to calculate current Independence support. I expect if there is a future Indyref in the immediate future then the polling will be spot on throughout - especially as they will be able to weigh by previous Indyref vote
If, after Cons get more votes than Lab but we are in no-mans land (ie Cons 270-290, LD 20-25) so Dave + Nick don't have enough votes for a majority, why should Dave accept that Ed can form or even try to form a govt when Ed has specifically ruled out an SNP pact?
Dave can point out that Lab + SNP is, according to Ed, a no-no; while Ed can’t say “but we’ve got the SNP.”
Or can he?
Edit: so it's GE II surely...
This ICM poll had fieldwork 3-6 May so covered bank holiday period.
If that makes a difference.
2. We've moved onto 'the polls are wrong' stage.
1. This theory may actually partially credible for the first time since 1992.
This time he is set to win another dozen or two seats from the Liberal Democrats, finishing the job of seeing off the yellow peril, and making it a heck of a lot easier for a future Conservative Party leader to win an outright majority.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-16/that-s-mike-huckabee-former-diabetes-cure-spokesman-to-you
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32605147
Prime Minister David Cameron says he still believes his party can win a majority in Thursday's election.
Dunno if anyone's interested, but I thought I'd jot down a few betting thoughts;
It seems to me there's been one outstanding bet in this GE - SNP seats over 11.5. It seems I backed this at 1.87. Only in 20 quid tho, and then I laid almost all of it at shorter prices. Why didn't I call my bank manager at the time? Perhaps the best bet I'll ever have and I laid some of it off!
It's been downhill rather since then - although I did correctly identify the now almost certain fact that Clegg, Cameron, and Milliband would be contesting the election.
All sorts of oddities in the portfolio - almost all of the long-term stuff I've done well on - but token profits here and there. In recent months though I've taken bigger positions, and there's a rather nasty counterbalancing UKIP sore - really need them to get over 5 seats. I think they might do that, but I've lost all hope of the 25+ stuff coming in.
The LDs are perhaps my strongest theme bet-wise. I can't work out how Cable can hold on to Twickenham with any confidence, and I have my biggest seat bet there. Slightly against Clegg too, and a couple of hundred Omnium pounds riding on the LDs being below 25.
I'm generally with anything other than what the polls predict. 170-1 on Labour for an overall majority is I think a plainly wrong price. I don't imagine it'll happen though, but Xmas if it does (although I'd count it as a disaster). Equally a Tory majority is a little too long, and that'd be wonderful for me.
Net-net the worst outcome for me would be Labour with less seats than the Tories forming a government with the LDs including Vince. (and my opposing Clegg is in part to hedge against that)
I'd be interested to hear anyone else's tales of electoral betting endeavour, and I fully accept all the rotten fruit that you might care to throw at me for my betting!
The best way to bet is not to care too much about the outcome in the first place. Then you have a chance of being truly dispassionate.
Conservatives 293
Labour 260
SNP 50
LD 20
DUP 9
SF 5
UKIP 4
SDLP 3
Green 2
Plaid 2
Others 2
If Tories cannot get Queens speech through parliament then over to the next largest party to try.
I do think Dave has some honour and will act in the best interest of the country. If he cannot hope to govern, he will go.
I think it's academic anyway because, as basically ALL the polls now show, Ed will lead the largest party. So Dave will probably have had to concede before I even get out of bed on Friday morning.
It came to them as a real shock that they lost and lost so badly, because of their 1992 experience they thought that the polls must be wrong.
I was quite pleased in the Indy Ref to win a couple of bets from both the Nats and the 40% No crew. It all got given back to the site with that Oil bet !
Fill your boots.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2006/04/29/will-labour-get-its-bank-holiday-poll-bounce/
The Messianic nature of the Labour campaign and the media's fawning overt Blair was truly frightening and left no room for any hope on Conservative supporters' part.
a win ? Yeah a win like the Nats won the Indyref.
Cameron = Major?
Today's ICM EICIPM (presumably an outlier or internet poll)
LAB most seats cough
Q.B The Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrat
s, and other parties are fighting the general elect
ion in your area. In the general
election on May 7th which party do you think you wi
ll vote for?
Anyone not on LibDems 11-20 @ 4-1 is an idiot
The problem is that if a party's undecideds drop (for example), it's hard to tell the difference between:
-Undecideds who were leaning towards that party now lean towards another
-Undecideds who were leaning towards that party have made their mind up and will definitely vote for them
So it's hard to say whether a movement of that line in one direction is good or bad
Anyway, back to the phone.
But lets remember that ICM had the Tories on 39 a few days ago in what was instantly recognised as an outlier.
If people are taking note of this poll what will they do? What the logic of the polls says is that people do not want a referendum on the EU in 2017. ie ever. Nor do they seem to be saying they are too concerned about their economic welfare.
Nevertheless the head exploding conflicting conundrums surrounding this election should still make it worth waiting for the first result.
Normally I would then add that this would make reading the responses on PB worthwhile and fun - but to be honest what this election has increasingly proved is that most PBers are as clueless as the rest of the world. I'm not sure there is much room for enlightenment despite all the 'betting' hype.