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.
Personally I wouldn't prompt with any party names in a phone poll.
I really like Survation's recent use of mocked up ballot papers of the actual candidates nominated in their online polls. I've been calling for that for a while, and I think that's the best option online.
Neil Yes, he needs to lose some weight again, however if he wins Iowa and SC he has a shot at the nomination
He has to pass over Scott Walker's dead body for Iowa.
The Iowa GOP caucus could be quite something. There could be 12+ candidates. The winner probably on a very low share of the vote. Latest poll has Walker on 21% which is a good lead seeing as there are 14 or so other candidates polled!
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?
ALL the polls suggest Ed will not lead the largest party though. I don't think he's been ahead in England and Wales in any poll - and his Scottish fanclub will give him just a couple of seats.
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.
From my recollection, even Labour were surprised at the scale - but of course that's the way FPTP works as soon as you go from a moderate to a slightly larger lead.
I watched the 2001 election with a gang of Tory researchers. They were evenly split between the "realists" who thought they'd regain 50 seats and the "optimists" who were expecting to be in power.
It was a very sad place by 3am (though a very happy place by 6am given the quantity of alcohol consumed once the outcome had become indisputable).
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.
They came with him, and implemented a great deal of Conservative policies, vs the 0% of those policies had he not achieved some kind of win. I understand if that is not enough for some Tories, or that they feel he could and should have done a lot better, but nor is it nothing.
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!
I made my second ever non-pb bet last night, on Lab Most Seats. The odds were just too ridiculously tempting.
But that's my betting done. If Ed edges it, as I expect, I make a nice few hundred quid to solace my pain, with some fine wines at a fine restaurant.
If somehow Cameron nudges ahead, and becomes PM, it'll be worth the outlay to see the outrage and despair on the Left.
Win win. In general you should bet against your desired outcome, you use a clearer head, that way.
You are describing an "emotional hedge"... along with things like "cash out" buttons its a great way for bookies to make money from amateurs
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 think Blair has just proven Nicola's point about SLAB MPs not being heard, 3 sadly departed and GB the only sitting MP has hardly attended the HofC since 2010:
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · now A little underwhelmed by @ICMResearch 's half-baked poll this evening! Why didn't they just wait and release the final data tomorrow?
I just met Kate Hoey canvassing outside my station. She said she'd have an EU referendum tomorrow and that the UKIP candidate (Ace from Cameroon) has done well in the hustings. She also let slip she thought she might win. I agreed and said I'd wish her good luck but she doesn't need it. It was the 'realest' moment of the election for me so far...
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?
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.
Clueless, yes, but more intense!
Although if half of people are right, then that means half are not clueless.
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 betation, 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.
They came with him, and implemented a great deal of Conservative policies, vs the 0% of those policies had he not achieved some kind of win. I understand if that is not enough for some Tories, or that they feel he could and should have done a lot better, but nor is it nothing.
it's something, but against the goals he set himself and the expectations of his supporters it falls some way short.
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?
ALL the polls suggest Ed will not lead the largest party though. I don't think he's been ahead in England and Wales in any poll - and his Scottish fanclub will give him just a couple of seats.
This is why.
Working backwards, EICIPM relies on Cons > Lab, but Cons < 295 and LD < 25, and Lab > 270 and SNP/PC/GRN > 50.
At present, Cons are predicted to get 280-ish, Lab 260-270 while the rainbows are on target. If Lab get 260 then the rainbows are pushed as unless Lab > Cons the LDs won't play with them.
So it's a mess and GE II (which I have backed, incidentally).
Vast amounts of nonsense as usual on here based on an individual poll. Here in Spain they vote on Sundays with the campaign and pols all ending on Friday. Saturday is a day of quiet reflection with no polls or campaigning. A really good system which a lot on here might try and emulate at least for five minutes! I do think Compouter' s rather bizarre taunting shows where the really nasty party supporters concentrate.
Eagle-eyed PBers will notice it's not vastly out of synch with every other prediction I've posted over the past 6 weeks or so...
Lab 289 (34% share) Con 268 (35%) SNP 36 LD 30 PC 4 UKIP 2 Green 1 Respect 1 Speaker 1 NI 18
Other predictions:
* Labour minority government - no coalition.
* Tories back to zero seats in Scotland.
* Farage and Carswell win for UKIP.
* Clegg survives in Hallam
* Cameron resigns in a speedy and dignified manner on Friday morning, and announces a quick Tory leadership contest in hope the Miliband govt falls quickly
* the bloodbath in the Tory party starts on Friday afternoon (though the first mutterings start on the BBC before we even get the Sunderland South result)
I would, of course, love to be desperately wrong on all those fronts!
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 befhere along the line.
He got nearly 20% md. 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 betation, 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.
They came with him, and implemented a great deal of Conservative policies, vs the 0% of those policies had he not achieved some kind of win. I understand if that is not enough for some Tories, or that they feel he could and should have done a lot better, but nor is it nothing.
it's something, but against the goals he set himself and the expectations of his supporters it falls some way short.
A fair enough assessment. Were I a Tory I might feel the same way. From the outside, I can be easier on the man - though if Ed does turn out to be a disaster (though I doubt this will be the case), that might change.
It says in that article we are also going to get a final personal Kellner prediction this evening.
One thing I also notice in the Nowcast...they Have Warwickshire North having slipped from a likely Labour to TCTC: Lean Tory, maybe that is the same feedback Labour have been getting and why Ed dragged his lectern there to press the flesh with ordinary hard working Labour Party activists?
They also have Thanet South slipping from UKIP to Con i.e Farage missing out.
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.
The Independents stood last time, and run the council so may have been them?
From my recollection, even Labour were surprised at the scale - but of course that's the way FPTP works as soon as you go from a moderate to a slightly larger lead.
I watched the 2001 election with a gang of Tory researchers. They were evenly split between the "realists" who thought they'd regain 50 seats and the "optimists" who were expecting to be in power.
It was a very sad place by 3am (though a very happy place by 6am given the quantity of alcohol consumed once the outcome had become indisputable).
2001 was certainly a surprise. I think very highly of Hague, and I think we missed out on having him as a PM. When he was first elected to be leader of the Conservative party I had a bet that he'd become the UK's longest serving PM. I can't recall what I stood to win (the Eiffel Tower maybe?), but it cost me a very large dinner.
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 befhere along the line.
He got nearly 20% md. 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 betation, 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.
They came with him, and implemented a great deal of Conservative policies, vs the 0% of those policies had he not achieved some kind of win. I understand if that is not enough for some Tories, or that they feel he could and should have done a lot better, but nor is it nothing.
it's something, but against the goals he set himself and the expectations of his supporters it falls some way short.
A fair enough assessment. Were I a Tory I might feel the same way. From the outside, I can be easier on the man - though if Ed does turn out to be a disaster (though I doubt this will be the case), that might change.
Ed's pretty much in the same boat as Dave. He won't win in the classic sense. If he does get to be PM he will be beholden to his enemies, not really a good place to be. A pyrrhic victory.
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?
ALL the polls suggest Ed will not lead the largest party though. I don't think he's been ahead in England and Wales in any poll - and his Scottish fanclub will give him just a couple of seats.
This is why.
If Lab get 260 then the rainbows are pushed as unless Lab > Cons the LDs won't play with them.
I expect the LD's will wait a couple of microseconds (for propriety's sake) before jumping into bed with Labour as "it is clear that the Conservatives cannot form a government, and so with a heavy heart, but for the good of the country, we will reluctantly cling onto power for 5 more years".
I just met Kate Hoey canvassing outside my station. She said she'd have an EU referendum tomorrow and that the UKIP candidate (Ace from Cameroon) has done well in the hustings. She also let slip she thought she might win. I agreed and said I'd wish her good luck but she doesn't need it. It was the 'realest' moment of the election for me so far...
I would vote for Kate Hoey if she was standing in my constituency.
Lol, I go out for two hours and the place is in meltdown! So another poll showing broadly the same picture? Where's the surprise? The basics of this election have not changed one iota - it all comes down to what the waverers do tomorrow. Stick or twist? Any result from Lab 300 to Con 315 or so is possible from where we are. It's most refreshing not caring as the lot of them can go rot, it just makes it all the more fascinating - where is the swing? What will blue kippers and red kippers do on the day? Will they do anything but vote kipper? Will UNS break down given the wildly different swings to and from in all corners of the UK? Remember two things 1) look at the betting and how it moves twixt now and tomorrow night - someone always knows, someone always tells 2) Ed Stone - yes it was crass and pathetic, but 95% of people won't even have registered it and of them it won't change the vote of 99%. Totemic events to PBers NEVER shift the polls the way the groupthink expects, they never have and never will. Expenses is about the only thing that has dramatically affected voting/mood since the ERM debacle began to play out, and that affected all three.
It's ONE POLL that is incomplete. It's not life or death ;-)
I just met Kate Hoey canvassing outside my station. She said she'd have an EU referendum tomorrow and that the UKIP candidate (Ace from Cameroon) has done well in the hustings. She also let slip she thought she might win. I agreed and said I'd wish her good luck but she doesn't need it. It was the 'realest' moment of the election for me so far...
I would vote for Kate Hoey if she was standing in my constituency.
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.
It says in that article we are also going to get a final personal Kellner prediction this evening.
One thing I also notice in the Nowcast...they Have Warwickshire North having slipped from a likely Labour to TCTC: Lean Tory, maybe that is the same feedback Labour have been getting and why Ed dragged his lectern there to press the flesh with ordinary hard working Labour Party activists?
Decent straw for @Roger to cling onto with Aberdeen South too !
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?
ALL the polls suggest Ed will not lead the largest party though. I don't think he's been ahead in England and Wales in any poll - and his Scottish fanclub will give him just a couple of seats.
This is why.
Working backwards, EICIPM relies on Cons > Lab, but Cons < 295 and LD < 25, and Lab > 270 and SNP/PC/GRN > 50.
At present, Cons are predicted to get 280-ish, Lab 260-270 while the rainbows are on target. If Lab get 260 then the rainbows are pushed as unless Lab > Cons the LDs won't play with them.
So it's a mess and GE II (which I have backed, incidentally).
Aenecdote: Just spoken to a friend of mine who is a friend with a Labour SPAD. Things are not going well on the ground. He expects Cameron to remain as PM, albeit a weak PM...
Interesting?
(I know it's friend of a friend, but still worth feeding back to you guys...)
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?
ALL the polls suggest Ed will not lead the largest party though. I don't think he's been ahead in England and Wales in any poll - and his Scottish fanclub will give him just a couple of seats.
This is why.
If Lab get 260 then the rainbows are pushed as unless Lab > Cons the LDs won't play with them.
I expect the LD's will wait a couple of microseconds (for propriety's sake) before jumping into bed with Labour as "it is clear that the Conservatives cannot form a government, and so with a heavy heart, but for the good of the country, we will reluctantly cling onto power for 5 more years".
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?
ALL the polls suggest Ed will not lead the largest party though. I don't think he's been ahead in England and Wales in any poll - and his Scottish fanclub will give him just a couple of seats.
This is why.
Working backwards, EICIPM relies on Cons > Lab, but Cons < 295 and LD < 25, and Lab > 270 and SNP/PC/GRN > 50.
At present, Cons are predicted to get 280-ish, Lab 260-270 while the rainbows are on target. If Lab get 260 then the rainbows are pushed as unless Lab > Cons the LDs won't play with them.
So it's a mess and GE II (which I have backed, incidentally).
How would that come about under fixed term parliament and how would anything change. In my opinion it would be incumbent on the two main parties to go into a grand coalition and put the Country first
Aenecdote: Just spoken to a friend of mine who is a friend with a Labour SPAD. Things are not going well on the ground. He expects Cameron to remain as PM, albeit a weak PM...
Interesting?
(I know it's friend of a friend, but still worth feeding back to you guys...)
Your friend's not the type to tease panicky Tories are they?
Aenecdote: Just spoken to a friend of mine who is a friend with a Labour SPAD. Things are not going well on the ground. He expects Cameron to remain as PM, albeit a weak PM...
Interesting?
(I know it's friend of a friend, but still worth feeding back to you guys...)
It's quite bizarre the disconnect between the polls and the mood music from both main parties. This is going to be studied for years ahead, regardless of which is right.
It says in that article we are also going to get a final personal Kellner prediction this evening.
One thing I also notice in the Nowcast...they Have Warwickshire North having slipped from a likely Labour to TCTC: Lean Tory, maybe that is the same feedback Labour have been getting and why Ed dragged his lectern there to press the flesh with ordinary hard working Labour Party activists?
They also have Thanet South slipping from UKIP to Con i.e Farage missing out.
Where Jacks ARSE leads; othes merely follow. Eve of poll super ARSE to come at 2100!
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 befhere along the line.
He got nearly 20% md. 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 betation, 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.
They came with him they feel he could and should have done a lot better, but nor is it nothing.
it's something, but against the goals he set himself and the expectations of his supporters it falls some way short.
A fair enough assessment. Were I a Tory I might feel the same way. From the outside, I can be easier on the man - though if Ed does turn out to be a disaster (though I doubt this will be the case), that might change.
Ed's pretty much in the same boat as Dave. He won't win in the classic sense. If he does get to be PM he will be beholden to his enemies, not really a good place to be. A pyrrhic victory.
Maybe so, but if he can get 5 years in No.10, you can bet he won't mind in the slightest, even if Labour do.
More self-indulgent twaddle from Hugo Rifkind who seems more upset about the SNP surge disturbing his comfortable Westminster village life, than trying to really understand what's going on in Scotland. Instead he just flippantly dismisses the 50% who are likely to vote SNP.
Hugo and his pals seem to be completely unaware of what Unionism means to many Scots particularly in Glasgow and the West coast. I sometimes wonder whether these guys have even heard of the Orange Lodge, Apprentice Boys and the many Loyalist groups. I think these journalists should make a point of attending some of the summer marches and getting a real understanding about Unionism.
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.
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.
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?
ALL the polls suggest Ed will not lead the largest party though. I don't think he's been ahead in England and Wales in any poll - and his Scottish fanclub will give him just a couple of seats.
This is why.
If Lab get 260 then the rainbows are pushed as unless Lab > Cons the LDs won't play with them.
I expect the LD's will wait a couple of microseconds (for propriety's sake) before jumping into bed with Labour as "it is clear that the Conservatives cannot form a government, and so with a heavy heart, but for the good of the country, we will reluctantly cling onto power for 5 more years".
... and the alternative is?
I was responding to topping's statement that the sky would fall in with Labour on 260 as the LD's had 'promised' not to do a deal with the smaller party. My view is that they'd back out of that promise in short order. It's not like they have no history of treachery, is it?
So much euphoria at polls that show Labour narrowly behind or tied
Maybe people are looking at the direction of movement this week. You are also seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that the Tories need to be several points ahead of Labour in order to even get the same number of 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?
ALL the polls suggest Ed will not lead the largest party though. I don't think he's been ahead in England and Wales in any poll - and his Scottish fanclub will give him just a couple of seats.
This is why.
Working backwards, EICIPM relies on Cons > Lab, but Cons < 295 and LD < 25, and Lab > 270 and SNP/PC/GRN > 50.
At present, Cons are predicted to get 280-ish, Lab 260-270 while the rainbows are on target. If Lab get 260 then the rainbows are pushed as unless Lab > Cons the LDs won't play with them.
So it's a mess and GE II (which I have backed, incidentally).
How would that come about under fixed term parliament and how would anything change. In my opinion it would be incumbent on the two main parties to go into a grand coalition and put the Country first
Dave tries to form govt, gives QS, voted down, no confidence, Ed tries, fails, GE II
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!
I made my second ever non-pb bet last night, on Lab Most Seats. The odds were just too ridiculously tempting.
But that's my betting done. If Ed edges it, as I expect, I make a nice few hundred quid to solace my pain, with some fine wines at a fine restaurant.
If somehow Cameron nudges ahead, and becomes PM, it'll be worth the outlay to see the outrage and despair on the Left.
Win win. In general you should bet against your desired outcome, you use a clearer head, that way.
You are describing an "emotional hedge"... along with things like "cash out" buttons its a great way for bookies to make money from amateurs
You've completely misunderstood my point. But I have a drinks party to go so your education will have to wait.
No I have completely understood it . It's called an emotional hedge, lots of punters do it for precisely the reasons you give. One if the oldest ways to pay a bookies pension
Aenecdote: Just spoken to a friend of mine who is a friend with a Labour SPAD. Things are not going well on the ground. He expects Cameron to remain as PM, albeit a weak PM...
Interesting?
(I know it's friend of a friend, but still worth feeding back to you guys...)
A theme that if Labour ask "will you vote for me?" it's disheartening, but if others ask "will you vote Labour" less so. My suspicion is that all parties are feeling this effect, and that because of it they're all panicking everywhere.
There's certainly a 'not Ed' theme going on too. Almost universally the office today was talking about how they'd all only met 'not Ed' thoughts. Given what I do for a living the bias is absolutely enormous, but I'm sure the effect is out there more generally.
I wondered why Betfair were sending me this information and then I remembered I'd opened the account so I could bet on the Grand National with the tip from Peter the Punter.
Aintree is only just up the road so I'll drive round and see if that bloody horse is still running!
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!
I made my second ever non-pb bet last night, on Lab Most Seats. The odds were just too ridiculously tempting.
But that's my betting done. If Ed edges it, as I expect, I make a nice few hundred quid to solace my pain, with some fine wines at a fine restaurant.
If somehow Cameron nudges ahead, and becomes PM, it'll be worth the outlay to see the outrage and despair on the Left.
Win win. In general you should bet against your desired outcome, you use a clearer head, that way.
You are describing an "emotional hedge"... along with things like "cash out" buttons its a great way for bookies to make money from amateurs
You've completely misunderstood my point. But I have a drinks party to go so your education will have to wait.
No I have completely understood it . It's called an emotional hedge, lots of punters do it for precisely the reasons you give. One if the oldest ways to pay a bookies pension
It's a perfectly rational thing to do in that you minimise your "pain" on either outcome occurring. I agree that it's not the smartest thing to do if you just want to make money.
The Daily Record still seems to be struggling with who they should endorse, they may well try and sit on the fence, as they know coming out for SLAB will undoubtedly cost them circulation:
They know they are narrowly ahead on seats but not by enough to make it without the SNP and possibly Liberals? Therefore they know it's going to go tittius verticus?
That fits the polling, many of the predictions of narrow Labour plurality, and the marginals polling.
Tories relieved because they have the South in the bag, Labour have lost Scotland and they stand to mop up in any possible GE2?
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?
ALL the polls suggest Ed will not lead the largest party though. I don't think he's been ahead in England and Wales in any poll - and his Scottish fanclub will give him just a couple of seats.
This is why.
Working backwards, EICIPM relies on Cons > Lab, but Cons < 295 and LD < 25, and Lab > 270 and SNP/PC/GRN > 50.
At present, Cons are predicted to get 280-ish, Lab 260-270 while the rainbows are on target. If Lab get 260 then the rainbows are pushed as unless Lab > Cons the LDs won't play with them.
So it's a mess and GE II (which I have backed, incidentally).
How would that come about under fixed term parliament and how would anything change. In my opinion it would be incumbent on the two main parties to go into a grand coalition and put the Country first
Dave tries to form govt, gives QS, voted down, no confidence, Ed tries, fails, GE II
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?
ALL the polls suggest Ed will not lead the largest party though. I don't think he's been ahead in England and Wales in any poll - and his Scottish fanclub will give him just a couple of seats.
This is why.
Working backwards, EICIPM relies on Cons > Lab, but Cons < 295 and LD < 25, and Lab > 270 and SNP/PC/GRN > 50.
At present, Cons are predicted to get 280-ish, Lab 260-270 while the rainbows are on target. If Lab get 260 then the rainbows are pushed as unless Lab > Cons the LDs won't play with them.
So it's a mess and GE II (which I have backed, incidentally).
How would that come about under fixed term parliament and how would anything change. In my opinion it would be incumbent on the two main parties to go into a grand coalition and put the Country first
Dave tries to form govt, gives QS, voted down, no confidence, Ed tries, fails, GE II
I read in the Evening Standard tonight that GOD says that if Dave's QS is voted down and Ed becomes PM, Ed won't have to put forward another QS, though presumably he would present one eventually!
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?
ALL the polls suggest Ed will not lead the largest party though. I don't think he's been ahead in England and Wales in any poll - and his Scottish fanclub will give him just a couple of seats.
This is why.
Working backwards, EICIPM relies on Cons > Lab, but Cons < 295 and LD < 25, and Lab > 270 and SNP/PC/GRN > 50.
At present, Cons are predicted to get 280-ish, Lab 260-270 while the rainbows are on target. If Lab get 260 then the rainbows are pushed as unless Lab > Cons the LDs won't play with them.
So it's a mess and GE II (which I have backed, incidentally).
How would that come about under fixed term parliament and how would anything change. In my opinion it would be incumbent on the two main parties to go into a grand coalition and put the Country first
Dave tries to form govt, gives QS, voted down, no confidence, Ed tries, fails, GE II
I read in the Evening Standard tonight that GOD says that if Dave's QS is voted down and Ed becomes PM, Ed won't have to put forward another QS, though presumably he would present one eventually!
The fixed term parliament act was a shocking act of parliament. When Ed or Dave get back in they should just scrap it.
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!
I made my second ever non-pb bet last night, on Lab Most Seats. The odds were just too ridiculously tempting.
But that's my betting done. If Ed edges it, as I expect, I make a nice few hundred quid to solace my pain, with some fine wines at a fine restaurant.
If somehow Cameron nudges ahead, and becomes PM, it'll be worth the outlay to see the outrage and despair on the Left.
Win win. In general you should bet against your desired outcome, you use a clearer head, that way.
You are describing an "emotional hedge"... along with things like "cash out" buttons its a great way for bookies to make money from amateurs
You've completely misunderstood my point. But I have a drinks party to go so your education will have to wait.
No I have completely understood it . It's called an emotional hedge, lots of punters do it for precisely the reasons you give. One if the oldest ways to pay a bookies pension
While what you say is correct, it doesn't mean it's a bad thing to do. You should make bets in a manner that brings most benefit to you. If that benefit is emotional that's fine. Money is only used to make us feel happier, so financial return is ultimately emotional too.
They know they are narrowly ahead on seats but not by enough to make it without the SNP and possibly Liberals? Therefore they know it's going to go tittius verticus?
That fits the polling, many of the predictions of narrow Labour plurality, and the marginals polling.
Tories relieved because they have the South in the bag, Labour have lost Scotland and they stand to mop up in any possible GE2?
Something like that hmmmm?
Go with the simplest explanation i.e. that they are indeed worried from what they are hearing back. Ever since that Labour Uncut article, the mood music has changed from Labour.
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?
ALL This is why.
Working backwards, EICIPM relies on Cons > Lab, but Cons < 295 and LD < 25, and Lab > 270 and SNP/PC/GRN > 50.
At present, Cons are predicted to get 280-ish, Lab 260-270 while the rainbows are on target. If Lab get 260 then the rainbows are pushed as unless Lab > Cons the LDs won't play with them.
So it's a mess and GE II (which I have backed, incidentally).
How would that come about under fixed term parliament and how would anything change. In my opinion it would be incumbent on the two main parties to go into a grand coalition and put the Country first
Dave tries to form govt, gives QS, voted down, no confidence, Ed tries, fails, GE II
I read in the Evening Standard tonight that GOD says that if Dave's QS is voted down and Ed becomes PM, Ed won't have to put forward another QS, though presumably he would present one eventually!
The fixed term parliament act was a shocking act of parliament. When Ed or Dave get back in they should just scrap it.
The act itself wasn't so bad, it was the gerrymandering addition that calls for a 2/3 majority for dissolution.
They know they are narrowly ahead on seats but not by enough to make it without the SNP and possibly Liberals? Therefore they know it's going to go tittius verticus?
That fits the polling, many of the predictions of narrow Labour plurality, and the marginals polling.
Tories relieved because they have the South in the bag, Labour have lost Scotland and they stand to mop up in any possible GE2?
Something like that hmmmm?
Go with the simplest explanation i.e. that they are indeed worried from what they are hearing back. Ever since that Labour Uncut article, the mood music has changed from Labour.
Possibly yes, but what makes Labour gloomy and what we might expect would make them gloomy in terms of expectations are not interchangeable integers!
I read in the Evening Standard tonight that GOD says that if Dave's QS is voted down and Ed becomes PM, Ed won't have to put forward another QS, though presumably he would present one eventually!
The fixed term parliament act was a shocking act of parliament. When Ed or Dave get back in they should just scrap it.
Why was it brought in? Was it something the Lib Dems wanted to stop Dave from threatening to call an election and lose the Lib Dems their seats and 65k a year?
They know they are narrowly ahead on seats but not by enough to make it without the SNP and possibly Liberals? Therefore they know it's going to go tittius verticus?
That fits the polling, many of the predictions of narrow Labour plurality, and the marginals polling.
Tories relieved because they have the South in the bag, Labour have lost Scotland and they stand to mop up in any possible GE2?
Something like that hmmmm?
Go with the simplest explanation i.e. that they are indeed worried from what they are hearing back. Ever since that Labour Uncut article, the mood music has changed from Labour.
There is something in the argument that Labour are ALWAYS very pessimistic, though, especially from opposition. There were tons of seats in 1997 where resources were pulled because they assumed they had no chance, which they ended up winning.
That doesn't mean that their pessimism is definitely not well-founded this time, of course.
More self-indulgent twaddle from Hugo Rifkind who seems more upset about the SNP surge disturbing his comfortable Westminster village life, than trying to really understand what's going on in Scotland. Instead he just flippantly dismisses the 50% who are likely to vote SNP.
Hugo and his pals seem to be completely unaware of what Unionism means to many Scots particularly in Glasgow and the West coast. I sometimes wonder whether these guys have even heard of the Orange Lodge, Apprentice Boys and the many Loyalist groups. I think these journalists should make a point of attending some of the summer marches and getting a real understanding about Unionism.
Salmond was always keen to equate Unionism (Ulster Scots version) with Unionism as in a political union with England. Clever in some respects, and poisonous in others. The two aren't synonymous.
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.
He did. He got his party into office, gained his party 97 seats and got his party 7% ahead of the second place party and got his party 49 seats ahead of the second placed party. That's a win.
The Nats came second in Indyref so not sure how its comparable.
It says in that article we are also going to get a final personal Kellner prediction this evening.
One thing I also notice in the Nowcast...they Have Warwickshire North having slipped from a likely Labour to TCTC: Lean Tory, maybe that is the same feedback Labour have been getting and why Ed dragged his lectern there to press the flesh with ordinary hard working Labour Party activists?
Decent straw for @Roger to cling onto with Aberdeen South too !
Anne Begg's personal/sympathy vote should not be completely ignored. I doubt they will be enough but it is one of those seats Labour could cling onto.
Having been in work all day I was about to ask what the best odds were on Labour most seats. I think SeanT got on last night at something like 5s or 6s! I can only assume they've come in with this ICM poll. I might break the habit of a lifetime and fancy a flutter.
It says in that article we are also going to get a final personal Kellner prediction this evening.
One thing I also notice in the Nowcast...they Have Warwickshire North having slipped from a likely Labour to TCTC: Lean Tory, maybe that is the same feedback Labour have been getting and why Ed dragged his lectern there to press the flesh with ordinary hard working Labour Party activists?
Decent straw for @Roger to cling onto with Aberdeen South too !
I have Edinburgh South, Aberdeen South and East Lothian down as Labour's best chances as Tories tactically rally to them.
(On paper the same might make Dumfries & Galloway a decent shout, but the Ashcroft poll showing Tories in 2nd place there may have complicated matters.)
Had an offer of a twenty pound matched bet from SJ so being wildly optimistic have put the lot on Con Majority! I know it's money down the drain but I very rarely bet and see it as a bit of fun to add to the excitement of Thurs night
So much euphoria at polls that show Labour narrowly behind or tied
Maybe people are looking at the direction of movement this week. You are also seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that the Tories need to be several points ahead of Labour in order to even get the same number of seats.
"Decent straw for @Roger to cling onto with Aberdeen South too !"
I hope so! I have just three bets on this election. Edinburgh South Aberdeen South and Tories to get between 300-325. The last one to cheer me up if the first two don't happen and the last one does
They know they are narrowly ahead on seats but not by enough to make it without the SNP and possibly Liberals? Therefore they know it's going to go tittius verticus?
That fits the polling, many of the predictions of narrow Labour plurality, and the marginals polling.
Tories relieved because they have the South in the bag, Labour have lost Scotland and they stand to mop up in any possible GE2?
Something like that hmmmm?
Go with the simplest explanation i.e. that they are indeed worried from what they are hearing back. Ever since that Labour Uncut article, the mood music has changed from Labour.
Possibly yes, but what makes Labour gloomy and what we might expect would make them gloomy in terms of expectations are not interchangeable integers!
They know they are narrowly ahead on seats but not by enough to make it without the SNP and possibly Liberals? Therefore they know it's going to go tittius verticus?
That fits the polling, many of the predictions of narrow Labour plurality, and the marginals polling.
Tories relieved because they have the South in the bag, Labour have lost Scotland and they stand to mop up in any possible GE2?
Something like that hmmmm?
Go with the simplest explanation i.e. that they are indeed worried from what they are hearing back. Ever since that Labour Uncut article, the mood music has changed from Labour.
There is something in the argument that Labour are ALWAYS very pessimistic, though, especially from opposition. There were tons of seats in 1997 where resources were pulled because they assumed they had no chance, which they ended up winning.
That doesn't mean that their pessimism is definitely not well-founded this time, of course.
The key difference with 1997 is that this time Labour started being optimistic overall but that optimism has faded. One of the things that gets missed about Ed is that he is a big numbers geek: he knows the data inside out and he would have been more aware than anyone that, despite what the press said, the numbers favoured him on seat distribution. Hence how he has brushed off the insults. But that has now changed -you do not rush to Russell Brand or do #EdStone if you think you are on course to win, which opinion poll numbers suggest. The most likeliest explanation is that the data they are getting back is not what they predicted.
To paraphrase Blackadder the butler, Watford constituency is according to Con and LibDem sources as clear as Mr Mud the winner of the worldwide muddiest man contest immersed in a vat of mud on mad mud man day.
So that's clear as .... you get the picture.
Both sides agree that whilst there is seepage from the Labour side their vote remain relatively solid. Both also agree that LibDem Dorothy Thornhill, the Watford Mayor, has energized the campaign and is popular on the doorstep.
Richard Harrington is also performing strongly and as the incumbent MP has also built up a decent following. There has been some indication of split ticketing whereby some voters don't want to lose Thornhill as Mayor and would also like to keep Harrington as the MP. At the margin this may make the difference.
Ironically and perhaps unusually both sources were more positive about their opponents own chances than they were their own !!
I can't comment on "mood". I do think there's a tendency to talk up one's own side and talk down the opponent - I also have no idea whether CCHQ sends out unstintingly positive messages to energise the troops or not. It's what I would do if the position was doubtful.
There are elements of reverse psychology at work as well. I'm sure Labour's high command are well aware of the situation in their key target seats (as indeed will CCHQ) so the reality is the problems for Labour may well begin with the results. Whether there was a genuine belief they could win a majority I don't know.
As far as the Conservatives are concerned, if the aim was to stun the Labour heart and brain with innovative policies the reality has been they've hacked at limbs and often missed. This should have been an easy election for the Conservatives with the huge advantages of an improving economy, a weak Labour leader (apparently), a popular Prime Minister and a huge war chest with which to fight the election.
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 eve
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...
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?
ALL the polls suggest Ed will not lead the largest party though. I don't think he's been ahead in England and Wales in any poll - and his Scottish fanclub will give him just a couple of seats.
This is why.
Working backwards, EICIPM relies on Cons > Lab, but Cons < 295 and LD < 25, and Lab > 270 and SNP/PC/GRN > 50.
At present, Cons are predicted to get 280-ish, Lab 260-270 while the rainbows are on target. If Lab get 260 then the rainbows are pushed as unless Lab > Cons the LDs won't play with them.
So it's a mess and GE II (which I have backed, incidentally).
How would that come about under fixed term parliament and how would anything change. In my opinion it would be incumbent on the two main parties to go into a grand coalition and put the Country first
Dave tries to form govt, gives QS, voted down, no confidence, Ed tries, fails, GE II
I read in the Evening Standard tonight that GOD says that if Dave's QS is voted down and Ed becomes PM, Ed won't have to put forward another QS, though presumably he would present one eventually!
Did he say he would have 14 days to form the govt which presumably (as people have said on here) would be with SNP by default in deed if not action.
So Lab with fewer seats would govern with no pact whatsoever with SNP but with SNP support (at least for their budget) so how is that no pact?
= smell test fail.
What can be done about it, involving as it would extraordinary disingenuousness, yet fait accompli on behalf of Ed, goodness only knows.
They know they are narrowly ahead on seats but not by enough to make it without the SNP and possibly Liberals? Therefore they know it's going to go tittius verticus?
That fits the polling, many of the predictions of narrow Labour plurality, and the marginals polling.
Tories relieved because they have the South in the bag, Labour have lost Scotland and they stand to mop up in any possible GE2?
Something like that hmmmm?
Go with the simplest explanation i.e. that they are indeed worried from what they are hearing back. Ever since that Labour Uncut article, the mood music has changed from Labour.
Possibly yes, but what makes Labour gloomy and what we might expect would make them gloomy in terms of expectations are not interchangeable integers!
They know they are narrowly ahead on seats but not by enough to make it without the SNP and possibly Liberals? Therefore they know it's going to go tittius verticus?
That fits the polling, many of the predictions of narrow Labour plurality, and the marginals polling.
Tories relieved because they have the South in the bag, Labour have lost Scotland and they stand to mop up in any possible GE2?
Something like that hmmmm?
Go with the simplest explanation i.e. that they are indeed worried from what they are hearing back. Ever since that Labour Uncut article, the mood music has changed from Labour.
There is something in the argument that Labour are ALWAYS very pessimistic, though, especially from opposition. There were tons of seats in 1997 where resources were pulled because they assumed they had no chance, which they ended up winning.
That doesn't mean that their pessimism is definitely not well-founded this time, of course.
The key difference with 1997 is that this time Labour started being optimistic overall but that optimism has faded. One of the things that gets missed about Ed is that he is a big numbers geek: he knows the data inside out and he would have been more aware than anyone that, despite what the press said, the numbers favoured him on seat distribution. Hence how he has brushed off the insults. But that has now changed -you do not rush to Russell Brand or do #EdStone if you think you are on course to win, which opinion poll numbers suggest. The most likeliest explanation is that the data they are getting back is not what they predicted.
I could be persuaded by that line of reasoning, yes
Comments
I really like Survation's recent use of mocked up ballot papers of the actual candidates nominated in their online polls. I've been calling for that for a while, and I think that's the best option online.
This is why.
I watched the 2001 election with a gang of Tory researchers. They were evenly split between the "realists" who thought they'd regain 50 seats and the "optimists" who were expecting to be in power.
It was a very sad place by 3am (though a very happy place by 6am given the quantity of alcohol consumed once the outcome had become indisputable).
https://twitter.com/blairmcdougall/status/595991966866927616
A little underwhelmed by @ICMResearch 's half-baked poll this evening! Why didn't they just wait and release the final data tomorrow?
Although if half of people are right, then that means half are not clueless.
At present, Cons are predicted to get 280-ish, Lab 260-270 while the rainbows are on target. If Lab get 260 then the rainbows are pushed as unless Lab > Cons the LDs won't play with them.
So it's a mess and GE II (which I have backed, incidentally).
Con 276, Lab 276, Lib Dem 23, SNP 51, UKIP 1 and Green 1.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/06/its-neck-and-neck-and-times/
Wonder if ARSE swings to the left.
Eagle-eyed PBers will notice it's not vastly out of synch with every other prediction I've posted over the past 6 weeks or so...
Lab 289 (34% share)
Con 268 (35%)
SNP 36
LD 30
PC 4
UKIP 2
Green 1
Respect 1
Speaker 1
NI 18
Other predictions:
* Labour minority government - no coalition.
* Tories back to zero seats in Scotland.
* Farage and Carswell win for UKIP.
* Clegg survives in Hallam
* Cameron resigns in a speedy and dignified manner on Friday morning, and announces a quick Tory leadership contest in hope the Miliband govt falls quickly
* the bloodbath in the Tory party starts on Friday afternoon (though the first mutterings start on the BBC before we even get the Sunderland South result)
I would, of course, love to be desperately wrong on all those fronts!
One thing I also notice in the Nowcast...they Have Warwickshire North having slipped from a likely Labour to TCTC: Lean Tory, maybe that is the same feedback Labour have been getting and why Ed dragged his lectern there to press the flesh with ordinary hard working Labour Party activists?
They also have Thanet South slipping from UKIP to Con i.e Farage missing out.
It's almost as though other people don't know what EICIPM means.
They have stood aside and endorsed UKIP this time
So another poll showing broadly the same picture? Where's the surprise? The basics of this election have not changed one iota - it all comes down to what the waverers do tomorrow. Stick or twist? Any result from Lab 300 to Con 315 or so is possible from where we are. It's most refreshing not caring as the lot of them can go rot, it just makes it all the more fascinating - where is the swing? What will blue kippers and red kippers do on the day? Will they do anything but vote kipper? Will UNS break down given the wildly different swings to and from in all corners of the UK?
Remember two things
1) look at the betting and how it moves twixt now and tomorrow night - someone always knows, someone always tells
2) Ed Stone - yes it was crass and pathetic, but 95% of people won't even have registered it and of them it won't change the vote of 99%. Totemic events to PBers NEVER shift the polls the way the groupthink expects, they never have and never will. Expenses is about the only thing that has dramatically affected voting/mood since the ERM debacle began to play out, and that affected all three.
It's ONE POLL that is incomplete. It's not life or death ;-)
"Who are you going to vote for?"
vs
"Are you going to vote Conservative, Labour, LibDem or someone else?"
Interesting?
(I know it's friend of a friend, but still worth feeding back to you guys...)
Seems late-late afternoon now...
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/05/mike-huckabee-has-chuck-norris-in-his-corner-again/
Chuck Norris is 75!!!!!
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/05/if-the-snp-doesnt-hate-the-english-why-do-so-many-of-its-supporters-behave-as-if-they-do/
Hugo and his pals seem to be completely unaware of what Unionism means to many Scots particularly in Glasgow and the West coast. I sometimes wonder whether these guys have even heard of the Orange Lodge, Apprentice Boys and the many Loyalist groups. I think these journalists should make a point of attending some of the summer marches and getting a real understanding about Unionism.
150 minutes
There's certainly a 'not Ed' theme going on too. Almost universally the office today was talking about how they'd all only met 'not Ed' thoughts. Given what I do for a living the bias is absolutely enormous, but I'm sure the effect is out there more generally.
Betfair are saying Con 277 seats, Labour 264.
I wondered why Betfair were sending me this information and then I remembered I'd opened the account so I could bet on the Grand National with the tip from Peter the Punter.
Aintree is only just up the road so I'll drive round and see if that bloody horse is still running!
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/
They know they are narrowly ahead on seats but not by enough to make it without the SNP and possibly Liberals? Therefore they know it's going to go tittius verticus?
That fits the polling, many of the predictions of narrow Labour plurality, and the marginals polling.
Tories relieved because they have the South in the bag, Labour have lost Scotland and they stand to mop up in any possible GE2?
Something like that hmmmm?
After the ICM, that conversation was a massive downer!
Anyway, here in London - things look good for Labour.
*swoon*
Sorry, I lost the link.
Whatever happens tomorrow night, someone will be licking their wounds
"I would vote for Kate Hoey if she was standing in my constituency."
I would too, and the same goes for Frank Field, but I'm stuck with the kicking granny so it's Ukip.
That doesn't mean that their pessimism is definitely not well-founded this time, of course.
The Nats came second in Indyref so not sure how its comparable.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/06/its-neck-and-neck-and-times/
You can see the fatalistic mood on here, even amongst Labour supporters (terrified that EICIPM is about to become reality!).
(On paper the same might make Dumfries & Galloway a decent shout, but the Ashcroft poll showing Tories in 2nd place there may have complicated matters.)
I know it's money down the drain but I very rarely bet and see it as a bit of fun to add to the excitement of Thurs night
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3069437/Why-life-long-Labour-luvvie-backing-Tories-writes-TOM-CONTI.html
"Decent straw for @Roger to cling onto with Aberdeen South too !"
I hope so! I have just three bets on this election. Edinburgh South Aberdeen South and Tories to get between 300-325. The last one to cheer me up if the first two don't happen and the last one does
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/jockalypse-coming-heres-top-12-5647647
Currently 81% SNP.
To paraphrase Blackadder the butler, Watford constituency is according to Con and LibDem sources as clear as Mr Mud the winner of the worldwide muddiest man contest immersed in a vat of mud on mad mud man day.
So that's clear as .... you get the picture.
Both sides agree that whilst there is seepage from the Labour side their vote remain relatively solid. Both also agree that LibDem Dorothy Thornhill, the Watford Mayor, has energized the campaign and is popular on the doorstep.
Richard Harrington is also performing strongly and as the incumbent MP has also built up a decent following. There has been some indication of split ticketing whereby some voters don't want to lose Thornhill as Mayor and would also like to keep Harrington as the MP. At the margin this may make the difference.
Ironically and perhaps unusually both sources were more positive about their opponents own chances than they were their own !!
My advice to PBers is to not enter this market.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges · 9h 9 hours ago
Tomorrow I'm voting Labour. But if I lived in South Thanet I'd be voting Tory, and not thinking twice about it.
http://sports.betfair.com/Index.do?mi=118634367&ex=1&origin=MRL
I can't comment on "mood". I do think there's a tendency to talk up one's own side and talk down the opponent - I also have no idea whether CCHQ sends out unstintingly positive messages to energise the troops or not. It's what I would do if the position was doubtful.
There are elements of reverse psychology at work as well. I'm sure Labour's high command are well aware of the situation in their key target seats (as indeed will CCHQ) so the reality is the problems for Labour may well begin with the results. Whether there was a genuine belief they could win a majority I don't know.
As far as the Conservatives are concerned, if the aim was to stun the Labour heart and brain with innovative policies the reality has been they've hacked at limbs and often missed. This should have been an easy election for the Conservatives with the huge advantages of an improving economy, a weak Labour leader (apparently), a popular Prime Minister and a huge war chest with which to fight the election.
So Lab with fewer seats would govern with no pact whatsoever with SNP but with SNP support (at least for their budget) so how is that no pact?
= smell test fail.
What can be done about it, involving as it would extraordinary disingenuousness, yet fait accompli on behalf of Ed, goodness only knows.