Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Undefined discussion subject.

135

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    Neil Indeed, will be a crowded field for the GOP
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    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.

    Link to tables?

    Is there a link to the ICM dataset?

    ICM data tables
    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.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    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!

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,913
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    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.


  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083
    Omnium said:

    Speedy said:

    Anorak said:

    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).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    edited May 2015

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    TimGeo said:

    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.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited May 2015
    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    DavidL said:

    Bit gutted by this poll. Can't pretend otherwise.

    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
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    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.

    We miss you too Flightpath!

  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    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:

    https://twitter.com/blairmcdougall/status/595991966866927616
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,149
    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?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,149
    HYUFD said:

    Sunil Indeed, though I think UKIP will still get enough votes to stop Cameron matching Major and getting a majority

    HYUFD Kippers may well get plenty of votes but hardly any seats.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    kle4 said:

    chestnut said:

    So much euphoria at polls that show Labour narrowly behind or tied :smiley:

    Why wouldn't it? Narrowly behind, tied or narrowly ahead, the outcome is the same.
    It may well be in terms of wanting Ed at number 10, but it's vastly different in terms of perception and practicalities.

  • BlueberryBlueberry Posts: 408
    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...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    edited May 2015

    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.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    TimGeo said:

    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.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,049
    Omnium said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    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).
  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,893
    Final YouGov Nowcast
    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/
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,175
    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. :)
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Should be one more BJESUS but should see little change.

    Wonder if ARSE swings to the left.
  • paulyorkpaulyork Posts: 50
    Coalition part 2 has shortened across the board today. Not sure why. Might top up on minorites now theyve drifted.
  • Bob__SykesBob__Sykes Posts: 1,179
    FWIW, I'll go with this as a final prediction.

    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!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    TimGeo said:

    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.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    edited May 2015
    Artist said:

    Final YouGov Nowcast
    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/

    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.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    Sunil They may get no more than 4 seats, but they will get enough in key marginals to stop a Cameron majority
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    Artist said:

    Final YouGov Nowcast
    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/

    That's not neck and neck times YouGov, it's just tied seats.

    It's almost as though other people don't know what EICIPM means.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    AndyJS said:

    Brom said:

    AndyJS said:

    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:

    http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/04/castle-point-2/

    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?

    They have stood aside and endorsed UKIP this time
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,913
    Polruan said:



    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.



  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    TimGeo said:

    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.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited May 2015
    TOPPING said:

    Omnium said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    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".
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,690
    Blueberry said:

    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.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    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 ;-)
  • BlueberryBlueberry Posts: 408

    Blueberry said:

    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.
    I would too if she did go under a Labour flag.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,656

    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.

    Link to tables?

    Is there a link to the ICM dataset?

    ICM data tables
    No prompting for UKIP. Can't see this makes sense given they're polling above the Lib Dems.

    Does ICM actually prompt for anyone on the phone:

    "Who are you going to vote for?"

    vs

    "Are you going to vote Conservative, Labour, LibDem or someone else?"
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,416

    Artist said:

    Final YouGov Nowcast
    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/

    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 !
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    TOPPING said:

    Omnium said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    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).
    Dream on!!
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,067
    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...)
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,932
    Anorak said:

    TOPPING said:

    Omnium said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    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?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,657
    TOPPING said:

    Omnium said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    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
  • acf2310acf2310 Posts: 141
    Panelbase were talking about a mid to late afternoon poll earlier, weren't they?

    Seems late-late afternoon now...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    murali_s said:

    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?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    murali_s said:

    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.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    I take it all back. Huckabee still has the support of Chuck Norris and so is a shoo-in for Iowa and the nomination, surely.

    http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/05/mike-huckabee-has-chuck-norris-in-his-corner-again/

    Chuck Norris is 75!!!!!
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Artist said:

    Final YouGov Nowcast
    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/

    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!

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    TimGeo said:

    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.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    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.

    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.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,870
    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    Link to tables?

    Is there a link to the ICM dataset?

    ICM data tables
    No prompting for UKIP. Can't see this makes sense given they're polling above the Lib Dems.

    Does ICM actually prompt for anyone on the phone:

    "Who are you going to vote for?"

    vs

    "Are you going to vote Conservative, Labour, LibDem or someone else?"
    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    Link to tables?

    Is there a link to the ICM dataset?

    ICM data tables
    No prompting for UKIP. Can't see this makes sense given they're polling above the Lib Dems.

    Does ICM actually prompt for anyone on the phone:

    "Who are you going to vote for?"

    vs

    "Are you going to vote Conservative, Labour, LibDem or someone else?"
    Just going off the question in the tables.

  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Eve of poll SUPER ARSE with added SUPER APLOMB 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen Projection Countdown:

    150 minutes
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited May 2015

    Anorak said:

    TOPPING said:

    Omnium said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    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?
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006
    chestnut said:

    So much euphoria at polls that show Labour narrowly behind or tied :smiley:

    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.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,049

    TOPPING said:

    Omnium said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    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
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    SeanT said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    DavidL said:

    Bit gutted by this poll. Can't pretend otherwise.

    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
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,913
    murali_s said:

    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.

  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366

    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!
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    DavidL said:

    Bit gutted by this poll. Can't pretend otherwise.

    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.
  • enfantenfant Posts: 34
    I think that murali_s may be guilty of a 'wind up'
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    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:

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Thoughts on Labour apparant gloom.

    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?
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,067
    enfant said:

    I think that murali_s may be guilty of a 'wind up'

    I wish...

    After the ICM, that conversation was a massive downer!

    Anyway, here in London - things look good for Labour.
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    @rcs1000 you mentioned earlier that a Grexit looks likely. Has much changed recently to make you think it will finally happen?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,049
    I think Dave's shirtsleeve thing was produced at just the right time (whether it's successful or not).

    *swoon*
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,657
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Omnium said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    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
    Seems quite tortuous
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    JackW said:

    Eve of poll SUPER ARSE with added SUPER APLOMB 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen Projection Countdown:

    150 minutes

    Extra squeaky edition
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,223
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Omnium said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    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!
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    Freggles said:

    JackW said:

    Eve of poll SUPER ARSE with added SUPER APLOMB 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen Projection Countdown:

    150 minutes

    Extra squeaky edition
    Will Jack's ring piece will be narrowing in line with the other polls today?
  • What is the site where you input your estimated breakdown of seats?

    Sorry, I lost the link.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,416
    tlg86 said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Omnium said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    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.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    DavidL said:

    Bit gutted by this poll. Can't pretend otherwise.

    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.
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    watford30 said:

    Freggles said:

    JackW said:

    Eve of poll SUPER ARSE with added SUPER APLOMB 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen Projection Countdown:

    150 minutes

    Extra squeaky edition
    Will Jack's ring piece will be narrowing in line with the other polls today?
    I expect some small movements but not enough to make a splash.
    Whatever happens tomorrow night, someone will be licking their wounds
  • Thoughts on Labour apparant gloom.

    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.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Omnium said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    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.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    Mr Tyndall,

    "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.

  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786

    Thoughts on Labour apparant gloom.

    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!
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,223
    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:


    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?
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091

    Thoughts on Labour apparant gloom.

    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.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    calum said:

    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.

    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.

    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.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited May 2015

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    TimGeo said:

    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.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    Pulpstar said:

    Artist said:

    Final YouGov Nowcast
    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/

    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.
  • Still think Tories will be 3-4% ahead in the popular vote.
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    YouGov Nowcast makes it a dead-head on 276 Con and Lab.Worth a covering bet for all those committed to most seats market.Shadsy was offering 33-1,WH 25-1.
    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/06/its-neck-and-neck-and-times/
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,929
    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.
  • Bob__SykesBob__Sykes Posts: 1,179
    JackW said:

    Eve of poll SUPER ARSE with added SUPER APLOMB 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen Projection Countdown:

    150 minutes

    Oh dear, JackW - please spare us.

    You can see the fatalistic mood on here, even amongst Labour supporters (terrified that EICIPM is about to become reality!).
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Pulpstar said:

    Artist said:

    Final YouGov Nowcast
    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/

    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.)
  • TW1R64TW1R64 Posts: 56
    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
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    edited May 2015
    HYUFD said:
    Tories getting those last minute mega star endorsements ;-)
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,329
    OllyT said:

    chestnut said:

    So much euphoria at polls that show Labour narrowly behind or tied :smiley:

    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.
    Not sure that is true anymore.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,983
    Pulp

    "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
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    This poll on DayLate Record's site is probably not going the way the management wants.

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/jockalypse-coming-heres-top-12-5647647

    Currently 81% SNP.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    Another staple missing from this rather boring election campaign..Michael Crick getting a big scoop and /or making a politician look a total tool.
  • Thoughts on Labour apparant gloom.

    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!
    Danny565 said:

    Thoughts on Labour apparant gloom.

    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.

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited May 2015
    Watford Update :

    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.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341

    Still think Tories will be 3-4% ahead in the popular vote.

    Same here, but the ICM poll is undeniably the best poll Labour have had in weeks.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Has someone hacked Mystic Dans account?

    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.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited May 2015

    YouGov Nowcast makes it a dead-head on 276 Con and Lab.Worth a covering bet for all those committed to most seats market.Shadsy was offering 33-1,WH 25-1.
    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/06/its-neck-and-neck-and-times/

    Somebody, presumably a statistician, wants to wager £5000 @ 49/1 on a seat tie.

    http://sports.betfair.com/Index.do?mi=118634367&ex=1&origin=MRL
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,992
    Evening all ;)

    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.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,049
    tlg86 said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Omnium said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    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.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786

    Thoughts on Labour apparant gloom.

    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!
    Danny565 said:

    Thoughts on Labour apparant gloom.

    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
This discussion has been closed.