I figure 2020 will be all about the LDs trying to hold onto their current seats and building up UKIP style second places in clusters around them if possible, and not even bothering to stand in most other places, with a view to attempting to actually win more seats in 2025.
If they'd had 25 ish seats I could conceive of a much swifter recovery, but such a terrible collapse means they aren't seen as viable options even among those politically open to considering them, so that's out.
I hope the Tories have the sense to bring Sajid Javid to do Danny Alexander's old job, rather than having him pissing about with plays and paintings which by his own admission he doesn't really care for.
Good call. And Gove back where he belongs at Education too, please Dave.
Gove is toxic with teachers. It depends if Cameron has the balls to say sod it, get back on it.
Today is peak Tory hubris, which is fine. But they are on thirty six point something per cent of the vote. Lose four points and they are less popular than Michael Howard. So perhaps not alienating influential professional blocs is a good idea.
Any govt worth its salt should be spending much of its time challenging restrictive practice wherever it lies. Oh and btw the only evidence for the toxicity was anecdote and a YG poll. Hello! Where have you been for the last 24 hours?
Banks? Landlords? Planning and house-building, the green belt? Immigration? I think the Tories would be happy with a lot of restrictive practices.
What kind of evidence are we looking for in politics then, a randomised controlled trial?
you're the one who reckoned Gove was toxic with teachers - with no effort to back it up but a dodgy YG. Every SoS sice the beginning of time has been boooed and jeered by teacher's conferences. Totally meaningless. With respect to your other random points we need a Malc G response - I'm just too soft to rub salt into the wound.
PB Tories hold the belief that there is no evidence that Gove had a bad reputation on education policy. I wonder why do they think Gove was sacked?
Ah the old PB Tories never learn meme.. I'm sending you kind thoughts
Paddy Ashdown is really unhappy! Doing himself no credit.
Why should we listen to the tirades of a deranged old man who ruined everything because of his thirst for power and now blames others. It was he the one who installed Clegg, it was he the one who pushed for a coalition with the Tories, it was he the man who protected Clegg and the coalition from the LD party members.
Paddy Ashdown shares the blame equally with Clegg for destroying the Liberals for ever.
Hilarious. The BBC post-election QT descends into farce with a girl with a nose ring shouting about Thatcher.
Actually that rather sums up why Labour can never move forward. if it isn't thatcher its Coulson or any other Bette noire you choose to mention. .. and its why tim, despite his betting nous became irrelevant.. he was too busy with his pet hatreds as he is now....
Hilarious. The BBC post-election QT descends into farce with a girl with a nose ring shouting about Thatcher.
Maybe we'll get lucky and Cameron will become a historic hate figure for the far left, if it will at least stop people banging on about Thatcher all the time in the coming decades.
I run an Australian polling and elections blog rather a lot like this one. In this country, our three best performing pollsters are called Newspoll, ReachTEL and Galaxy. Looking at the most recent elections nationally and for the three biggest states, we have had:
- A New South Wales state election in March which was polled by all three pollsters in the final days of the campaign, in which Galaxy and ReachTEL were within 1% for Labor, the conservative coalition and the Greens, with the worst error being a 1.6% understatement of the Coalition vote in Newspoll;
- A Queensland state election in January where none of the three pollsters was more than 0.5% out for the two major parties, and Galaxy and ReachTEL were again within 1% for Labor, the Coalition and the Greens;
- A Victorian state election last November where the worst error for the three parties from any of the three pollsters was 2.3%;
- A national election in September 2013, at which a) the pollsters' worst error for the three parties was 2.1%, which is inclusive of three separate ReachTEL polls conducted in the final week; and b) both Newspoll and another pollster, Nielsen, were no more than 1.1% out for Labor, the Coalition and the Greens.
I'm pretty sure there has *never* been an election here where the pollsters have been as embarrassed as they were in Britain yesterday and in 1992, and even errors like the one with the Liberal Democrats in 2010 are rare.
Nonetheless, all of the complaints that are listed in the last paragraph of Nick Sparrow's piece are regularly trotted out here as well. We keep waiting for growing non-response rates and heavy reliance on landline phones to lead to disaster, and it keeps not happening (I'd observe that these are all phone pollsters I'm discussing - our online pollsters probably aren't doing as well).
It seems to me that the difference is compulsory voting. At least three-quarters of the adult population casts a valid vote in Australia, and the other quarter are presumably among the non-respondents. So there's nothing in questionnaires about likelihood of voting, and no need to second guess the accuracy of their responses. And because there has never been a past disaster like 1992, pollsters have pretty much just stuck to demographic weighting, without ever having to devise ad hoc solutions like weighting by past vote as problems have emerged.
So while I don't necessarily think British pollsters have much to learn from Australian ones, who are simply lucky to be working in an easier environment, Australian experience may well help in diagnosing the problems in British polling, which might not always be the ones commonly supposed.
Thanks: that is a riveting point about compulsory voting (and a subsidiary argument for having it here, that it would improve the polling).
I hope the Tories have the sense to bring Sajid Javid to do Danny Alexander's old job, rather than having him pissing about with plays and paintings which by his own admission he doesn't really care for.
Good call. And Gove back where he belongs at Education too, please Dave.
Gove is toxic with teachers. It depends if Cameron has the balls to say sod it, get back on it.
Today is peak Tory hubris, which is fine. But they are on thirty six point something per cent of the vote. Lose four points and they are less popular than Michael Howard. So perhaps not alienating influential professional blocs is a good idea.
Any govt worth its salt should be spending much of its time challenging restrictive practice wherever it lies. Oh and btw the only evidence for the toxicity was anecdote and a YG poll. Hello! Where have you been for the last 24 hours?
Banks? Landlords? Planning and house-building, the green belt? Immigration? I think the Tories would be happy with a lot of restrictive practices.
What kind of evidence are we looking for in politics then, a randomised controlled trial?
you're the one who reckoned Gove was toxic with teachers - with no effort to back it up but a dodgy YG. Every SoS sice the beginning of time has been boooed and jeered by teacher's conferences. Totally meaningless. With respect to your other random points we need a Malc G response - I'm just too soft to rub salt into the wound.
PB Tories hold the belief that there is no evidence that Gove had a bad reputation on education policy. I wonder why do they think Gove was sacked?
Ah the old PB Tories never learn meme.. I'm sending you kind thoughts
As I said, today is allowable Tory peak hubris so all attempts at prestidigitation are forgiven. I simply wanted to know why the great winner of The Majority, David Cameron, considered it wise to sack Gove.
I hope the Tories have the sense to bring Sajid Javid to do Danny Alexander's old job, rather than having him pissing about with plays and paintings which by his own admission he doesn't really care for.
Good call. And Gove back where he belongs at Education too, please Dave.
Gove is toxic with teachers. It depends if Cameron has the balls to say sod it, get back on it.
Today is peak Tory hubris, which is fine. But they are on thirty six point something per cent of the vote. Lose four points and they are less popular than Michael Howard. So perhaps not alienating influential professional blocs is a good idea.
Any govt worth its salt should be spending much of its time challenging restrictive practice wherever it lies. Oh and btw the only evidence for the toxicity was anecdote and a YG poll. Hello! Where have you been for the last 24 hours?
Banks? Landlords? Planning and house-building, the green belt? Immigration? I think the Tories would be happy with a lot of restrictive practices.
What kind of evidence are we looking for in politics then, a randomised controlled trial?
you're the one who reckoned Gove was toxic with teachers - with no effort to back it up but a dodgy YG. Every SoS sice the beginning of time has been boooed and jeered by teacher's conferences. Totally meaningless. With respect to your other random points we need a Malc G response - I'm just too soft to rub salt into the wound.
PB Tories hold the belief that there is no evidence that Gove had a bad reputation on education policy. I wonder why do they think Gove was sacked?
Ah the old PB Tories never learn meme.. I'm sending you kind thoughts
As I said, today is allowable Tory peak hubris so all attempts at prestidigitation are forgiven. I simply wanted to know why the great winner of The Majority, David Cameron, considered it wise to sack Gove.
Francis Maude is really nailing this QT - amazing what the confidence of a majority can do for a Tory trying to put over what might usually be perceived as 'unpopular' opinions.
.. and it seems Socrates and Tim are at it on his twitter feed.. was it ever thus.. stuck in the past.
Tim has lost it. He left here at peak tim, because he'd be a bit embarrassed explaining Camo's current position given the women problem and Coulson and Elveden and Osborne's uselessness.
Now that the Lib Dems are down to 8 MPs and 1 MEP, will the media now relegate them to a level of coverage equivalent to the DUP when we have national UK matters? Paddy Ashdown's Clegg and the 7 dwarves no longer justifies a regular slot on Question Time.
Now that the Lib Dems are down to 8 MPs and 1 MEP, will the media now relegate them to a level of coverage equivalent to the DUP when we have national UK matters? Paddy Ashdown's Clegg and the 7 dwarves no longer justifies a regular slot on Question Time.
Will they struggle financially as its not like they have many wealthy donors.
I've just been for drinks round Pimlico/Victoria, London - office workers, commuters, the odd local - and anecdotally (which let's face it is as good or better than a poll) I'd say there's general sense of releif and well-being out there. A lot of navy blue was put on this morning. I think London will boom now.
I hope the Tories have the sense to bring Sajid Javid to do Danny Alexander's old job, rather than having him pissing about with plays and paintings which by his own admission he doesn't really care for.
Good call. And Gove back where he belongs at Education too, please Dave.
Gove is toxic with teachers. It depends if Cameron has the balls to say sod it, get back on it.
Today is peak Tory hubris, which is fine. But they are on thirty six point something per cent of the vote. Lose four points and they are less popular than Michael Howard. So perhaps not alienating influential professional blocs is a good idea.
Any govt worth its salt should be spending much of its time challenging restrictive practice wherever it lies. Oh and btw the only evidence for the toxicity was anecdote and a YG poll. Hello! Where have you been for the last 24 hours?
Banks? Landlords? Planning and house-building, the green belt? Immigration? I think the Tories would be happy with a lot of restrictive practices.
What kind of evidence are we looking for in politics then, a randomised controlled trial?
you're the one who reckoned Gove was toxic with teachers - with no effort to back it up but a dodgy YG. Every SoS sice the beginning of time has been boooed and jeered by teacher's conferences. Totally meaningless. With respect to your other random points we need a Malc G response - I'm just too soft to rub salt into the wound.
PB Tories hold the belief that there is no evidence that Gove had a bad reputation on education policy. I wonder why do they think Gove was sacked?
Ah the old PB Tories never learn meme.. I'm sending you kind thoughts
As I said, today is allowable Tory peak hubris so all attempts at prestidigitation are forgiven. I simply wanted to know why the great winner of The Majority, David Cameron, considered it wise to sack Gove.
Now that the Lib Dems are down to 8 MPs and 1 MEP, will the media now relegate them to a level of coverage equivalent to the DUP when we have national UK matters? Paddy Ashdown's Clegg and the 7 dwarves no longer justifies a regular slot on Question Time.
The obvious weekly rotation is LD-SNP-Ukip. I'd love to see the SNP on every week just to immanentise the inevitable, but realistically it's going to be difficult to get them down to the various English cities every week.
Now that the Lib Dems are down to 8 MPs and 1 MEP, will the media now relegate them to a level of coverage equivalent to the DUP when we have national UK matters? Paddy Ashdown's Clegg and the 7 dwarves no longer justifies a regular slot on Question Time.
It would seem unreasonable to do so, certainly. They've lost major party status and as UKIP showed, it's not easy to earn it back.
I hope the Tories have the sense to bring Sajid Javid to do Danny Alexander's old job, rather than having him pissing about with plays and paintings which by his own admission he doesn't really care for.
Good call. And Gove back where he belongs at Education too, please Dave.
Gove is toxic with teachers. It depends if Cameron has the balls to say sod it, get back on it.
Departments should be run for the benefit of those served by them, not those who work in them. Same applies to health, let's have GPs surgeries and expensive scanners open 18 hours a day.
Staffed by GPs? or who then? We can open the buildings - sure - lots of space in the waiting room, just no doctors.
I hope the Tories have the sense to bring Sajid Javid to do Danny Alexander's old job, rather than having him pissing about with plays and paintings which by his own admission he doesn't really care for.
Good call. And Gove back where he belongs at Education too, please Dave.
Gove is toxic with teachers. It depends if Cameron has the balls to say sod it, get back on it.
Today is peak Tory hubris, which is fine. But they are on thirty six point something per cent of the vote. Lose four points and they are less popular than Michael Howard. So perhaps not alienating influential professional blocs is a good idea.
Any govt worth its salt should be spending much of its time challenging restrictive practice wherever it lies. Oh and btw the only evidence for the toxicity was anecdote and a YG poll. Hello! Where have you been for the last 24 hours?
Banks? Landlords? Planning and house-building, the green belt? Immigration? I think the Tories would be happy with a lot of restrictive practices.
What kind of evidence are we looking for in politics then, a randomised controlled trial?
you're the one who reckoned Gove was toxic with teachers - with no effort to back it up but a dodgy YG. Every SoS sice the beginning of time has been boooed and jeered by teacher's conferences. Totally meaningless. With respect to your other random points we need a Malc G response - I'm just too soft to rub salt into the wound.
PB Tories hold the belief that there is no evidence that Gove had a bad reputation on education policy. I wonder why do they think Gove was sacked?
Ah the old PB Tories never learn meme.. I'm sending you kind thoughts
I simply wanted to know why the great winner of The Majority, David Cameron, considered it wise to sack Gove.
Bad Al is complaining about Cameron using "tactics"..f##k me, stones glass houses...He is being incredibly rude even by his standards. Let the friggin SNP guy talk without chuntering constantly.
I've just been for drinks round Pimlico/Victoria, London - office workers, commuters, the odd local - and anecdotally (which let's face it is as good or better than a poll) I'd say there's general sense of releif and well-being out there. A lot of navy blue was put on this morning. I think London will boom now.
Totally agree. Real sense of relief from everyone, delivery drivers to officers workers.
I hope the Tories have the sense to bring Sajid Javid to do Danny Alexander's old job, rather than having him pissing about with plays and paintings which by his own admission he doesn't really care for.
Good call. And Gove back where he belongs at Education too, please Dave.
Gove is toxic with teachers. It depends if Cameron has the balls to say sod it, get back on it.
Today is peak Tory hubris, which is fine. But they are on thirty six point something per cent of the vote. Lose four points and they are less popular than Michael Howard. So perhaps not alienating influential professional blocs is a good idea.
Any govt worth its salt should be spending much of its time challenging restrictive practice wherever it lies. Oh and btw the only evidence for the toxicity was anecdote and a YG poll. Hello! Where have you been for the last 24 hours?
Banks? Landlords? Planning and house-building, the green belt? Immigration? I think the Tories would be happy with a lot of restrictive practices.
What kind of evidence are we looking for in politics then, a randomised controlled trial?
you're the one who reckoned Gove was toxic with teachers - with no effort to back it up but a dodgy YG. Every SoS sice the beginning of time has been boooed and jeered by teacher's conferences. Totally meaningless. With respect to your other random points we need a Malc G response - I'm just too soft to rub salt into the wound.
PB Tories hold the belief that there is no evidence that Gove had a bad reputation on education policy. I wonder why do they think Gove was sacked?
Ah the old PB Tories never learn meme.. I'm sending you kind thoughts
I simply wanted to know why the great winner of The Majority, David Cameron, considered it wise to sack Gove.
I was a supporter of Gove but he was perceived negatively by much of the public as I learned through canvassing. Maybe sacking him improved the Tories' result?
I see Jo Brand is presenting HIGNFY this evening - I imagined when she agreed the date she had much higher hopes of events.
It is good to have another impartial Labour backing celeb hosting HIGNFY.
Sure, although it has seemed to me the writers of HIGNFY have seemed much more anti-Miliband than I suspect some of their left leaning hosts are, which surprised me
Oh look, young working class lesbian from the north moans about no one representing her and wants to be an MP.
Pensioners seriously dislike those kinds of people.
I don't see why any MP could not adequately represent her, does she think an MP has to fit her demographic to properly represent her or something? Seems a little selfish.
To paraphrase a movie (I get all my lessons from TV), one doesn't have to be a man/woman of the people, so long as you are a man/woman for the people.
Bad Al is complaining about Cameron using "tactics"..f##k me, stones glass houses...
Yesterdays man.. He used to control the media.. now he's got nothing to say about anything bar whine.. Expect months of this from the left.. They cannot get their heads around the fact that they were unelectable.
Keep banging on about voting reform loonies. Nobody cares.
It is fundamentally fair that those with the most votes wins the constituency. As the referendum showed by an overwhelming majority in a referendum only four years ago. Those in the echo chamber of banging on about this were sure AV would be accepted as a stepchange to PR but it was rejected overwhelmingly. No lessons are ever learnt it seems.
That yellow box budget could well have been the day the Lib Dems went from 15 ro 8.
Well polls said LD 8% for years before the LD mock budget.
Indeed - the amount of vote was about was expected (maybe a bit worse), it was the lack of any kind of incumbent bonus which destroyed them. Besides Clegg, Farron and Carmichael, the ones who survived seem to have been among the most invisible of LD MPs to the national consciousness, so at least not as much swing against.
It was Lynton's decision. And after what's happened I don't think anyone is in a position to lay a finger on him.
What a load of has-beens on QT. Politics will change now. It's so astonishing what's happened that I think people are still coming to terms with the shock.
Now that the Lib Dems are down to 8 MPs and 1 MEP, will the media now relegate them to a level of coverage equivalent to the DUP when we have national UK matters? Paddy Ashdown's Clegg and the 7 dwarves no longer justifies a regular slot on Question Time.
I am still waiting to see Paddy eat his hat on air. Or is this another of the LibDems' broken promises?
I hope the Tories have the sense to bring Sajid Javid to do Danny Alexander's old job, rather than having him pissing about with plays and paintings which by his own admission he doesn't really care for.
Good call. And Gove back where he belongs at Education too, please Dave.
Gove is toxic with teachers. It depends if Cameron has the balls to say sod it, get back on it.
Not all teachers. See LabourTeachers blog, for example. Yes, really.
Now that the Lib Dems are down to 8 MPs and 1 MEP, will the media now relegate them to a level of coverage equivalent to the DUP when we have national UK matters? Paddy Ashdown's Clegg and the 7 dwarves no longer justifies a regular slot on Question Time.
I am still waiting to see Paddy eat his hat on air. Or is this another of the LibDems' broken promises?
I don't think the LD are historically keen on keeping their promises.
Keep banging on about voting reform loonies. Nobody cares.
It is fundamentally fair that those with the most votes wins the constituency. As the referendum showed by an overwhelming majority in a referendum only four years ago. Those in the echo chamber of banging on about this were sure AV would be accepted as a stepchange to PR but it was rejected overwhelmingly. No lessons are ever learnt it seems.
I don't know, sorry. But I guess there aren't many other than those standing in the seats gained by Con or SNP from LD incumbents. Some in former LD seats like Richmond Park...but not all as I see LDs finished last in Weston super Mare....
Generally LibDems have been pushed back 2 generations (ok, I am exaggerating now) in their former target seats. In many seats they hoped to gain from Con in 2005 or from Lab in 2010 they have been pushed back to law 10s or worse.
Long term it was possibly better for the Labour guy standing in Hallam not to have won. If he had unseated Clegg, he would have likely lost his seat in 2020. Now he can try and find a better seat for Labour for 2020 with the "I run Clegg close in Hallam" on his CV.
Out of interest, do you know how many Labour candidates failed to beat their Lib Dem opponent? Can't be that big a club.
You're probably not exaggerating with the "two generations" comment.
- 8 seats is the Liberals' / SDP-Lib alliance's / Lib Dems' worst total since 1970. - 8% is their worst share since 1964 - 8% per seat contested is their worst ever.
And the road back is now blocked by UKIP, the Greens and the SNP.
I can't see how they will ever recover. The best bets for their remaining MP's is to join the Labour party in some kind of Alliance, Labour will need them too in their transition to an English only party.
They would do better to merge with the greens, IMO.
Keep banging on about voting reform loonies. Nobody cares.
It is fundamentally fair that those with the most votes wins the constituency. As the referendum showed by an overwhelming majority in a referendum only four years ago. Those in the echo chamber of banging on about this were sure AV would be accepted as a stepchange to PR but it was rejected overwhelmingly. No lessons are ever learnt it seems.
Keep banging on about voting reform loonies. Nobody cares.
It is fundamentally fair that those with the most votes wins the constituency. As the referendum showed by an overwhelming majority in a referendum only four years ago. Those in the echo chamber of banging on about this were sure AV would be accepted as a stepchange to PR but it was rejected overwhelmingly. No lessons are ever learnt it seems.
I don't know, sorry. But I guess there aren't many other than those standing in the seats gained by Con or SNP from LD incumbents. Some in former LD seats like Richmond Park...but not all as I see LDs finished last in Weston super Mare....
Generally LibDems have been pushed back 2 generations (ok, I am exaggerating now) in their former target seats. In many seats they hoped to gain from Con in 2005 or from Lab in 2010 they have been pushed back to law 10s or worse.
Long term it was possibly better for the Labour guy standing in Hallam not to have won. If he had unseated Clegg, he would have likely lost his seat in 2020. Now he can try and find a better seat for Labour for 2020 with the "I run Clegg close in Hallam" on his CV.
Out of interest, do you know how many Labour candidates failed to beat their Lib Dem opponent? Can't be that big a club.
You're probably not exaggerating with the "two generations" comment.
- 8 seats is the Liberals' / SDP-Lib alliance's / Lib Dems' worst total since 1970. - 8% is their worst share since 1964 - 8% per seat contested is their worst ever.
And the road back is now blocked by UKIP, the Greens and the SNP.
I can't see how they will ever recover. The best bets for their remaining MP's is to join the Labour party in some kind of Alliance, Labour will need them too in their transition to an English only party.
They would do better to merge with the greens, IMO.
I don't think the Greens will be very keen on that.
I keep reading about the stunning SNP victory... But is it? Five years of trooping down to London to maintain a semblance of interest in the occasional major vote whilst having no influence and, in the main, no interest.... Apart from grandstanding by Salmond, what will be the point?
I keep reading about the stunning SNP victory... But is it? Five years of trooping down to London to maintain a semblance of interest in the occasional major vote whilst having no influence and, in the main, no interest.... Apart from grandstanding by Salmond, what will be the point?
Tory government + Crippled Labour = Independence in Europe
I keep reading about the stunning SNP victory... But is it? Five years of trooping down to London to maintain a semblance of interest in the occasional major vote whilst having no influence and, in the main, no interest.... Apart from grandstanding by Salmond, what will be the point?
Liking this Romesh Ranganathan guy on HIGNFY - sometimes people are on there and barely seem to say anything, but he's definitely engaged. Hislop barely restraining himself.
How many of their 8 seats will the LDs hold in 5 years time after GE2020? Mark Williams, 48, Ceredigion, 8% majority. Tom Brake 52, Carshalton and Wallington 3% majority. Alistair Carmichael 49, Orkney and Shetland 3% majority. Nick Clegg Tim Farron 44, Westmorland and Lonsdale 18% majority. Norman Lamb 57, North Norfolk 8% majority. Greg Mulholland 44, Leeds North West 6% majority. John Pugh 66, Southport 11% majority. (ages today approx.)
I keep reading about the stunning SNP victory... But is it? Five years of trooping down to London to maintain a semblance of interest in the occasional major vote whilst having no influence and, in the main, no interest.... Apart from grandstanding by Salmond, what will be the point?
Winning 56 out of 59 seats you're standing in and coming within a few hundred votes of the remaining 3 is quite stunning.
Not their fault militwunk was too useless in England and Wales
I keep reading about the stunning SNP victory... But is it? Five years of trooping down to London to maintain a semblance of interest in the occasional major vote whilst having no influence and, in the main, no interest.... Apart from grandstanding by Salmond, what will be the point?
Cameron essentially cannot do anything to Scotland without dozens of SNP MPs with a great new mandate calling foul, so Scotland will in many respects be treated as though its already independent. If that is de facto the case, eventually it will become reality sooner or later.
It seems to me that the difference is compulsory voting. At least three-quarters of the adult population casts a valid vote in Australia, and the other quarter are presumably among the non-respondents. So there's nothing in questionnaires about likelihood of voting, and no need to second guess the accuracy of their responses. And because there has never been a past disaster like 1992, pollsters have pretty much just stuck to demographic weighting, without ever having to devise ad hoc solutions like weighting by past vote as problems have emerged.
Thanks: that is a riveting point about compulsory voting (and a subsidiary argument for having it here, that it would improve the polling).
To be provocative, you can make an argument that the polls were correctly representing the public and the actual election was in error, because of failures to register and vote. But the polls of non-voters that I've seen don't show them as hugely different to voters.
Perhaps we should pay more attention to the polling question "Will you definitely vote for that party or might you still change your mind?" If we accept that there was a last-day shift to a perceived "safety first", then that possibility would show up in the question. The snag is that the figures for that question didn't look very different for Labour or Tories.
To be fair, we should acknowledge that the polls weren't ridiculously wrong - we're talking about a last-minute swing of around 3%. It doesn't make the earlier polls invalid and it won't always happen, but we need to keep the possibility in mind when we move towards the next election.
It seems to me that the difference is compulsory voting. At least three-quarters of the adult population casts a valid vote in Australia, and the other quarter are presumably among the non-respondents. So there's nothing in questionnaires about likelihood of voting, and no need to second guess the accuracy of their responses. And because there has never been a past disaster like 1992, pollsters have pretty much just stuck to demographic weighting, without ever having to devise ad hoc solutions like weighting by past vote as problems have emerged.
Thanks: that is a riveting point about compulsory voting (and a subsidiary argument for having it here, that it would improve the polling).
To be provocative, you can make an argument that the polls were correctly representing the public and the actual election was in error, because of failures to register and vote. But the polls of non-voters that I've seen don't show them as hugely different to voters.
Perhaps we should pay more attention to the polling question "Will you definitely vote for that party or might you still change your mind?" If we accept that there was a last-day shift to a perceived "safety first", then that possibility would show up in the question. The snag is that the figures for that question didn't look very different for Labour or Tories.
To be fair, we should acknowledge that the polls weren't ridiculously wrong - we're talking about a last-minute swing of around 3%. It doesn't make the earlier polls invalid and it won't always happen, but we need to keep the possibility in mind when we move towards the next election.
It was revealed on New Channels this afternoon that Survation had Tories on 37% on Wednesday and they binned it...and also the phone pollsters showing the Tories 3% leads changed weighting to make them more in line with the likes of YouGov in the final few days of the campaign.
1. Great value for toss of a coin. 2. Pb hodges 3. Pb tories always wrong and never learn. 4. Basil 5. Squirrel 6. EICIPM 7. Tick 8. Tock 9. TPD 10. 108 Ukip MPs
Keep banging on about voting reform loonies. Nobody cares.
It is fundamentally fair that those with the most votes wins the constituency. As the referendum showed by an overwhelming majority in a referendum only four years ago. Those in the echo chamber of banging on about this were sure AV would be accepted as a stepchange to PR but it was rejected overwhelmingly. No lessons are ever learnt it seems.
We could have a system whereby the unionist losers are eliminated step-by-step and their votes reassigned to another candidate until someone gets 50%+1, As losing people would be changing their vote, we could call it Alternative Vote. Perhaps we should have a referendum?
It seems to me that the difference is compulsory voting. At least three-quarters of the adult population casts a valid vote in Australia, and the other quarter are presumably among the non-respondents. So there's nothing in questionnaires about likelihood of voting, and no need to second guess the accuracy of their responses. And because there has never been a past disaster like 1992, pollsters have pretty much just stuck to demographic weighting, without ever having to devise ad hoc solutions like weighting by past vote as problems have emerged.
Thanks: that is a riveting point about compulsory voting (and a subsidiary argument for having it here, that it would improve the polling).
To be provocative, you can make an argument that the polls were correctly representing the public and the actual election was in error, because of failures to register and vote. But the polls of non-voters that I've seen don't show them as hugely different to voters.
Perhaps we should pay more attention to the polling question "Will you definitely vote for that party or might you still change your mind?" If we accept that there was a last-day shift to a perceived "safety first", then that possibility would show up in the question. The snag is that the figures for that question didn't look very different for Labour or Tories.
To be fair, we should acknowledge that the polls weren't ridiculously wrong - we're talking about a last-minute swing of around 3%. It doesn't make the earlier polls invalid and it won't always happen, but we need to keep the possibility in mind when we move towards the next election.
A 3% last-minute swing can be the difference between a Labour or a Conservative majority government.
It seems to me that the difference is compulsory voting. At least three-quarters of the adult population casts a valid vote in Australia, and the other quarter are presumably among the non-respondents. So there's nothing in questionnaires about likelihood of voting, and no need to second guess the accuracy of their responses. And because there has never been a past disaster like 1992, pollsters have pretty much just stuck to demographic weighting, without ever having to devise ad hoc solutions like weighting by past vote as problems have emerged.
Thanks: that is a riveting point about compulsory voting (and a subsidiary argument for having it here, that it would improve the polling).
To be provocative, you can make an argument that the polls were correctly representing the public and the actual election was in error, because of failures to register and vote. But the polls of non-voters that I've seen don't show them as hugely different to voters.
Perhaps we should pay more attention to the polling question "Will you definitely vote for that party or might you still change your mind?" If we accept that there was a last-day shift to a perceived "safety first", then that possibility would show up in the question. The snag is that the figures for that question didn't look very different for Labour or Tories.
To be fair, we should acknowledge that the polls weren't ridiculously wrong - we're talking about a last-minute swing of around 3%. It doesn't make the earlier polls invalid and it won't always happen, but we need to keep the possibility in mind when we move towards the next election.
It wasnt a last minute swing, it was exactly as our canvassing over the last six months said it was.
It seems to me that the difference is compulsory voting. At least three-quarters of the adult population casts a valid vote in Australia, and the other quarter are presumably among the non-respondents. So there's nothing in questionnaires about likelihood of voting, and no need to second guess the accuracy of their responses. And because there has never been a past disaster like 1992, pollsters have pretty much just stuck to demographic weighting, without ever having to devise ad hoc solutions like weighting by past vote as problems have emerged.
Thanks: that is a riveting point about compulsory voting (and a subsidiary argument for having it here, that it would improve the polling).
To be provocative, you can make an argument that the polls were correctly representing the public and the actual election was in error, because of failures to register and vote. But the polls of non-voters that I've seen don't show them as hugely different to voters.
Perhaps we should pay more attention to the polling question "Will you definitely vote for that party or might you still change your mind?" If we accept that there was a last-day shift to a perceived "safety first", then that possibility would show up in the question. The snag is that the figures for that question didn't look very different for Labour or Tories.
To be fair, we should acknowledge that the polls weren't ridiculously wrong - we're talking about a last-minute swing of around 3%. It doesn't make the earlier polls invalid and it won't always happen, but we need to keep the possibility in mind when we move towards the next election.
Begging the question: the alternative view is that the "last-minute" swing was baked in since 2010. Although to be fair the argument is that people didn't know they couldn't bring themselves to vote for ed until they got to the polling booth, so what's the answer? (Ans: rely on leader ratings only).
1. Great value for toss of a coin. 2. Pb hodges 3. Pb tories always wrong and never learn. 4. Basil 5. Squirrel 6. EICIPM 7. Tick 8. Tock 9. TPD 10. 108 Ukip MPs
11 the tories cant win
12 The Tories were wrong to keep FPTP/will never win a majority under FPTP again. 13 23 years since a Tory win (despite winning in 2010)
Keep banging on about voting reform loonies. Nobody cares.
It is fundamentally fair that those with the most votes wins the constituency. As the referendum showed by an overwhelming majority in a referendum only four years ago. Those in the echo chamber of banging on about this were sure AV would be accepted as a stepchange to PR but it was rejected overwhelmingly. No lessons are ever learnt it seems.
We could have a system whereby the unionist losers are eliminated step-by-step and their votes reassigned to another candidate until someone gets 50%+1, As losing people would be changing their vote, we could call it Alternative Vote. Perhaps we should have a referendum?
Oh wait, we did. 67.9% said no. It's over.
I don't see why the public would be convinced of the benefits of moving to another system given the result of that referendum, particularly as FPTP has not delivered a chaotic result as predicted, but as has been pointed out a million times but which never stops being true, a vote on AV would not preclude someone suggesting a different system that people might like better than FPTP. I don't think they would, but people were asked to back the status quo or one particular alternative, that doesn't mean it no-one can propose another alternative.
Karin Smyth: NHS worker, office manager of former Bristol West 1997-05 MP Colleen Fletcher: long serving Coventry Cllr, former agent of retiring MP, already around 60 Mattehw Pennycook: former Greenwich Cllr and cabinet member (stood down last year), grown up on council estate from single mother blah blah story Tulip Siddiq: former Camden cllr and cabinet member (stood down last year), relative of bigwigs of Blangladesh politics Vicky Foxcroft: former Lewisham cllr (stood down last year), Unite officer Richard Burgon.....trade union lawyer (IIRC GMB), leftish Kate Hollern: Blackburn council leader until last month, around 60 year old Ruth Smeeth: Deputy director of Hope, Not Hate...stood in Burton in 2010 Marie Rimmer: former St Helens council leader, already over 65 Helen Hayes: former Southwark Cllr Jo Cox....chairman of Labour's Women Network, worked for MPs and Lady Kinnock Angela Rayner: trade union official, daughter of single mother, grown up on the estate, etch background Melanie Onn: trade union official, worked at Labour HQ Judith Cummins: Leeds Cllr Christina Rees: Bridgend Cllr, former wife of Ron Davies, former candidate in various Welsh elections, around 60 year old Peter Dowd...Bootle council leader Harry Harpham: Sheffield Deputy Council Leader, worked for Blunkett, NUM rep during the miner strike Sue Hayman: Copeland Cllr, failed candidate in marginal seats in 2001, 2005 and 2010 Keir Starmer: former Head of the Crown Prosecution Service Gerald Jones :Caerphilly Cllr Rachel Maskell: Unite Head of Health Conor McGinn: NEC member, work(ed) for Coaker Kate Osamor:NEC member, practicing GP, daughter of Haringey Cllr Osamor of 80's fame Nick Thomas-Symonds:Torfaen CLP Vice Chair, solicitor, biography writer Holly Lynch-Walker: works for Yorkshire MEP Naz Shah: Chair of a mental health charity Stephen Kinnock....you know him Carolyn Harris: office manager of retiring MP, in her mid 50 Rebecca Long Bayle:solicitor Daniel Zeichner: former Cllr, Unison Rep, late 50s Margaret Greenwood: former teacher, now web consultant Than gam Debbonaire: works at Women’s Aid’s setting up refuges for children Chris Matheson: Unite official Paula Sherriff: Wakefield Cllr Jess Philips: Birmingham Cllr Imran Hussain: Bradford Council Deputy Leader Jeff Smith: long serving Manchester Cllr Clive Lewis: former BBC News reporter Peter Kyle: CEO of Working For Youth charity Ruth Cadbury: Hounslow Cllr Neil Coyle: Southwark Cllr Catherine West: former Islington Council Leader Wes Streeting: Redbridge deputy council leader Anna Turley: former SpAd to Hilary Armstrong and Blunkett Jo Stevens: solicitor Rupa Huq: lecturer in sociology, former Ealing Cllr Julie Cooper: former leader of Burnley Council Cat Smith: worked for Katy Clark, Bob Marshall Andrews and Corbyn MPs Louise Haigh: from Sheffield, used to work at Aviva
Did Jo Brand say the Tories have been pretty much wiped out in Scotland as usual? A weird way of describing them retaining their single seat.
798 flippin' votes
The green polled 840.
...So they weren't pretty much wiped out then. They did exactly as poorly as they did last time, only proportionally it looks better in the face of the LDs and Lab doing much much worse.
How many of their 8 seats will the LDs hold in 5 years time after GE2020? Mark Williams, 48, Ceredigion, 8% majority. Tom Brake 52, Carshalton and Wallington 3% majority. Alistair Carmichael 49, Orkney and Shetland 3% majority. Nick Clegg Tim Farron 44, Westmorland and Lonsdale 18% majority. Norman Lamb 57, North Norfolk 8% majority. Greg Mulholland 44, Leeds North West 6% majority. John Pugh 66, Southport 11% majority. (ages today approx.)
Tim Farron looks the only safe bet, John Pugh perhaps if his health is fine.
AndreaParma, thanks. So just one worked in business as well as two solicitors. The rest either public sector, unions, councillors or MPs workers. No wonder Labour have a problem understanding business.
Keep banging on about voting reform loonies. Nobody cares.
It is fundamentally fair that those with the most votes wins the constituency. As the referendum showed by an overwhelming majority in a referendum only four years ago. Those in the echo chamber of banging on about this were sure AV would be accepted as a stepchange to PR but it was rejected overwhelmingly. No lessons are ever learnt it seems.
We could have a system whereby the unionist losers are eliminated step-by-step and their votes reassigned to another candidate until someone gets 50%+1, As losing people would be changing their vote, we could call it Alternative Vote. Perhaps we should have a referendum?
Oh wait, we did. 67.9% said no. It's over.
I don't see why the public would be convinced of the benefits of moving to another system given the result of that referendum, particularly as FPTP has not delivered a chaotic result as predicted, but as has been pointed out a million times but which never stops being true, a vote on AV would not preclude someone suggesting a different system that people might like better than FPTP. I don't think they would, but people were asked to back the status quo or one particular alternative, that doesn't mean it no-one can propose another alternative.
The arguments for and against PR were used in the referendum. It's a bit rich to say a stepping stone being overwhelmingly rejected in favour of the status quo means a more extreme change was wanted.
That's like saying a Tory win over Labour means that the public really wanted Communism.
It seems to me that the difference is compulsory voting. At least three-quarters of the adult population casts a valid vote in Australia, and the other quarter are presumably among the non-respondents. So there's nothing in questionnaires about likelihood of voting, and no need to second guess the accuracy of their responses. And because there has never been a past disaster like 1992, pollsters have pretty much just stuck to demographic weighting, without ever having to devise ad hoc solutions like weighting by past vote as problems have emerged.
Thanks: that is a riveting point about compulsory voting (and a subsidiary argument for having it here, that it would improve the polling).
To be provocative, you can make an argument that the polls were correctly representing the public and the actual election was in error, because of failures to register and vote. But the polls of non-voters that I've seen don't show them as hugely different to voters.
Perhaps we should pay more attention to the polling question "Will you definitely vote for that party or might you still change your mind?" If we accept that there was a last-day shift to a perceived "safety first", then that possibility would show up in the question. The snag is that the figures for that question didn't look very different for Labour or Tories.
To be fair, we should acknowledge that the polls weren't ridiculously wrong - we're talking about a last-minute swing of around 3%. It doesn't make the earlier polls invalid and it won't always happen, but we need to keep the possibility in mind when we move towards the next election.
I am sorry for you that you didn't make it Nick, you worked very hard for it.
I might perhaps suggest a few less hubristic comments next time like "tick tock"?
One can never take the electorate, nor the result, for granted.
How many of their 8 seats will the LDs hold in 5 years time after GE2020? Mark Williams, 48, Ceredigion, 8% majority. Tom Brake 52, Carshalton and Wallington 3% majority. Alistair Carmichael 49, Orkney and Shetland 3% majority. Nick Clegg Tim Farron 44, Westmorland and Lonsdale 18% majority. Norman Lamb 57, North Norfolk 8% majority. Greg Mulholland 44, Leeds North West 6% majority. John Pugh 66, Southport 11% majority. (ages today approx.)
Tim Farron looks the only safe bet, John Pugh perhaps if his health is fine.
It does look like a further cut next time around, particularly if there are a number of retirements. Lib Dems now have NO female MPs. Something that someone I know speculated about on here last year. Innocent face. No female MPs i a unique achievement.
Did Jo Brand say the Tories have been pretty much wiped out in Scotland as usual? A weird way of describing them retaining their single seat.
798 flippin' votes
The green polled 840.
...So they weren't pretty much wiped out then. They did exactly as poorly as they did last time, only proportionally it looks better in the face of the LDs and Lab doing much much worse.
He added 1.8% to his vote, 938 people. If they had just stayed home I would have been quids in.
It seems to me that the difference is compulsory voting. At least three-quarters of the adult population casts a valid vote in Australia, and the other quarter are presumably among the non-respondents. So there's nothing in questionnaires about likelihood of voting, and no need to second guess the accuracy of their responses. And because there has never been a past disaster like 1992, pollsters have pretty much just stuck to demographic weighting, without ever having to devise ad hoc solutions like weighting by past vote as problems have emerged.
Thanks: that is a riveting point about compulsory voting (and a subsidiary argument for having it here, that it would improve the polling).
To be provocative, you can make an argument that the polls were correctly representing the public and the actual election was in error, because of failures to register and vote. But the polls of non-voters that I've seen don't show them as hugely different to voters.
Perhaps we should pay more attention to the polling question "Will you definitely vote for that party or might you still change your mind?" If we accept that there was a last-day shift to a perceived "safety first", then that possibility would show up in the question. The snag is that the figures for that question didn't look very different for Labour or Tories.
To be fair, we should acknowledge that the polls weren't ridiculously wrong - we're talking about a last-minute swing of around 3%. It doesn't make the earlier polls invalid and it won't always happen, but we need to keep the possibility in mind when we move towards the next election.
It wasnt a last minute swing, it was exactly as our canvassing over the last six months said it was.
Whereas presumably Labour canvassing suffered from exactly the same defects as the polling - shy Tories. If you make out that anyone who disagrees with you about the bedroom tax or zero-hours contracts is immoral don't be surprised when they suppress their voting intention.
Very important point - Polly absolutely concedes that Lab blindly bought the polling in the face of all other evidence:
'“Maxing out the credit card”, refusing to give the keys back to “those who crashed the economy” – those clever Tory lies resonated strongly. Nor did Miliband connect on the doorstep. But how can you set your anecdotes against the thundering unanimity of the polls? World-class pollsters such as Nate Silver swore the polls were rock-solid within a small margin of error. That drumbeat was so loud that we set aside any unease. Next time, we won’t.' [i.e. next time we will sack a crap leader as soon as we realise he is crap]
So really and literally it was YouGov wot won it by keeping ed in place.
So polling matters as much as it is possible to matter.
Keep banging on about voting reform loonies. Nobody cares.
It is fundamentally fair that those with the most votes wins the constituency. As the referendum showed by an overwhelming majority in a referendum only four years ago. Those in the echo chamber of banging on about this were sure AV would be accepted as a stepchange to PR but it was rejected overwhelmingly. No lessons are ever learnt it seems.
We could have a system whereby the unionist losers are eliminated step-by-step and their votes reassigned to another candidate until someone gets 50%+1, As losing people would be changing their vote, we could call it Alternative Vote. Perhaps we should have a referendum?
Oh wait, we did. 67.9% said no. It's over.
I don't see why the public would be convinced of the benefits of moving to another system given the result of that referendum, particularly as FPTP has not delivered a chaotic result as predicted, but as has been pointed out a million times but which never stops being true, a vote on AV would not preclude someone suggesting a different system that people might like better than FPTP. I don't think they would, but people were asked to back the status quo or one particular alternative, that doesn't mean it no-one can propose another alternative.
The arguments for and against PR were used in the referendum. It's a bit rich to say a stepping stone being overwhelmingly rejected in favour of the status quo means a more extreme change was wanted.
That's like saying a Tory win over Labour means that the public really wanted Communism.
No it isn't. PR was not one of the options in the referendum - I agree with you that people would probably not go for it if asked, but the arguments would be much more focused on whatever alternative was put up, rather than people alsomaking those points during a referendum on a different system altogether.
We weren't asked about or to decide upon PR, even though discussion of it also cropped up. Someone could therefore ask us about it if they wanted. That seems perfectly reasonable, if a probable waste of time and money.
Isn't the worse thing out all of this the admission that Survation binned a survey that put them at odds with the rest of the industry (and would have been relatively accurate?) It is proof of what has hitherto been dismissed as a conspiracy theory that the polling companies cluster around each other in terms of the results they publish, and are prepared to filter with what they release to cluster better around a single result. Presumably this is caused by reputational risk-aversion.
We know this because Damian Lowes Lyon has admitted in public he held back one survey. But how do we know this practice is not more widespread, or that data is filtered to avoid outliers?
If this is reality, how much credibility can we ever attach to consistent polling trends in future?
Comments
If they'd had 25 ish seats I could conceive of a much swifter recovery, but such a terrible collapse means they aren't seen as viable options even among those politically open to considering them, so that's out.
It was he the one who installed Clegg, it was he the one who pushed for a coalition with the Tories, it was he the man who protected Clegg and the coalition from the LD party members.
Paddy Ashdown shares the blame equally with Clegg for destroying the Liberals for ever.
Paddy must be bitter.
Political expediency to win a majority?
Pensioners seriously dislike those kinds of people.
To paraphrase a movie (I get all my lessons from TV), one doesn't have to be a man/woman of the people, so long as you are a man/woman for the people.
"Our promises were being taken to the polling booths by Labour, only to vote Tory,” party HQ insider tells @patrickwintour. That hurts.
It is fundamentally fair that those with the most votes wins the constituency. As the referendum showed by an overwhelming majority in a referendum only four years ago. Those in the echo chamber of banging on about this were sure AV would be accepted as a stepchange to PR but it was rejected overwhelmingly. No lessons are ever learnt it seems.
What a load of has-beens on QT. Politics will change now. It's so astonishing what's happened that I think people are still coming to terms with the shock.
I am still waiting to see Paddy eat his hat on air. Or is this another of the LibDems' broken promises?
"But what I would hope for is that, should Labour gain power in May, they don’t undo some of the good work of Gove purely because they were Tory policies. They might do well to know that some of us, whilst Labour supporters, are also fairly conservative about what we know best." http://www.labourteachers.org.uk/what-i-want-from-labour-education-policy-a-little-bit-of-gove-jamestheo/
Anyway, it would be worth getting him back just to enjoy all the hysterical whining from the "progressives".
Democratic Unionist 22%
Alliance (pro-union) 17%
Ulster Unionist 9%
Ukip (unionist) 5%
Conservative (unionist) 2%
Winner: SDLP
Erm...
[Sorry, just had to c&p that from BBC front page. Still can't really believe it].
+ Crippled Labour
= Independence in Europe
Let's see the SNP get out of that one.
Mark Williams, 48, Ceredigion, 8% majority.
Tom Brake 52, Carshalton and Wallington 3% majority.
Alistair Carmichael 49, Orkney and Shetland 3% majority.
Nick Clegg
Tim Farron 44, Westmorland and Lonsdale 18% majority.
Norman Lamb 57, North Norfolk 8% majority.
Greg Mulholland 44, Leeds North West 6% majority.
John Pugh 66, Southport 11% majority.
(ages today approx.)
Not their fault militwunk was too useless in England and Wales
Perhaps we should pay more attention to the polling question "Will you definitely vote for that party or might you still change your mind?" If we accept that there was a last-day shift to a perceived "safety first", then that possibility would show up in the question. The snag is that the figures for that question didn't look very different for Labour or Tories.
To be fair, we should acknowledge that the polls weren't ridiculously wrong - we're talking about a last-minute swing of around 3%. It doesn't make the earlier polls invalid and it won't always happen, but we need to keep the possibility in mind when we move towards the next election.
We could have a system whereby the unionist losers are eliminated step-by-step and their votes reassigned to another candidate until someone gets 50%+1, As losing people would be changing their vote, we could call it Alternative Vote. Perhaps we should have a referendum?
Oh wait, we did. 67.9% said no. It's over.
A 3% last-minute swing can be the difference between a Labour or a Conservative majority government.
Sorry about your result btw.
The green polled 840.
13 23 years since a Tory win (despite winning in 2010)
Karin Smyth: NHS worker, office manager of former Bristol West 1997-05 MP
Colleen Fletcher: long serving Coventry Cllr, former agent of retiring MP, already around 60
Mattehw Pennycook: former Greenwich Cllr and cabinet member (stood down last year), grown up on council estate from single mother blah blah story
Tulip Siddiq: former Camden cllr and cabinet member (stood down last year), relative of bigwigs of Blangladesh politics
Vicky Foxcroft: former Lewisham cllr (stood down last year), Unite officer
Richard Burgon.....trade union lawyer (IIRC GMB), leftish
Kate Hollern: Blackburn council leader until last month, around 60 year old
Ruth Smeeth: Deputy director of Hope, Not Hate...stood in Burton in 2010
Marie Rimmer: former St Helens council leader, already over 65
Helen Hayes: former Southwark Cllr
Jo Cox....chairman of Labour's Women Network, worked for MPs and Lady Kinnock
Angela Rayner: trade union official, daughter of single mother, grown up on the estate, etch background
Melanie Onn: trade union official, worked at Labour HQ
Judith Cummins: Leeds Cllr
Christina Rees: Bridgend Cllr, former wife of Ron Davies, former candidate in various Welsh elections, around 60 year old
Peter Dowd...Bootle council leader
Harry Harpham: Sheffield Deputy Council Leader, worked for Blunkett, NUM rep during the miner strike
Sue Hayman: Copeland Cllr, failed candidate in marginal seats in 2001, 2005 and 2010
Keir Starmer: former Head of the Crown Prosecution Service
Gerald Jones :Caerphilly Cllr
Rachel Maskell: Unite Head of Health
Conor McGinn: NEC member, work(ed) for Coaker
Kate Osamor:NEC member, practicing GP, daughter of Haringey Cllr Osamor of 80's fame
Nick Thomas-Symonds:Torfaen CLP Vice Chair, solicitor, biography writer
Holly Lynch-Walker: works for Yorkshire MEP
Naz Shah: Chair of a mental health charity
Stephen Kinnock....you know him
Carolyn Harris: office manager of retiring MP, in her mid 50
Rebecca Long Bayle:solicitor
Daniel Zeichner: former Cllr, Unison Rep, late 50s
Margaret Greenwood: former teacher, now web consultant
Than gam Debbonaire: works at Women’s Aid’s setting up refuges for children
Chris Matheson: Unite official
Paula Sherriff: Wakefield Cllr
Jess Philips: Birmingham Cllr
Imran Hussain: Bradford Council Deputy Leader
Jeff Smith: long serving Manchester Cllr
Clive Lewis: former BBC News reporter
Peter Kyle: CEO of Working For Youth charity
Ruth Cadbury: Hounslow Cllr
Neil Coyle: Southwark Cllr
Catherine West: former Islington Council Leader
Wes Streeting: Redbridge deputy council leader
Anna Turley: former SpAd to Hilary Armstrong and Blunkett
Jo Stevens: solicitor
Rupa Huq: lecturer in sociology, former Ealing Cllr
Julie Cooper: former leader of Burnley Council
Cat Smith: worked for Katy Clark, Bob Marshall Andrews and Corbyn MPs
Louise Haigh: from Sheffield, used to work at Aviva
Retreads
Rob Marris
Joan Ryan
Dawn Butler
That's like saying a Tory win over Labour means that the public really wanted Communism.
I might perhaps suggest a few less hubristic comments next time like "tick tock"?
One can never take the electorate, nor the result, for granted.
Innocent face. No female MPs i a unique achievement.
Very important point - Polly absolutely concedes that Lab blindly bought the polling in the face of all other evidence:
'“Maxing out the credit card”, refusing to give the keys back to “those who crashed the economy” – those clever Tory lies resonated strongly. Nor did Miliband connect on the doorstep. But how can you set your anecdotes against the thundering unanimity of the polls? World-class pollsters such as Nate Silver swore the polls were rock-solid within a small margin of error. That drumbeat was so loud that we set aside any unease. Next time, we won’t.' [i.e. next time we will sack a crap leader as soon as we realise he is crap]
So really and literally it was YouGov wot won it by keeping ed in place.
So polling matters as much as it is possible to matter.
What did you think he was going to say "You're a douche, and I wish the other bloke had beaten you"
We weren't asked about or to decide upon PR, even though discussion of it also cropped up. Someone could therefore ask us about it if they wanted. That seems perfectly reasonable, if a probable waste of time and money.
We know this because Damian Lowes Lyon has admitted in public he held back one survey. But how do we know this practice is not more widespread, or that data is filtered to avoid outliers?
If this is reality, how much credibility can we ever attach to consistent polling trends in future?