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.
Bad luck for your wallet then, and very fortunate for him. Brand's still an idiot for that remark (or whoever wrote it for her is). Standing still is not being wiped out - the wipeout happened ages ago, now it's a failure to make gains, not a wipe out.
Yes, this semantic distinction has irritated me for some reason.
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.
It'd be reasonable if there was any evidence of a groundswell of support to show it was wanted and more popular than AV. Where is that evidence?
The party whose number one policy was voting reform has gone down to eight seats. Maybe we shouldn't be looking at their priority as what the public wants.
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.
The public have been agreeing with Jack W about Mr Miliband for years, and no one trusts Labour with their piggy bank.
The rest is largely irrelevant, and how many times does the NHS card need to be played without success for people to realise that it isn't a deal breaker?
There was no late swing. The public made it's mind up ages ago.
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.
And I guess he knows it, hence the bitterness and deflection. He's angry with himself
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.
And I guess he knows it, hence the bitterness and deflection. He's angry with himself
I was surprised with how far Paddy went in denigrating Cameron though I largely agreed with him. However I would have liked to ask Paddy whether he himself now felt like Dr Frankenstein after he created the monster.
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 argumed.
That's like saying a Tory win over Labour means that the public really wanted Communism.
No it isn't. PR money.
It'd be reasonable if there was any evidence of a groundswell of support to show it was wanted and more popular than AV. Where is that evidence?
The party whose number one policy was voting reform has gone down to eight seats. Maybe we shouldn't be looking at their priority as what the public wants.
I meant it would be reasonable to put any proposition before us, as we haven't had that proposition before - certainly if there if no party who won was advocating it, it would be peculiar to do so. The distinction I'd make is it is not unreasonable in principle to ask us even though we had the AV referendum, because if it is a different option then one cannot argue we have already made up our minds on the new question, but you are right if there is no mandate to make a change, it might not be reasonable to ask us in the first place.
Along with Paddy eating his hat and Bad Al eating his kilt, I also believe at midnight last night Lord A also said the exit poll was dead wrong....
Also seen Montie and Nelson amongst others out pontificating on what Cammo should do now - no doubt Portillo will too on TW (will Ed B or NP be the new lab voice on the sofa?) having been so wrong in the run up, why should he listen to such sage advice?
get hodges in! Even the much insulted Matt Parris did a lot better.
For me the WTF moment was Labour trying to argue that because the coalition would lose seats despite Labour having less seats they should get the opportunity to form a government.
I can actually see Cons securing 20% in Scotland next time, and 5+ seats
Well they are in second in a few, and SLAB and SLD are in disarray. Their vote seems stubbornly stuck at where it is, more or less, but there's potential there at least, even if there is no guarantee - hell, they could get 20% and secure 0 seats if they are unlucky.
Along with Paddy eating his hat and Bad Al eating his kilt, I also believe at midnight last night Lord A also said the exit poll was dead wrong....
Also seen Montie and Nelson amongst others out pontificating on what Cammo should do now - no doubt Portillo will too on TW (will Ed B or NP be the new lab voice on the sofa?) having been so wrong in the run up, why should he listen to such sage advice?
get hodges in! Even the much insulted Matt Parris did a lot better.
For me the WTF moment was Labour trying to argue that because the coalition would lose seats despite Labour having less seats they should get the opportunity to form a government.
Maybe they're Borgen fans? IIRC correctly that was the reasoning in the first episode as to why the Moderate leader was asked to try to form a government even though they weren't the largest party.
Anecdotal evidence on the late swing hypothesis. In the Kirklees local elections the Lib Dems were ahead in three target wards on the postal ballots. They came third in the final votes.
Mark Hopkins - LOL. Whether or not Obama wanted him back, since WW2 there hasn't been a more irrelevant British PM on the world stage. As a senior civil servant put it, Dave thinks the rest of the world is somewhere to go on holiday.
Mark Hopkins - LOL. Whether or not Obama wanted him back, since WW2 there hasn't been a more irrelevant British PM on the world stage. As a senior civil servant put it, Dave thinks the rest of the world is somewhere to go on holiday.
Would you rather a leader like Blair who rotated from one nation to another to send our troops to? I didn't think that was your belief.
I can actually see Cons securing 20% in Scotland next time, and 5+ seats
Jeez the first call for a Scottish Tory surge. At least wait until the Scottish elections are out the way.
If Cameron gives them FFA and they accept it in a referendum, followed by the SNP having to make massive cuts then lots of the vote could amass around the Tories. Or more likely, not.
Mark Hopkins - LOL. Whether or not Obama wanted him back, since WW2 there hasn't been a more irrelevant British PM on the world stage. As a senior civil servant put it, Dave thinks the rest of the world is somewhere to go on holiday.
Would you rather a leader like Blair who rotated from one nation to another to send our troops to? I didn't think that was your belief.
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.
What makes you think it was a last-minute swing? It's just as likely that the pollsters have massive problems detecting the real picture.
After your comments on the ground game, it seems you do too.
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.
Mark Hopkins - LOL. Whether or not Obama wanted him back, since WW2 there hasn't been a more irrelevant British PM on the world stage. As a senior civil servant put it, Dave thinks the rest of the world is somewhere to go on holiday.
Yes, that's right. Lazy Dave, so busy chillaxing, he's won a majority and seen off 3 other party leaders all in one day.
Labour's complacency is one the key reasons they lost this GE.
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.
Some cracking CIF articles on today - the fury is hilarious.
Well usual areas, Linconshire, Thames Estuary, Kent coast. But also South Yorkshire and the occasional inner city seat outside of London.
8 seats above 30%, with the proper candidate and smoothing the rough edges to reduce the anti-UKIP tactical vote and they might gain those in the future.
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.
Some cracking CIF articles on today - the fury is hilarious.
This gem made me chuckle:
Let Harriet Harman act as interim leader for six months to give the party time to recover and regroup
You've been telling us for at least two years it was a formality Red Liberals, every one had made up their minds,you never seemed to meet a Tory voter & Soubry was useless etc etc.
Or was it all going well until Roger & Tysos turned up to canvas for you this week ?
I can actually see Cons securing 20% in Scotland next time, and 5+ seats
Jeez the first call for a Scottish Tory surge. At least wait until the Scottish elections are out the way.
If Cameron gives them FFA and they accept it in a referendum, followed by the SNP having to make massive cuts then lots of the vote could amass around the Tories. Or more likely, not.
Sturgeon would be wise to ensure that FFA required a uk wide referendum.
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.
Actually the dewsbury one doesnt work for the NHS, she works for Virgin Care.
You've been telling us for at least two years it was a formality Red Liberals, every one had made up their minds,you never seemed to meet a Tory voter & Soubry was useless etc etc.
Or was it all going well until Roger & Tysos turned up to canvas for you this week ?
There are a few clues in this video. I know it's Scotland, but watch the voters say one thing to their MP, whilst planning on switching voting to another candidate.
"After nearly a decade in the Police Service, Paula joined the NHS, working in a front line role in Community Healthcare provision. In 2013, the service Paula works within was transferred to the private healthcare sector and her employment was consequently transferred, so she’s seen first-hand the effects of David Cameron’s top down NHS reorganisation."
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.
Actually the dewsbury one doesnt work for the NHS, she works for Virgin Care.
You don't want the polls to always right. From a betting point of view its a disaster if they are.
Due respect to Nick Palmer. Last night the guy gave us in one post the most honest and straightforward warning of exactly what was going to happen, without any filtered bull. For me it pretty much convinced me that the exit poll had veracity.
I managed to trade my way past some bad previous bets based on that one posted anecdote, which is exactly what someones presence on this site can do for people like me who are less interested the anorak minutiae of politics and more interested in the betting.
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.
What makes you think it was a last-minute swing? It's just as likely that the pollsters have massive problems detecting the real picture.
After your comments on the ground game, it seems you do too.
Have Nick Palmer and Marcus Wood ever been seen together in the same room?
I can actually see Cons securing 20% in Scotland next time, and 5+ seats
Jeez the first call for a Scottish Tory surge. At least wait until the Scottish elections are out the way.
If Cameron gives them FFA and they accept it in a referendum, followed by the SNP having to make massive cuts then lots of the vote could amass around the Tories. Or more likely, not.
Sturgeon would be wise to ensure that FFA required a uk wide referendum.
She would chicken out - she would be the queen of cuts.
I can actually see Cons securing 20% in Scotland next time, and 5+ seats
Jeez the first call for a Scottish Tory surge. At least wait until the Scottish elections are out the way.
If Cameron gives them FFA and they accept it in a referendum, followed by the SNP having to make massive cuts then lots of the vote could amass around the Tories. Or more likely, not.
Sturgeon would be wise to ensure that FFA required a uk wide 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.
What makes you think it was a last-minute swing? It's just as likely that the pollsters have massive problems detecting the real picture.
After your comments on the ground game, it seems you do too.
Have Nick Palmer and Marcus Wood ever been seen together in the same room?
Peter, I believe you owe me some money, would you like my bank details so you can forward it.
Ray of hope for the online polls, their election-week ELBOW scores for UKIP, LDs and Greens were closer to the actual result than the Phones.
Lab 33.7 Con 33.2 UKIP 13.5 LD 9.0 Green 4.8
But the Phone polls were closer (albeit not close enough!) with Lab and Con.
Con 33.9 Lab 33.5 UKIP 11.5 LD 9.2 Grn 5.2
If you reduce the turnout of those under 65 by about 20%, so that the predicted turnout is close to the actual turnout, then you will have the Tories a couple of points higher and Labour a couple of points lower without affecting the LD or the UKIP share.
It's a start to try and correct the polls. Also D/K should not be reallocated by past vote, it's what got ICM into trouble with the LD and UKIP until earlier this year.
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.
The Libs had no female MPs for 35 years, from 1951 to 1986...
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 should remember it in all political betting. I've said all along that punters were under-estimating the uncertainty (in both directions).
"After nearly a decade in the Police Service, Paula joined the NHS, working in a front line role in Community Healthcare provision. In 2013, the service Paula works within was transferred to the private healthcare sector and her employment was consequently transferred, so she’s seen first-hand the effects of David Cameron’s top down NHS reorganisation."
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.
Actually the dewsbury one doesnt work for the NHS, she works for Virgin Care.
She's a pilgrim, i doubt she got much involved in patient care.
"After nearly a decade in the Police Service, Paula joined the NHS, working in a front line role in Community Healthcare provision. In 2013, the service Paula works within was transferred to the private healthcare sector and her employment was consequently transferred, so she’s seen first-hand the effects of David Cameron’s top down NHS reorganisation."
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.
Actually the dewsbury one doesnt work for the NHS, she works for Virgin Care.
She's a pilgrim, i doubt she got much involved in patient care.
A frontline role in Community Healthcare provision? Makes it sound like the secret services, probably a receptionist.
Dismissed as ludicrous at the time (AudreyAnne I think):
I think we may see something like this. None of us know but my best guestimate at this stage is the following:
Conservative 310 to 340 Labour 240-ish SNP 40+ LibDem 12 Ukip 1 to 2. Reckless will lose, Carswell will win. It's just a question of whether Farage will. On balance 'yes' but he's made a lot of enemies so he may not. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"After nearly a decade in the Police Service, Paula joined the NHS, working in a front line role in Community Healthcare provision. In 2013, the service Paula works within was transferred to the private healthcare sector and her employment was consequently transferred, so she’s seen first-hand the effects of David Cameron’s top down NHS reorganisation."
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.
Actually the dewsbury one doesnt work for the NHS, she works for Virgin Care.
She's a pilgrim, i doubt she got much involved in patient care.
Bradshaw showing obvious distate and frustration vs neo commieIslington chap [corbyn?} earlier and now Livingston vs a sensible arcticulate MP {Woodcock?} with fundamentally conflicting, not just different, perspectives....
Dismissed as ludicrous at the time (AudreyAnne I think):
I think we may see something like this. None of us know but my best guestimate at this stage is the following:
Conservative 310 to 340 Labour 240-ish SNP 40+ LibDem 12 Ukip 1 to 2. Reckless will lose, Carswell will win. It's just a question of whether Farage will. On balance 'yes' but he's made a lot of enemies so he may not. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All of it bang on, SNP a bit low excepting.
Audreyanne is owed a massive apology by many of us on here.
Bradshaw showing obvious distate and frustration vs neo commieIslington chap [corbyn?} earlier and now Livingston vs a sensible arcticulate MP {Woodcock?} with fundamentally conflicting, not just different, perspectives....
the dinosaur left is in denial
...send for more ferrets and some sacks...
Red Ken just talking utter nonsense, he is a dinosaur stuck in the past, and of course he hand a writing the manifesto. Woodcock far more sensible stuff.
I disagree that the result being different from the polls was down to a late swing. There is a fundamental flaw in polling methodology which the British Polling Council must addressed. In my involvement in the campaign I found steady Conservative support reaching the levels of 2010 in contradiction of the polls. Conservatives were mush more determined to vote than other parties so differential turnout played its part. This is not a revival of the "shy Tories" as they never went away. Many Conservative supporters, in my experience, are reticent about openly displaying their party allegiance but they does not mean that such allegiance is less than firm.
Guardian have dug up a youtube video of Lynton Crosby giving his words of wisdom how to sock it to the other lot.
But either way, while many of the Conservatives’ opponents and many journalists and voters were assuming that the Tory campaign was drifting or stalling, Crosby’s well-funded infantry were quietly, busily seizing the marginals. Another of his favourite electioneering phrases is “below the radar”.
Guardian have dug up a youtube video of Lynton Crosby giving his words of wisdom how to sock it to the other lot.
But either way, while many of the Conservatives’ opponents and many journalists and voters were assuming that the Tory campaign was drifting or stalling, Crosby’s well-funded infantry were quietly, busily seizing the marginals. Another of his favourite electioneering phrases is “below the radar”.
Dismissed as ludicrous at the time (AudreyAnne I think):
I think we may see something like this. None of us know but my best guestimate at this stage is the following:
Conservative 310 to 340 Labour 240-ish SNP 40+ LibDem 12 Ukip 1 to 2. Reckless will lose, Carswell will win. It's just a question of whether Farage will. On balance 'yes' but he's made a lot of enemies so he may not. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All of it bang on, SNP a bit low excepting.
Audreyanne is owed a massive apology by many of us on here.
Guardian have dug up a youtube video of Lynton Crosby giving his words of wisdom how to sock it to the other lot.
But either way, while many of the Conservatives’ opponents and many journalists and voters were assuming that the Tory campaign was drifting or stalling, Crosby’s well-funded infantry were quietly, busily seizing the marginals. Another of his favourite electioneering phrases is “below the radar”.
“Ignore most of the opinion polls that you see in the newspapers, because they are so simplistic.”
Wise words.
I am watching the video and it is really quite interesting...Also, I can see why Tories hired him AND Messina...it seems like for a lot of Crosbys ideas to work, he needs Messina analysis.
Yes, me too. In fact it was lower still at one point yesterday. I seriously thought of taking it, but didn't.
Still, can't complain! I'm still counting the dosh.. 66/1 on Berwickshire etc was the highlight.
Well done on the 66/1.
My best bets of the election (outside of scotland) were on the 2nd place Spread markets. In amongst the dozens of great value losers were a couple of very big winners.
19/1 on labour coming 2nd in wyre forest was the highlight. Not sure if I tipped that on here or not.
Dismissed as ludicrous at the time (AudreyAnne I think):
I think we may see something like this. None of us know but my best guestimate at this stage is the following:
Conservative 310 to 340 Labour 240-ish SNP 40+ LibDem 12 Ukip 1 to 2. Reckless will lose, Carswell will win. It's just a question of whether Farage will. On balance 'yes' but he's made a lot of enemies so he may not. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All of it bang on, SNP a bit low excepting.
Audreyanne is owed a massive apology by many of us on here.
Its becoming clear what the Tories were up with all the Facebook months ago now. Crosby basically says that evidence shows you can't just convince somebody in a campaign. No matter how much better Ed might be doing to exception during the debates, unless you have already built some sort of rapport well in advance, you are asking too much.
Been catching up as have been moving today. One of the things that really strikes me is not just about the result today but how much harder the job has become for Lab in 2020.
If you have a super marginal seat like Bedford and stand still then at least you are well placed to try again in 2020. The problem for Lab is that many of the marginals have becomes less marginal. Super marginals like Broxtowe, N Warks and Amber Valley have now become semi-marginal. Middling targets like Kingswood, Gloucester and Stafford now look safeish. While at the bottom of the list seats like Leicester NW, Tamworth and S Derbyshire now look safe.
And of course the final phase of individual registration and the boundary review are likely to set the bar higher.
Been catching up as have been moving today. One of the things that really strikes me is not just about the result today but how much harder the job has become for Lab in 2020.
If you have a super marginal seat like Bedford and stand still then at least you are well placed to try again in 2020. The problem for Lab is that many of the marginals have becomes less marginal. Super marginals like Broxtowe, N Warks and Amber Valley have now become semi-marginal. Middling targets like Kingswood, Gloucester and Stafford now look safeish. While at the bottom of the list seats like Leicester NW, Tamworth and S Derbyshire now look safe.
And of course the final phase of individual registration and the boundary review are likely to set the bar higher.
The electoral system is probably slightly biased to the Tories now - or soon will be!
Its becoming clear what the Tories were up with all the Facebook months ago now. Crosby basically says that evidence shows you can't just convince somebody in a campaign. No matter how much better Ed might be doing to exception during the debates, unless you have already built some sort of rapport well in advance, you are asking too much.
How about using facebook likes to cross reference support in a particular area of a constituency, and targeting leaflets to those areas on the topics that got disproportionate likes?
The best option for Labour now is an Umunna-Jarvis dream ticket, Umunna can help with the ethnic vote, the youth vote and the middle class urban and suburban vote while Jarvis, an ex military northerner, helps stem the loss of working class votes to UKIP and the Tories.
Obama-Biden worked in the US. Chuka Umunna Leader, Dan Jarvis Deputy would be their best chance and a fresh ticket
If you like the Tories, hate the Tories, not to fussed either way, I highly recommend watching this Crosby video it is incredibly revealing about what is going on and also an insight into what we should and shouldn't (in his opinion) care about in the polls...The polling stuff is particularly interesting and a lot of it seems to ring true with this GE.
The best option for Labour now is an Umunna-Jarvis dream ticket, Umunna can help with the ethnic vote, the youth vote and the middle class urban and suburban vote while Jarvis, an ex military northerner, helps stem the loss of working class votes to UKIP and the Tories.
Obama-Biden worked in the US. Chuka Umunna Leader, Dan Jarvis Deputy would be their best chance and a fresh ticket
Jarvis maybe...I have not really seen enough of him. Umanna? Dream on. If you think EdM is a loser in small town England......?
Dismissed as ludicrous at the time (AudreyAnne I think):
I think we may see something like this. None of us know but my best guestimate at this stage is the following:
Conservative 310 to 340 Labour 240-ish SNP 40+ LibDem 12 Ukip 1 to 2. Reckless will lose, Carswell will win. It's just a question of whether Farage will. On balance 'yes' but he's made a lot of enemies so he may not. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All of it bang on, SNP a bit low excepting.
Audreyanne is owed a massive apology by many of us on here.
Been catching up as have been moving today. One of the things that really strikes me is not just about the result today but how much harder the job has become for Lab in 2020.
If you have a super marginal seat like Bedford and stand still then at least you are well placed to try again in 2020. The problem for Lab is that many of the marginals have becomes less marginal. Super marginals like Broxtowe, N Warks and Amber Valley have now become semi-marginal. Middling targets like Kingswood, Gloucester and Stafford now look safeish. While at the bottom of the list seats like Leicester NW, Tamworth and S Derbyshire now look safe.
And of course the final phase of individual registration and the boundary review are likely to set the bar higher.
The electoral system is probably slightly biased to the Tories now - or soon will be!
You mean post the implementation of the Boundary Commission proposals, said to be worth circa 8 seats to the Tories?
In any case Labour do not need small towns to win, they become largest party if they win the inner cities and add the suburbs
Just as well for them, I note with interest that the small town in the Midlands I grew up in has returned a Tory MP with a bigger majority in % terms than 1983 (was Labour held 97-2010). Boundary changes/Scotland goes and Labour will be facing a mountain to get back in.
In any case Labour do not need small towns to win, they become largest party if they win the inner cities and add the suburbs
Labour need Worcester, Gloucester, Nuneaton, Redditch etc etc....Umannua will have zero resonance there.Nil. Jarvis maybe. Others perhaps. A slick London metro lawyer, no chance.My view.
Been catching up as have been moving today. One of the things that really strikes me is not just about the result today but how much harder the job has become for Lab in 2020.
If you have a super marginal seat like Bedford and stand still then at least you are well placed to try again in 2020. The problem for Lab is that many of the marginals have becomes less marginal. Super marginals like Broxtowe, N Warks and Amber Valley have now become semi-marginal. Middling targets like Kingswood, Gloucester and Stafford now look safeish. While at the bottom of the list seats like Leicester NW, Tamworth and S Derbyshire now look safe.
And of course the final phase of individual registration and the boundary review are likely to set the bar higher.
The electoral system is probably slightly biased to the Tories now - or soon will be!
You mean post the implementation of the Boundary Commission proposals, said to be worth circa 8 seats to the Tories?
Maybe already, but yes, after the boundary review.
FB Indeed, and Worcester and Gloucester are cities and Redditch a suburb, only Nuneaton could be considered a small town. All 4 voted for a slick London lawyer named Anthony Lynton Blair, educated at Fettes and Oxford on 3 occasions, and Worcester and Redditch are relatively prosperous and want moderate, reasonable leaders, not UKIP style populism, I know Worcester reasonably well
Interesting insightful comment from the pub tonight. A guy said ‘ Ironical that on the very day we commemorate 70 years since VE Day that the British people reveals the extent of its inherent nastiness’. I tend to agree with that.
A majority of 12 is certainly far from by-election proof – as Major discovered post 1992 when he started off with a majority of 21. Many people will now look forward to news of Tory MPs ‘popping their clogs’ in the hope that his majority eventually disappears.
I see the public wake for the left continues on the BBC 24 hours on...
@iainmartin1: Some Lib Dems very dignified in defeat. Others being extremely sanctimonious and unwilling to accept blame. I'm thinking Paddy Ashdown.
Interesting panel discussion on how did Labour lose, part 27 Newsnight that reiterated the theory that Ed was crap, was always crap, would always lose and based on economic competence and leadership the polls were 6 points out...
Also, the demise of DUEMA
as late as last night, at one minute to ten, just before the exit poll came out showing Miliband had been trounced, disappointed Conservative friends were telling me that DUEMA had been right all along and that Ed Miliband had fought a much better campaign than David Cameron. Now the results are in, and the Tories have a majority, one hears less of this view.
On the betting front, it has been a pleasant day retrieving cash from various bookies. SPIN were particularly generous this time round. Thanks also to all those who tipped what seemed like long shot winners, and of course Jack W and RodCrosby (SWIIINNNGGGGBBAAAACCCCKKKKKK)
In Scotland
@elliotttimes: Cameron's message to the SNP tonight appears to be 'sweet FFA'.
@iainmartin1: Get ready for the highly amusing spectacle of the SNP turning down fiscal autonomy. Bloody Tories, offering Holyrood too much power...
Popcorn on standby
And finally, a quick note to my fans, although they seem thin on the ground right now
@hopisen: When I'm wrong, @SophieRanald sings the 'I was right' song. It goes "I was right and you were wrong, so I can sing the "I was right" song"..
Comments
Amazing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooF8EPhbmwo
Yes, this semantic distinction has irritated me for some reason. Quite. If Barack was really pleased the message would have professed his undying affection for Cameron.
It's just diplomatic nicities.
The party whose number one policy was voting reform has gone down to eight seats. Maybe we shouldn't be looking at their priority as what the public wants.
The rest is largely irrelevant, and how many times does the NHS card need to be played without success for people to realise that it isn't a deal breaker?
There was no late swing. The public made it's mind up ages ago.
Power was all they cared about.
IIRC there was an episode of Yes Prime Minister along the same lines
I don't think he meant to, if that helps.
I note Stephen Timms added decently to his majority....
After your comments on the ground game, it seems you do too.
He is a disgrace, SLAB should expel him.
The Copeland Cllr now MP for Workington lists in her register of interests "Consultancy work" whatever it is.
The Birmingham Cllr (now MP for Yardley) works for Women's Aid and in Dromey's office.
Ron Davies' former wife also studied law but I think she works as a squash coach.
Pennycook (Greenwich) used to work in the voluntary sector.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) is also a solicitor.
The Wakefield Cllr, now MP for Dewsbury, is another working for NHS
https://twitter.com/CaitlinMilazzo/status/596780575941402624
Labour's complacency is one the key reasons they lost this GE.
But also South Yorkshire and the occasional inner city seat outside of London.
8 seats above 30%, with the proper candidate and smoothing the rough edges to reduce the anti-UKIP tactical vote and they might gain those in the future.
Lab 33.7
Con 33.2
UKIP 13.5
LD 9.0
Green 4.8
But the Phone polls were closer (albeit not close enough!) with Lab and Con.
Con 33.9
Lab 33.5
UKIP 11.5
LD 9.2
Grn 5.2
What happened?
You've been telling us for at least two years it was a formality Red Liberals, every one had made up their minds,you never seemed to meet a Tory voter & Soubry was useless etc etc.
Or was it all going well until Roger & Tysos turned up to canvas for you this week ?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2015/apr/30/labour-snp-scotland-election-video
"After nearly a decade in the Police Service, Paula joined the NHS, working in a front line role in Community Healthcare provision. In 2013, the service Paula works within was transferred to the private healthcare sector and her employment was consequently transferred, so she’s seen first-hand the effects of David Cameron’s top down NHS reorganisation."
From a betting point of view its a disaster if they are.
Due respect to Nick Palmer. Last night the guy gave us in one post the most honest and straightforward warning of exactly what was going to happen, without any filtered bull. For me it pretty much convinced me that the exit poll had veracity.
I managed to trade my way past some bad previous bets based on that one posted anecdote, which is exactly what someones presence on this site can do for people like me who are less interested the anorak minutiae of politics and more interested in the betting.
Lol
It's a start to try and correct the polls.
Also D/K should not be reallocated by past vote, it's what got ICM into trouble with the LD and UKIP until earlier this year.
Have I heard correctly on the BBC News, has Jim Murphy not resigned as SLAB
Yes it is difficult to understand is it not?. However it is not tenable and the dirks are already out to put a stop to such noinsense.
... 5-7 on the "300 ups"...
Still, can't complain! I'm still counting the dosh.. 66/1 on Berwickshire etc was the highlight.
I wonder why these people didn't get elected
I think we may see something like this. None of us know but my best guestimate at this stage is the following:
Conservative 310 to 340
Labour 240-ish
SNP 40+
LibDem 12
Ukip 1 to 2. Reckless will lose, Carswell will win. It's just a question of whether Farage will. On balance 'yes' but he's made a lot of enemies so he may not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All of it bang on, SNP a bit low excepting.
Bradshaw showing obvious distate and frustration vs neo commieIslington chap [corbyn?} earlier and now Livingston vs a sensible arcticulate MP {Woodcock?} with fundamentally conflicting, not just different, perspectives....
the dinosaur left is in denial
...send for more ferrets and some sacks...
But either way, while many of the Conservatives’ opponents and many journalists and voters were assuming that the Tory campaign was drifting or stalling, Crosby’s well-funded infantry were quietly, busily seizing the marginals. Another of his favourite electioneering phrases is “below the radar”.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/08/lynton-crosby-wedge-politics-general-election-tories
Still don't know if i'm up or down! I think I'm up, but not by a huge amount ~25% profit on total staked.
How's it looking for everyone else?
Wise words.
My best bets of the election (outside of scotland) were on the 2nd place Spread markets. In amongst the dozens of great value losers were a couple of very big winners.
19/1 on labour coming 2nd in wyre forest was the highlight. Not sure if I tipped that on here or not.
If you have a super marginal seat like Bedford and stand still then at least you are well placed to try again in 2020. The problem for Lab is that many of the marginals have becomes less marginal. Super marginals like Broxtowe, N Warks and Amber Valley have now become semi-marginal. Middling targets like Kingswood, Gloucester and Stafford now look safeish. While at the bottom of the list seats like Leicester NW, Tamworth and S Derbyshire now look safe.
And of course the final phase of individual registration and the boundary review are likely to set the bar higher.
Obama-Biden worked in the US. Chuka Umunna Leader, Dan Jarvis Deputy would be their best chance and a fresh ticket
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2826937/Ed-shadow-minister-plunges-dagger-Tristram-Hunt-joins-Labour-revolt-poll-says-Miliband-liability.html
In any case Labour do not need small towns to win, they become largest party if they win the inner cities and add the suburbs
A majority of 12 is certainly far from by-election proof – as Major discovered post 1992 when he started off with a majority of 21. Many people will now look forward to news of Tory MPs ‘popping their clogs’ in the hope that his majority eventually disappears.
I see the public wake for the left continues on the BBC 24 hours on...
@iainmartin1: Some Lib Dems very dignified in defeat. Others being extremely sanctimonious and unwilling to accept blame. I'm thinking Paddy Ashdown.
Interesting panel discussion on how did Labour lose, part 27 Newsnight that reiterated the theory that Ed was crap, was always crap, would always lose and based on economic competence and leadership the polls were 6 points out...
Also, the demise of DUEMA http://www.capx.co/duema-closing-statement/
On the betting front, it has been a pleasant day retrieving cash from various bookies. SPIN were particularly generous this time round. Thanks also to all those who tipped what seemed like long shot winners, and of course Jack W and RodCrosby (SWIIINNNGGGGBBAAAACCCCKKKKKK)
In Scotland
@elliotttimes: Cameron's message to the SNP tonight appears to be 'sweet FFA'.
@iainmartin1: Get ready for the highly amusing spectacle of the SNP turning down fiscal autonomy. Bloody Tories, offering Holyrood too much power...
Popcorn on standby
And finally, a quick note to my fans, although they seem thin on the ground right now
@hopisen: When I'm wrong, @SophieRanald sings the 'I was right' song. It goes "I was right and you were wrong, so I can sing the "I was right" song"..
Can you hear it?