However, a number of us have noted that thread leaders have seemed skewed. I want to highlight what I see as the ‘problems’ and urge Mike to consider it.
1. Don’t be monochromatic. You are countered by TSE and David Herdson, which is great, but you tend to latch onto a single viewpoint. Thus we had to endure months (it seemed years) of ‘Labour’s Firewall’. Then it became ‘E&W shares.’ 2. Then we had this ‘every 1 seat in Scotland lost is 2 in England’ despite the fact you were repeatedly pointed to the LibDem to Cons gains issue that could nullify your argument.
6. Don’t ban floaters. This is a subtle one. Be careful, please, not to assume that someone who says they voted one way but may do differently is a ‘troll.’ Actually they are the very people who will give you the bellweather for this election. I voted LibDem in 2010 and Conservative, just, this time. That’s the swing voter who decides the outcome.
I am, of course, Audrey Anne. On the cusp of my algorithm that was about to predict a Conservative majority with a 7% poll lead you banned me again for such an outrage. But I thought they would win. As I repeatedly pointed out to you:
9/10 opinion polls in the 2010-2015 overstated Labour’s share of the vote against actual results. You dismissed this every time I tried to tell you. The Liberal Democrat annihilation was predictable and some of us tried to tell you but you, again, refused even to debate it. Was there one single thread about what became one of the greatest political events of a lifetime?
I would like to stick around, please. I’m not rude. But I do occasionally critique (not the same as criticize) a false argument.
And finally, please let Robert join you in thread headers. He is a very, very, good thing for the future of what remains the best political site in Britain.
Hear hear, and bravo.
To be honest I also thought you were a slightly deluded Tory cheerleader: yet it turns out you were right and I was wrong. And Mike Smithson was also wrong, very wrong. And he did get fixated on LD switchers, etc.
Yet he runs, as you say, one of the best sites of its kind anywhere (for which much thanks, Mike), I am sure he is a big enough guy to admit his errors and accept your critique.
Thirded...
Also maybe time for an amnesty for all banned posters? Tim, banned or not, when he could control some his worst bile and smears had value, along with many others.
Mike got the last few years very very wrong, dismissing valid points and opinions.
He who has not been modded on pb needs to get out more!
A suspension when things get overheated is probably enough.
Permanent bans should be for spammers and the persistently offensive.
On the whole the mods here get it about right. Mikes site, Mikes rules.
My parents who have been life long members of the Lib Dems are in tears. There is a real chance that the party will never recover from its losses. This is an immensely sad time.
Does anyone see a way forward for the party?
I predict a lot of people joining at grassroots - Mrs Scrap for example wants to - as they have been hard done to we think BUT it all depends if they go all SDP and Vince-like OR more Orange Booker - Farron is the former it seems to me whilst Lamb would seem more the latter.
Like Labour needing to decide if they go more left or to the centre so the same applies to the LDems.
Cameron is committed to giving the Scottish government more powers and he will try to cement Scotland being part of the UK, but with a great deal of independence. He will want the SNP to remain dominant in Scotland, but not able to attack Westminster for preventing Scotland from making some of the changes it wants i.e getting rid of the bedroom tax.
There will be no independence referendum before May 2020, unless Cameron takes the UK out of the EU, because he has recommended the country vote to come out of the EU. England may vote to leave the EU, but certainly Scotland and Wales would want to remain part of the EU. At that point the UK breaks up into individual nations.
The main opposition to the Tories is going to be the House of Lords. Cameron will no doubt be putting more Lords in place but it may take some time, as he can only nominate a certain number every year. Labour and Lib Dems will not be able to nominate as many new Lords, as I think it is based on number of MP's in the HOC.
Labour have got one hell of job to change their party, so they can be in a position to challenge again in May 2020. They need to go back to the Blairite era, with someone who middle England is comfortable with. It is no good just appealing to parts of the North of England.
My parents who have been life long members of the Lib Dems are in tears. There is a real chance that the party will never recover from its losses. This is an immensely sad time.
Does anyone see a way forward for the party?
Yes. But there needs to be a time for reflection. First reactiona are not usually helpful.
My parents who have been life long members of the Lib Dems are in tears. There is a real chance that the party will never recover from its losses. This is an immensely sad time.
Does anyone see a way forward for the party?
If Labour go with Tristram Hunt, certainly.
No, that would be too good.....a posh London intellectual parachuted into a Northern seat - what could possibly go wrong?
My parents who have been life long members of the Lib Dems are in tears. There is a real chance that the party will never recover from its losses. This is an immensely sad time. Does anyone see a way forward for the party?
What are your parents key views on the main issues? Are they the socialist liberal democrats or classical liberals or the sandal wearing green liberals?
Much to ponder on there. Sad that you were not able to post your "7% lead" output from your Al Gore Rhythm. And I would be fascinated to know how you arrived at your outcome....!
There were a few interesting, possibly killer, stats I thought. One I've mentioned is that 9/10 polls in the 2010-15 parliament overstated Labour's share and did so by more than 1%
Another was interesting: I went back over every General Election campaign for several decades and found that Labour's share of the vote always falls over the final 3 months to polling day regardless of whether they are in office or opposition. It's very odd, but it does.
In addition I studied the importance of leadership ratings vs party poll share. I put quite a lot of work into that. It's a factor, I think, when it comes to the actual vote. In fact on that subject I think people did vote not just for their local MP (another of Mike's favourites) but for who would be the best PM.
One thing about the lib dem defeat puzzles me. They were punished for being in league with the Tories. And yet many of their defeats were to....er....Tories.
That moment, when an engaged, articulate, intelligent and polite audience let out a combination of a sharp intake of breath, a low groan, and subdued cry of 'no' seemed significant.
Nail hit on the hit there.
In hindsight that moment when Miliband denied Labour ever overspending was probably the greatest contributer to a Tory majority. It showed Labour to be in denial. It was all the more shocking as Miliband had played a straight bat all campaign killing any criticism of Labour's record by saying "that was a mistake" making it hard to criticise him as he'd learnt the lessons. Instead he nicked that with a thick outside edge.
I think that sharp intake of breath was more damning than any of the audiences reaction to Farage in the opposition debate earlier in the campaign.
My suspicion is that the election was won long before that. People who pointed to leadership approval ratings, and leads on economic competence as being more important than headline voting intentions were proved right, I think.
Labour Uncut pointed out the Brand thing was done as the Labour polls were dire at least a week before the polls. Almost certainly Crosby Textor who run all their own research, knew what was going on for weeks. Remember, the SNP controlling little Mili was the second Tory poster in the campaign, so I imagine Crosby's research said it was a winning strategy.
What went wrong was the public polling, not the internal party polling. What will be interesting will be finding out what caused the difference. I suspect it maybe that Crosby probably uses lots of in depth quality research for his polling compared to YouGov etc running lots of quantity volume based work.
Though I got the result badly wrong. I did point out that the Brand interview and the Policy Obelisk were not the actions of a party contemplating victory. Quite the opposite. They showed a party in panic, and worried about defeat. So there WAS truth in those rumours about "bad canvass returns", and "disappointing postal votes".
Incidentally, another big loser from all this is... Russell Brand. I see that following the election he has now hastily withdrawn his endorsement of Miliband, saying "hey I'm just a comedian".
Well, quite.
That's the thing, I saw the final day of parliament attempt at speaker nobbling as the sign of a weak party not a confident party. Weird.
@Aidan_Kerr1: Despite tactical voting the Scottish Conservatives are up 20,000 votes and finish 3rd for the 1st time since 1992.
It doesn't seem to me there is any need for a major rebranding just yet.
Scottish turnout was up a lot so adding 20,000 votes is moving backwards.
Not in Scott's Tory dreamland though.
330/650 isn't dreamland in your ideas?
Maybe you'd rather 58/650? Yeah that's "winning". Oh no, its not. You'll be sitting on the losers side of the house.
I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again. Winning is not about numbers; it's about power. And the SNP have it massively, not because they can bring down the government but because if they're not recognised, they can (or might) bring down the Union.
I agree totally.
But as a Tory who wanted Scotland to go independent (and repeatedly said so on this site), that's not a threat to me. So it fun to tease malcomg in the same way as he regularly taunts Tories. There seems to be a view amongst some that they can dish it out but can't be expected to take it.
I am a big boy and very happy to engage in banter, no big jessie tantrums from me. I like the cut and thrust of a good ding dong and cannot go the whining and hand wringing of softies. Keep up the good work , but take off those union jack underpants now and again.
And you keep polishing your jackboots. Or should it be jockboots?
The difference is that unlike Labour the 56 SNP's will be seen to be voting against Tory cuts back in Scotland. They will be seen putting Scotland's interests first and it will show clearly that we just get sh** upon. So will be the exact opposite of what you believe.
Whether its 56 SNP opposition MPs voting no while the country says yes, or 56 Labour MPs voting no while the country says yes - what difference do you think that will make?
Labour voted against every cut last time too, but are still in opposition in Westminster as much as you are.
You just cannot be as dim as you are making out. It matters not a jot at Westminster , it is how it is seen in Scotland. Labour MP's going down and voting with their pals has got them their just desserts. The SNP will not be ordered which way to vote by London Leaders. I cannot make it any simpler for you.
You can't be as dim as you are making out. It matters not a jot how it is seen in Scotland, it matters at Westminster.
What are you going to do, try and take our one MP off us? Oh no, we'll only have 329 MPs then, whatever are we going to do?
I don't expect SNP to be ordered by Cameron on how to vote, any more than I'd expect Labour to be ordered by Cameron. You're our opponents sat on the opposition benches, not our allies. There's nothing wrong if you're treated as any other opponent would. Nothing wrong with you being treated how you treat Tories.
You are so stupid you did not even understand what I posted. I was referring to what the options were based on a Labour government versus a Tory one. Given you wear union jack specs and have no inkling of political opinion in Scotland it seems pointless discussing anything as you are unable to grasp the points I am making. Just wave your union jack about and save your keyboard.
I prefer the Cross of St George personally as a flag. You seem to be of the mistaken belief that the only thing that matters is the views of Scots, that you can have your cake and eat it to. We English don't matter except in how we can help the Scottish.
Sorry to break it to you, but the views of the English matter too. But you keep waving your Saltire while while having no inkling of the points I am making.
Philip, you are talking to a genius , I understand implicitly what you are prattling on about.
The Scottish flag comes from Greece and the English from Spain. The Union Jack is truly British.
That moment, when an engaged, articulate, intelligent and polite audience let out a combination of a sharp intake of breath, a low groan, and subdued cry of 'no' seemed significant.
Nail hit on the hit there.
In hindsight that moment when Miliband denied Labour ever overspending was probably the greatest contributer to a Tory majority. It showed Labour to be in denial. It was all the more shocking as Miliband had played a straight bat all campaign killing any criticism of Labour's record by saying "that was a mistake" making it hard to criticise him as he'd learnt the lessons. Instead he nicked that with a thick outside edge.
I think that sharp intake of breath was more damning than any of the audiences reaction to Farage in the opposition debate earlier in the campaign.
My suspicion is that the election was won long before that. People who pointed to leadership approval ratings, and leads on economic competence as being more important than headline voting intentions were proved right, I think.
Labour Uncut pointed out the Brand thing was done as the Labour polls were dire at least a week before the polls. Almost certainly Crosby Textor who run all their own research, knew what was going on for weeks. Remember, the SNP controlling little Mili was the second Tory poster in the campaign, so I imagine Crosby's research said it was a winning strategy.
What went wrong was the public polling, not the internal party polling. What will be interesting will be finding out what caused the difference. I suspect it maybe that Crosby probably uses lots of in depth quality research for his polling compared to YouGov etc running lots of quantity volume based work.
Yep - I posted here a day before the election that info from a senior Labour SPAD suggested Cameron was certain to be PM (though he wasn't predicting a Majority).
A few thought I was on a 'wind-up'. Labour had known for quite a while that things were not going to plan. For some reason this was not being represented in the public polls...
My parents who have been life long members of the Lib Dems are in tears. There is a real chance that the party will never recover from its losses. This is an immensely sad time.
Does anyone see a way forward for the party?
Shouldnt Lib dems be used to it? Like forest fires every 20 years or so they get wiped out,only to regrow and then the cycle continues?
Kellner explicitly ruled out a 'late shift' explanation in the election night programme between 10pm and 11pm i.e. after the exit poll but before the results came in. YouGov did polling day surveys and found no meaningful change in his opinion. Of the four possible explanations, it was the one he dismissed outright. The other three were that the opinion polls were wrong, the exit poll was wrong, or that both were wrong.
Arguably, as we now know that the opinion polls were badly wrong, you could argue that the errors there mean that there findings on polling day are also less legitimate. Possibly. But the argument for a late shift relies on the opinion polls being right, up until election day, which seems a much greater leap of faith.
In 1992, when there may well have been a late shift, there were both political and methodological explanations (Sheffield and all that). This time, particularly given the scale of postal voting, I don't see it.
What is fascinating is the disparity between pollsters using data from potential voters - which has gone horribly wrong - and actual voters - with exit polls now gobsmackingly good for the past two elections.
That does seem to suggest they are just not getting to people. Forget phones, computers. Do it the old fashioned way - go out and meet people, armed with a clipboard. But that is expensive. Not going to happen.
I do think that people are intimidated by views they are expected to hold, held back from expressing those they actually hold. I wonder what opinion polling would come up with on say corporal punishment for kids? It is not "fashionable" to believe in it. Would surveys REALLY find the true state of the nation's position? Or do people self-censor to pollsters - especially if they think those views are being recorded and might somehow come back on them?
It was revealed on the news channels yesterday that
1) Survation had the Tories on 37% in a poll on Wednesday and they shredded it, because they didn't believe it
2) The phone pollsters didn't believe the Tories were 3% ahead, so they changed some parts of their model in the final week in order to converge with the online pollsters i.e neck and neck.
Maybe it isn't just the general public are "intimidated", but the pollsters were too.
To me that is dangerously close to fraud. The BPC needs to look again at their regulations on accpeptable practices.
That moment, when an engaged, articulate, intelligent and polite audience let out a combination of a sharp intake of breath, a low groan, and subdued cry of 'no' seemed significant.
Nail hit on the hit there.
In hindsight that moment when Miliband denied Labour ever overspending was probably the greatest contributer to a Tory majority. It showed Labour to be in denial. It was all the more shocking as Miliband had played a straight bat all campaign killing any criticism of Labour's record by saying "that was a mistake" making it hard to criticise him as he'd learnt the lessons. Instead he nicked that with a thick outside edge.
I think that sharp intake of breath was more damning than any of the audiences reaction to Farage in the opposition debate earlier in the campaign.
My suspicion is that the election was won long before that. People who pointed to leadership approval ratings, and leads on economic competence as being more important than headline voting intentions were proved right, I think.
Labour Uncut pointed out the Brand thing was done as the Labour polls were dire at least a week before the polls. Almost certainly Crosby Textor who run all their own research, knew what was going on for weeks. Remember, the SNP controlling little Mili was the second Tory poster in the campaign, so I imagine Crosby's research said it was a winning strategy.
What went wrong was the public polling, not the internal party polling. What will be interesting will be finding out what caused the difference. I suspect it maybe that Crosby probably uses lots of in depth quality research for his polling compared to YouGov etc running lots of quantity volume based work.
I see that following the election he has now hastily withdrawn his endorsement of Miliband, saying "hey I'm just a comedian"..
As Bob Monkhouse joked...'They never said Id be a comedian...they're not laughing now...'
My parents who have been life long members of the Lib Dems are in tears. There is a real chance that the party will never recover from its losses. This is an immensely sad time.
Does anyone see a way forward for the party?
No , they have got their just desserts for lying and abandoning principles for power. They did it at Holyrood and got whacked and repeated it at Westminster and got same medicine. So duplicitous and stupid and we are well rid of the charlatans.
That moment, when an engaged, articulate, intelligent and polite audience let out a combination of a sharp intake of breath, a low groan, and subdued cry of 'no' seemed significant.
Nail hit on the hit there.
In hindsight that moment when Miliband denied Labour ever overspending was probably the greatest contributer to a Tory majority. It showed Labour to be in denial. It was all the more shocking as Miliband had played a straight bat all campaign killing any criticism of Labour's record by saying "that was a mistake" making it hard to criticise him as he'd learnt the lessons. Instead he nicked that with a thick outside edge.
I think that sharp intake of breath was more damning than any of the audiences reaction to Farage in the opposition debate earlier in the campaign.
My suspicion is that the election was won long before that. People who pointed to leadership approval ratings, and leads on economic competence as being more important than headline voting intentions were proved right, I think.
Labour Uncut pointed out the Brand thing was done as the Labour polls were dire at least a week before the polls. Almost certainly Crosby Textor who run all their own research, knew what was going on for weeks. Remember, the SNP controlling little Mili was the second Tory poster in the campaign, so I imagine Crosby's research said it was a winning strategy.
What went wrong was the public polling, not the internal party polling. What will be interesting will be finding out what caused the difference. I suspect it maybe that Crosby probably uses lots of in depth quality research for his polling compared to YouGov etc running lots of quantity volume based work.
Though I got the result badly wrong. I did point out that the Brand interview and the Policy Obelisk were not the actions of a party contemplating victory. Quite the opposite. They showed a party in panic, and worried about defeat. So there WAS truth in those rumours about "bad canvass returns", and "disappointing postal votes".
Incidentally, another big loser from all this is... Russell Brand. I see that following the election he has now hastily withdrawn his endorsement of Miliband, saying "hey I'm just a comedian".
Well, quite.
The endorsement might hurt his "Brand", but I am sure he will try to bluff it out. He has too much of a good thing going. I bet he just starts banging on about failure of the system and I told you so, and I was hoodwinked, never again. Having been to a Q&A with him surrounded by his band of worshippers, they will probably fall for it, just like people still fall for Peter Popoff 40 years after been exposed as a fraud.
That moment, when an engaged, articulate, intelligent and polite audience let out a combination of a sharp intake of breath, a low groan, and subdued cry of 'no' seemed significant.
Nail hit on the hit there.
In hindsight that moment when Miliband denied Labour ever overspending was probably the greatest contributer to a Tory majority. It showed Labour to be in denial. It was all the more shocking as Miliband had played a straight bat all campaign killing any criticism of Labour's record by saying "that was a mistake" making it hard to criticise him as he'd learnt the lessons. Instead he nicked that with a thick outside edge.
I think that sharp intake of breath was more damning than any of the audiences reaction to Farage in the opposition debate earlier in the campaign.
My suspicion is that the election was won long before that. People who pointed to leadership approval ratings, and leads on economic competence as being more important than headline voting intentions were proved right, I think.
Labour Uncut pointed out the Brand thing was done as the Labour polls were dire at least a week before the polls. Almost certainly Crosby Textor who run all their own research, knew what was going on for weeks. Remember, the SNP controlling little Mili was the second Tory poster in the campaign, so I imagine Crosby's research said it was a winning strategy.
What went wrong was the public polling, not the internal party polling. What will be interesting will be finding out what caused the difference. I suspect it maybe that Crosby probably uses lots of in depth quality research for his polling compared to YouGov etc running lots of quantity volume based work.
Though I got the result badly wrong. I did point out that the Brand interview and the Policy Obelisk were not the actions of a party contemplating victory. Quite the opposite. They showed a party in panic, and worried about defeat. So there WAS truth in those rumours about "bad canvass returns", and "disappointing postal votes".
Incidentally, another big loser from all this is... Russell Brand. I see that following the election he has now hastily withdrawn his endorsement of Miliband, saying "hey I'm just a comedian".
Well, quite.
That's the thing, I saw the final day of parliament attempt at speaker nobbling as the sign of a weak party not a confident party. Weird.
Talking of that, what now for Speaker B?
Presumably with a Con overall majority, should they want to get rid of him they now have the opportunity?
Though I got the result badly wrong. I did point out that the Brand interview and the Policy Obelisk were not the actions of a party contemplating victory. Quite the opposite. They showed a party in panic, and worried about defeat. So there WAS truth in those rumours about "bad canvass returns", and "disappointing postal votes".
Incidentally, another big loser from all this is... Russell Brand. I see that following the election he has now hastily withdrawn his endorsement of Miliband, saying "hey I'm just a comedian".
Well, quite.
I like Russell. He's always nice to me when I see him. But he deserves to be spanked with an inflated puffer fish for:
1. his hideously ungallant revealing of bedroom secrets about his ex-wife Katy Perry
2. getting in the mix with Ed Miliband this election.
One thing about the lib dem defeat puzzles me. They were punished for being in league with the Tories. And yet many of their defeats were to....er....Tories.
My parents who have been life long members of the Lib Dems are in tears. There is a real chance that the party will never recover from its losses. This is an immensely sad time.
Does anyone see a way forward for the party?
Yes, not but before 2025. The next 5 years has to be about clawing on, finding their identity again (and a long term niche of the political spectrum they can occupy/take from which still reflects liberalism) and ensuring they don't disappear in 2020.
In my Tory neck of the woods, where people don't normally both to mention who they support because it's obvious, there were a lot of surprised and happy faces from people not expecting a Cameron win, but also plenty of unprompted comment that the LDs had been harsh done by the voters; I feel here in the SW the LDs can, if they don't implode, regain the second places they have been pipped to in many areas, and slowly build from that. If they are replaced long term as the natural second place party here by UKIP or Labour, then they will be in even more trouble.
@Aidan_Kerr1: Despite tactical voting the Scottish Conservatives are up 20,000 votes and finish 3rd for the 1st time since 1992.
It doesn't seem to me there is any need for a major rebranding just yet.
Scottish turnout was up a lot so adding 20,000 votes is moving backwards.
Not in Scott's Tory dreamland though.
330/650 isn't dreamland in your ideas?
Maybe you'd rather 58/650? Yeah that's "winning". Oh no, its not. You'll be sitting on the losers side of the house.
I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again. Winning is not about numbers; it's about power. And the SNP have it massively, not because they can bring down the government but because if they're not recognised, they can (or might) bring down the Union.
I agree totally.
But as a Tory who wanted Scotland to go independent (and repeatedly said so on this site), that's not a threat to me. So it fun to tease malcomg in the same way as he regularly taunts Tories. There seems to be a view amongst some that they can dish it out but can't be expected to take it.
I am a big boy and very happy to engage in banter, no big jessie tantrums from me. I like the cut and thrust of a good ding dong and cannot go the whining and hand wringing of softies. Keep up the good work , but take off those union jack underpants now and again.
Good
On a serious note I do love this country for how we can have "a good ding dong" and still respect each other. That we can have a divisive election and still live with each other.
We really are lucky and fortunate to live in such a free society and do owe a big debt for the previous generations who fought for these rights. In one way it was very apt for the election to be followed by the VE day memorials.
Anyway , enough fun I need to get into the garden , wash the car and get ready for the playoffs/football. Have fun.
Kellners analysis is/was flawed. All YouGov did was a recontact with people they'd polled before the election - It was NOT in any way shape, or form an exit poll.
If the people YouGov was polling were lying about how they intended to vote before the election, chances are they were going to lie about how they voted after the election.
There may or may not have been a last minute swing to the Tories but YouGov's silly polls and the equally absurd Peter Kellner can't prove what happened one way or another.
The pollsters really should just all go away and shut the **** up for a while.
You may remember I was told in no uncertain term to shut up by OGH and rcs1000, re my pointing out that the polls were either being manipulated or just wrong. I confess that my concern was the way the UKIP vote was being shown; further, in this detail they were mostly right.
Nevertheless there was a herd instinct with all the pollsters to say that Labour and Tories were tied, that started in December and hardly deviated right up to the election and beyond. I think the time has come to say to the pollsters that in a 4 or 5 party analysis they know nothing.
Balthasarsfeast (Audrey Anne) said -- ''I voted LibDem in 2010 and Conservative, just, this time. That’s the swing voter who decides the outcome.''
First: to you - I find it amazing that you were banned for being a swing voter. Second: to every right leaning Toryphile - The above comment is just the reason why the Tory Party MUST be a broad church and why the usual crowd of thick tory backbenchers need to grow a few brain cells. They are entitled to have an opinion and express it and win some achievements, bravo. But regularly voting to skewer their own party is plain crass and will only tar their own party with an extremist voter-averse brush. The LDs regularly self-destroyed their own point in government and then wonder why they got wiped out. Cable is an exemplar of this.
One thing about the lib dem defeat puzzles me. They were punished for being in league with the Tories. And yet many of their defeats were to....er....Tories.
Fear of the SNP in the SW.
To expand that a little, fear that the SW would not be able to compete with Scotland when it came to public funds for infrastructure projects. And Labour had indicated in its manifesto that it was going to pull funding for planned road improvements in the region. Which probably cost it two seats in Plymouth. And meant that anybody worried about Labour's intentions had nowhere else to go but Conservative.
It is a fascinating watch and you can see what the Tories were up to now with him and Messina, and the signs were there when it was revealed now much they were spending on Facebook 6 months ago and they were trying to keep it quiet.
The take always were
#1) General polls in the papers are waste of time
#2) Just because a policy is popular / unpopular in those polls doesn't mean it will convert in to more / less votes. They are far too blunt a tool.
#3) You don't use poll to work out what policy to pursue, you using research to tailor the message of your policy, and work out how different people can be messaged differently.
#3) You can't sudden engage people in the final month. It doesn't matter if your man does amazingly well during the campaign, if you haven't made the connection with your targets they won't change their votes.
#4) Must engage with your targets way way before the election and build up some sort of rapport / connection.
I especially liked this - perhaps it should be added to the EdStone: “Ignore most of the opinion polls that you see in the newspapers, because they are so simplistic.”
come the next election im not listening to any polls or experts just the Glasgow pensioner who put £30 000 on a Tory majority two weeks ago and is now £240 000 better off
One thing about the lib dem defeat puzzles me. They were punished for being in league with the Tories. And yet many of their defeats were to....er....Tories.
Fear of the SNP in the SW.
This. I've never seen an issue cut so deep round here. That has unfortunately been conflated with the false view that their having an impact in government with Lab would be illegitimate (of course it would legitimate), but it was hammered home that the SNP were a threat, and it worked.
I'm resolved to listen now to my non-voting (not once in 50 years), non-politically aware relative, who in the brief moments of political talk that came up was also adamant, despite being a working class Labour leaning if there was compulsory voting chap, that Cameron would obviously win because, as I discounted, people don't like Ed or, in England anyway, the SNP. I've always maintained gut feeling mattered more than policy or knowledge of the parties, but I judged the gut mood poorly, clearly.
That moment, when an engaged, articulate, intelligent and polite audience let out a combination of a sharp intake of breath, a low groan, and subdued cry of 'no' seemed significant.
Nail hit on the hit there.
In hindsight that moment when Miliband denied Labour ever overspending was probably the greatest contributer to a Tory majority. It showed Labour to be in denial. It was all the more shocking as Miliband had played a straight bat all campaign killing any criticism of Labour's record by saying "that was a mistake" making it hard to criticise him as he'd learnt the lessons. Instead he nicked that with a thick outside edge.
I think that sharp intake of breath was more damning than any of the audiences reaction to Farage in the opposition debate earlier in the campaign.
My suspicion is that the election was won long before that. People who pointed to leadership approval ratings, and leads on economic competence as being more important than headline voting intentions were proved right, I think.
Labour Uncut pointed out the Brand thing was done as the Labour polls were dire at least a week before the polls. Almost certainly Crosby Textor who run all their own research, knew what was going on for weeks. Remember, the SNP controlling little Mili was the second Tory poster in the campaign, so I imagine Crosby's research said it was a winning strategy.
What went wrong was the public polling, not the internal party polling. What will be interesting will be finding out what caused the difference. I suspect it maybe that Crosby probably uses lots of in depth quality research for his polling compared to YouGov etc running lots of quantity volume based work.
Incidentally, another big loser from all this is... Russell Brand. I see that following the election he has now hastily withdrawn his endorsement of Miliband, saying "hey I'm just a comedian".
Well, quite.
That's the thing, I saw the final day of parliament attempt at speaker nobbling as the sign of a weak party not a confident party. Weird.
Talking of that, what now for Speaker B?
Presumably with a Con overall majority, should they want to get rid of him they now have the opportunity?
He surely still has support on the backbenches - it wasn't just Labour who saved him last time I think.
come the next election im not listening to any polls or experts just the Glasgow pensioner who put £30 000 on a Tory majority two weeks ago and is now £240 000 better off
Did someone not post that he also lost £195K on a hung parliament though.
A question. whither Ed M? He's quite young and seems to have no interests outside the Labour Party. I found his resignation speech said some of the right things but in an unpleasant, almost bitter tone - not as bad as Ashdown later in the day, but not far off either.
Ashdown & Campbell were just pathetic trying to accuse Cameron of nationalism and a lot of other crap.
Both parties would be wise to put them out to grass ,they are well past their sell dates.
Kellners analysis is/was flawed. All YouGov did was a recontact with people they'd polled before the election - It was NOT in any way shape, or form an exit poll.
If the people YouGov was polling were lying about how they intended to vote before the election, chances are they were going to lie about how they voted after the election.
There may or may not have been a last minute swing to the Tories but YouGov's silly polls and the equally absurd Peter Kellner can't prove what happened one way or another.
The pollsters really should just all go away and shut the **** up for a while.
You may remember I was told in no uncertain term to shut up by OGH and rcs1000, re my pointing out that the polls were either being manipulated or just wrong. I confess that my concern was the way the UKIP vote was being shown; further, in this detail they were mostly right.
Nevertheless there was a herd instinct with all the pollsters to say that Labour and Tories were tied, that started in December and hardly deviated right up to the election and beyond. I think the time has come to say to the pollsters that in a 4 or 5 party analysis they know nothing.
Being 'manipulated' suggests malevolent willful intent, not just that they were completely wrong, which was surely the main concern. Of course the figures are 'manipulated' in the sense they weight things, and apply various metrics, but the failure seems to have been the result of making the wrong judgements, not intentionally bending the data to, presumably, fit the desired outcome.
That moment, when an engaged, articulate, intelligent and polite audience let out a combination of a sharp intake of breath, a low groan, and subdued cry of 'no' seemed significant.
Nail hit on the hit there.
I I think that sharp intake of breath was more damning than any of the audiences reaction to Farage in the opposition debate earlier in the campaign.
My suspicion is that the election was won long before that. People who pointed to leadership approval ratings, and leads on economic competence as being more important than headline voting intentions were proved right, I think.
What went wrong was the public polling, not the internal party polling. What will be interesting will be finding out what caused the difference. I suspect it maybe that Crosby probably uses lots of in depth quality research for his polling compared to YouGov etc running lots of quantity volume based work.
Though I got the result badly wrong. I did point out that the Brand interview and the Policy Obelisk were not the actions of a party contemplating victory. Quite the opposite. They showed a party in panic, and worried about defeat. So there WAS truth in those rumours about "bad canvass returns", and "disappointing postal votes".
Incidentally, another big loser from all this is... Russell Brand. I see that following the election he has now hastily withdrawn his endorsement of Miliband, saying "hey I'm just a comedian".
Well, quite.
That's the thing, I saw the final day of parliament attempt at speaker nobbling as the sign of a weak party not a confident party. Weird.
Talking of that, what now for Speaker B?
Presumably with a Con overall majority, should they want to get rid of him they now have the opportunity?
There'll be a few Ken Clarke types who wouldn't sanction sacking him. But if it meant he moved on to the Lords, we then had a by-election where Esther McVey gets back in the Commons, then that might be a serious incentive.....
The changes that the UK has to see if it is to survive need as wide a buy-in as possible. That means a constitutional convention, followed by a settlement endorsed in a referendum. It is only then that we can put the issues to bed.
no referendum - just force FFA on scotland let Nicola make £8bn in cuts and then refuse to bail them out and force independence on English terms including Scotland takes all the debt built up by Scottish Labour and their bailout of corrupt, criminal and failing Scottish financial institutiuons
" To my mind, Murphy struck me as an excellent choice to lead Scottish Labour but as I’m neither Scottish nor Labour, my judgement may be suspect. Certainly the voters north of the border haven’t agreed. "
That's a good one. Herdson's first law: Partisans offering advice to another party should put themselves in the other party's shoes. Herdson's second law: Those who fail to obey the first law tend to recommend that other parties should be more like theirs.
Lib Dems had two key and highly popular policies, which they happened to also be right about, which were tuition fees and opposing the Iraq war. They completely and unashamedly double crossed the electorate on.
The last 5 years a constant theme was the red liberals, this time it might be the boundaries.
More and more fun
labour elections, lib dem elections, scotland, English questions etc etc.
Are there enough Lib-Dem's to have an election? Wouldn't drawing straws be better (minus Clegg of course? )
The joke about needing a seconder, and eight assentors, has already been made.
As far as the LD party is concerned - the need for a parliamentary leader election is absurd. They should come to a consensus between the 8 of them and appoint someone. Clegg should not have resigned. He should have stayed on, told his party a few home truths and dared them to sack him.
I am reminded of my visits to the cinema as a child. You would shuffle in somewhere in the middle of the second feature. Later on when you reached the same place in the film we would nudge and say 'This is where we came in' and go to catch the bus.
Well, 8 seats for the LDs is where I came in a few decades ago. 8 is a good number for the Libs. They need to live with that.
he Scottish flag comes from Greece and the English from Spain. The Union Jack is truly British.
The 'Flag of St George' was a Papal ensigna for William-the-Bastard (related - IIRC - to the House of Wessex) to complete his conquest of family-right. It was only incorporate after the early Crusades by the Plantagenants. The 'Hammer' was not far behind (but after Pope Breakspear gaves us the Pale as compensation).
@Aidan_Kerr1: Despite tactical voting the Scottish Conservatives are up 20,000 votes and finish 3rd for the 1st time since 1992.
It doesn't seem to me there is any need for a major rebranding just yet.
Scottish turnout was up a lot so adding 20,000 votes is moving backwards.
Not in Scott's Tory dreamland though.
330/650 isn't dreamland in your ideas?
Maybe you'd rather 58/650? Yeah that's "winning". Oh no, its not. You'll be sitting on the losers side of the house.
I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again. Winning is not about numbers; it's about power. And the SNP have it massively, not because they can bring down the government but because if they're not recognised, they can (or might) bring down the Union.
I agree totally.
But as a Tory who wanted Scotland to go independent (and repeatedly said so on this site), that's not a threat to me. So it fun to tease malcomg in the same way as he regularly taunts Tories. There seems to be a view amongst some that they can dish it out but can't be expected to take it.
I am a big boy and very happy to engage in banter, no big jessie tantrums from me. I like the cut and thrust of a good ding dong and cannot go the whining and hand wringing of softies. Keep up the good work , but take off those union jack underpants now and again.
Good
On a serious note I do love this country for how we can have "a good ding dong" and still respect each other. That we can have a divisive election and still live with each other.
We really are lucky and fortunate to live in such a free society and do owe a big debt for the previous generations who fought for these rights. In one way it was very apt for the election to be followed by the VE day memorials.
Another reason to thank Allah for Miliband's defeat. His proposal to "outlaw Islamophobia" was deeply sinister, and un-British, potentially making it a crime to merely criticize a religion. It was also a blatant and unsavoury attempt to secure core votes, and sod everyone else.
And an amazingly tone deaf thing to declare mere days after the judgement in the Tower Hamlets case, referencing other scandals, about the problems that had arisen because people were afraid of being labelled Islamophobic, which I'm sure would not have been made worse by making it a crime rather than a social faux pax.
A question. whither Ed M? He's quite young and seems to have no interests outside the Labour Party. I found his resignation speech said some of the right things but in an unpleasant, almost bitter tone - not as bad as Ashdown later in the day, but not far off either.
Ashdown & Campbell were just pathetic trying to accuse Cameron of nationalism and a lot of other crap.
Both parties would be wise to put them out to grass ,they are well past their sell dates.
Whither EdM? I don't know if I'm alone among lefties in thinking he should now resign his seat and have nothing to do with the party ever again. I lived through the 80s and have continue to retain a great deal of affection for Foot and Kinnock (though in the latter case that has been a little tainted by his endorsements of EdM). But the thought of Miliband just fills me with contempt now - it's clear just how much damage his selfish pursuit of the leadership has done.
taffys said: "One thing about the lib dem defeat puzzles me. They were punished for being in league with the Tories. And yet many of their defeats were to....er....Tories."
Labour- and Green-leaning voters who backed the LibDems tactically last time punished the LibDems by going back to Labour or the Greens, hence handing victory in those seats to the Tories. (and, some of the 'up yours' vote that the LibDems used to receive as an 'outsider' party went to UKIP). As a way of punishing the LibDems for the coalition it was very effective; as a way of preventing another Tory Government, not so much...
The bit I don't understand is the unexpected Tory victories against Labour in Wales?
My problem with Watt's argument, is that I rarely - if ever hear the Conservatives talk about equality, and trying to increase social mobility in our society. I rarely hear them talk about trying to create a society where everyone can genuinely prosper.
I hear Conservatives talk of wealth creators (and not scaring them); as if they are some isolated force pouring tons into our economy - when really it's a symbiotic relationship - business owners cannot function without workers; and they cannot return profits if enough people do not have disposable income to buy their products. I hear Conservatives talk about the welfare system, and how it needs to be reformed and people need to be 'self-reliant' - yes, the welfare system does need to be reformed and self-reliance is something we ought to want to achieve. But it feels like many on the right don't ask themselves why on earth are so many people dependent on the welfare state? It is not just 'scroungers' and the unemployed, or the sick and disabled - but also many of those in-work too. This would suggest - something in our economy, as it is now isn't right; and perhaps one of the reasons why the welfare state is having to prop up so many people is because many are not getting a fair wage. Many are struggling with rising costs of living and so on - and part of reforming welfare is creating an economy for all. Then people can truly be self-reliant. But I don't hear a message from the Conservatives with ways to try and make work pay. It seems to be centred on simply reducing benefits, which is only half of the story. While I don't doubt that there Conservatives who genuinely do care, I wonder how many of them actually do? I have my sincerest doubts George Osborne lays there awake at night thinking of the poorest in society, the homeless, the mentally ill.
I don't think Labour 'own' morality - in fact, if anything it has become less of a presence in their politics after 1994. There were problems with those who were disabled and sick not being fairly treated under them, particularly under James Purnell. They were the masters of propaganda and spin for a long time - which in the Iraq saga, partially led to the death of Dr David Kelly. They spent 10 years fighting for their own personal ambitions among themselves (Blairites vs Brownites) rather than trying to reduce income inequality, better public services, increase social mobility, and make sure everyone - no matter class, race, gender, sexuality - can have opportunities to succeed in life. But right now - really, in the last year or so - I did feel they were the least bad option.
no referendum - just force FFA on scotland let Nicola make £8bn in cuts and then refuse to bail them out and force independence on English terms including Scotland takes all the debt built up by Scottish Labour and their bailout of corrupt, criminal and failing Scottish financial institutiuons
@Aidan_Kerr1: Despite tactical voting the Scottish Conservatives are up 20,000 votes and finish 3rd for the 1st time since 1992.
It doesn't seem to me there is any need for a major rebranding just yet.
Scottish turnout was up a lot so adding 20,000 votes is moving backwards.
Not in Scott's Tory dreamland though.
330/650 isn't dreamland in your ideas?
Maybe you'd rather 58/650? Yeah that's "winning". Oh no, its not. You'll be sitting on the losers side of the house.
I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again. Winning is not about numbers; it's about power. And the SNP have it massively, not because they can bring down the government but because if they're not recognised, they can (or might) bring down the Union.
I agree totally.
But as a Tory who wanted Scotland to go independent (and repeatedly said so on this site), that's not a threat to me. So it fun to tease malcomg in the same way as he regularly taunts Tories. There seems to be a view amongst some that they can dish it out but can't be expected to take it.
I am a big boy and very happy to engage in banter, no big jessie tantrums from me. I like the cut and thrust of a good ding dong and cannot go the whining and hand wringing of softies. Keep up the good work , but take off those union jack underpants now and again.
Good
On a serious note I do love this country for how we can have "a good ding dong" and still respect each other. That we can have a divisive election and still live with each other.
We really are lucky and fortunate to live in such a free society and do owe a big debt for the previous generations who fought for these rights. In one way it was very apt for the election to be followed by the VE day memorials.
Another reason to thank Allah for Miliband's defeat. His proposal to "outlaw Islamophobia" was deeply sinister, and un-British, potentially making it a crime to merely criticize a religion. It was also a blatant and unsavoury attempt to secure core votes, and sod everyone else.
I've lost track of the number of reasons to be thankful of Miliband losing.
I'm an atheist and should have the right to say loud and proud if I want to criticisms of Christianity, Islam or anyone else I disagree with. And believers should be able to criticise other believers and atheists back. It's only through free speech that we learn.
Drawing cartoons shouldn't be illegal. Shooting people should.
Though I got the result badly wrong. I did point out that the Brand interview and the Policy Obelisk were not the actions of a party contemplating victory. Quite the opposite. They showed a party in panic, and worried about defeat. So there WAS truth in those rumours about "bad canvass returns", and "disappointing postal votes".
Incidentally, another big loser from all this is... Russell Brand. I see that following the election he has now hastily withdrawn his endorsement of Miliband, saying "hey I'm just a comedian".
Well, quite.
I like Russell. He's always nice to me when I see him. But he deserves to be spanked with an inflated puffer fish for:
1. his hideously ungallant revealing of bedroom secrets about his ex-wife Katy Perry
2. getting in the mix with Ed Miliband this election.
Ed Miliband never proposed to criminalise merely insulting Islam, unlike what the memes will tell you. If you were assaulting a Muslim because she was a Muslim, you could have got done for aggravated assault, just like racially-aggravated assaults. But that distinction went out the window in an effort to angry up the anti-Islam voters.
Someone on here facetiously told me I should go and get a job at Yougov when I asked how they could keep scoring the Tories at 33% when their unweighted data was showing that they had the same number of people voting for them in 2015 as they did in 2010
Whoever made the decision at YG to weight to their flawed January data probably influenced the widespread level of error as the fog of their daily polling clouded the real situation.
A question. whither Ed M? He's quite young and seems to have no interests outside the Labour Party. I found his resignation speech said some of the right things but in an unpleasant, almost bitter tone - not as bad as Ashdown later in the day, but not far off either.
Ashdown & Campbell were just pathetic trying to accuse Cameron of nationalism and a lot of other crap.
Both parties would be wise to put them out to grass ,they are well past their sell dates.
Whither EdM? I don't know if I'm alone among lefties in thinking he should now resign his seat and have nothing to do with the party ever again. I lived through the 80s and have continue to retain a great deal of affection for Foot and Kinnock (though in the latter case that has been a little tainted by his endorsements of EdM). But the thought of Miliband just fills me with contempt now - it's clear just how much damage his selfish pursuit of the leadership has done.
I prefer defeated leaders to stay on, at least for a term - sure the country rejected his party but the people of his constituency wanted him to represent them, and some focus on constituency work might revive his political passions, refocus him on the little person rather than grand, abstract ideals.
Hague seemed to find new respect from many people in his latter years as an MP. But Ed can surely find some academic posting or think tank, global lefty initiative or something if being an MP just hurts too much right now.
I suspect if it hadn't been perceived as a close election then UKIP would have won South Thanet and Thurrock.
I hope Farage carries on, he adds to the gaiety of the nation. Plus the media have already thrown the kitchen sink at him, won't work next time. I know for a small minority of people the EU is the be all and end all but most people are like me and don't give it a second thought, an EU referendum won't alter issues regarding mass immigration, our place in the world etc. I do hope they don't prattle on about electoral reform, who cares?
FrancisUrquhart posted upthread "It is a fascinating watch and you can see what the Tories were up to now with him and Messina, and the signs were there when it was revealed now much they were spending on Facebook 6 months ago and they were trying to keep it quiet.”
As I posted up-thread is there a case for looking at the allowable spending under the RPA again? When I was a CAB Trustee we had to include in our accounts an estimate of the value of the time we gave to the Bureau. If we’re looking at what appear oo be professional canvassing teams being moved into target constituencies, shouldn't something of the sort be done there too?
David Goodhart writes for Demos and you can google other articles/analyses he has written. He has also written a book - The British Dream - about post-war immigration, which is a worthwhile read.
My parents who have been life long members of the Lib Dems are in tears. There is a real chance that the party will never recover from its losses. This is an immensely sad time.
The problem with the Liberal Democrats is that they are in no way a liberal party. They have been traducing the name of liberalism for far too long. Those with liberal convictions longed for the Liberal Democrats' demise, which was the best aspect of the the results. My delight at the party's collapse is only matched by its representatives' dishonesty, sanctimony and hypocrisy, which is quite extraordinary even by the standards of politicians.
However, a number of us have noted that thread leaders have seemed skewed. I want to highlight what I see as the ‘problems’ and urge Mike to consider it.
1. Don’t be monochromatic. You are countered by TSE and David Herdson, which is great, but you tend to latch onto a single viewpoint. Thus we had to endure months (it seemed years) of ‘Labour’s Firewall’. Then it became ‘E&W shares.’ 2. Then we had this ‘every 1 seat in Scotland lost is 2 in England’ despite the fact you were repeatedly pointed to the LibDem to Cons gains issue that could nullify your argument. 3. Over-reliance on polls and pollsters. Take a leaf from the BBC here in that polls shouldn’t drive political debate. They can, apparently, be wrong. 4. Over-reliance on a single pollster. From Angus Reid in 2005-2010 to the frankly sycophantic obeisance of Lord Ashcroft this demeaned the site. 5. Don’t ban dissonant voices. Ban rudeness, or better still moderate it with sin bins (though do let the person know). Too many good people have been forced off here. They could have been given a warning followed by a temporary suspension. That requires moderation. Well, fine, appoint some of us as moderators. I am certain you will find a dozen willing volunteers within minutes who can work a rota. 6. Don’t ban floaters. This is a subtle one. Be careful, please, not to assume that someone who says they voted one way but may do differently is a ‘troll.’ Actually they are the very people who will give you the bellweather for this election. I voted LibDem in 2010 and Conservative, just, this time. That’s the swing voter who decides the outcome.
I am, of course, Audrey Anne. On the cusp of my algorithm that was about to predict a Conservative majority with a 7% poll lead you banned me again for such an outrage. But I thought they would win. As I repeatedly pointed out to you:
9/10 opinion polls in the 2010-2015 overstated Labour’s share of the vote against actual results. You dismissed this every time I tried to tell you. The Liberal Democrat annihilation was predictable and some of us tried to tell you but you, again, refused even to debate it. Was there one single thread about what became one of the greatest political events of a lifetime?
I would like to stick around, please. I’m not rude. But I do occasionally critique (not the same as criticize) a false argument.
And finally, please let Robert join you in thread headers. He is a very, very, good thing for the future of what remains the best political site in Britain.
A question. whither Ed M? He's quite young and seems to have no interests outside the Labour Party. I found his resignation speech said some of the right things but in an unpleasant, almost bitter tone - not as bad as Ashdown later in the day, but not far off either.
Ashdown & Campbell were just pathetic trying to accuse Cameron of nationalism and a lot of other crap.
Both parties would be wise to put them out to grass ,they are well past their sell dates.
Whither EdM? I don't know if I'm alone among lefties in thinking he should now resign his seat and have nothing to do with the party ever again. I lived through the 80s and have continue to retain a great deal of affection for Foot and Kinnock (though in the latter case that has been a little tainted by his endorsements of EdM). But the thought of Miliband just fills me with contempt now - it's clear just how much damage his selfish pursuit of the leadership has done.
I prefer defeated leaders to stay on, at least for a term - sure the country rejected his party but the people of his constituency wanted him to represent them, and some focus on constituency work might revive his political passions, refocus him on the little person rather than grand, abstract ideals.
Hague seemed to find new respect from many people in his latter years as an MP. But Ed can surely find some academic posting or think tank, global lefty initiative or something if being an MP just hurts too much right now.
Yes, a lot of this is just about how I feel at the moment in the aftermath. I will probably come to a more rational view as time passes. However, I don't think the comparison with Hague is apt. Hague was a capable man handed an impossible task - in this respect he had more in common with Foot than with E. Miliband.
Ed Miliband never proposed to criminalise merely insulting Islam, unlike what the memes will tell you. If you were assaulting a Muslim because she was a Muslim, you could have got done for aggravated assault, just like racially-aggravated assaults. But that distinction went out the window in an effort to angry up the anti-Islam voters.
The distinction went out the window because the crime would undoubtedly be abused immediately - the many scandals, including Tower Hamlets, showed how easy it was for the distinction between criticising Islam, and being Islamophobic, to be conflated to the personal political and criminal advantage of specific persons, and the fear of such to the failure to confront this, shows that this would have become even worse under that preposterous proposed law.
I've spent 5 years saying Labour would win, that Ed M was not as bad as his criticis said, that he would not be a disaster as PM even if I preferred Cameron (ideally in a Lib-Con coalition), but that law was a piece of pure political pandering, and potentially very dangerous.
Yvette Cooper @YvetteCooper_MP · 3 hrs3 hours ago At this time we as a party need to pause, reflect & take time to consider what our plans are to address the 65m owls I have stored in a barn
Yvette Cooper @YvetteCooper_MP · 2 hrs2 hours ago FYI Ed B is not "unemployed" on May 7th he was placed on a zero hours contact by the electorate and Tories
I don’t think the LDs were punished for being in the coalition. It was the eagerness with which they entered one. Their USP in 2010 was free higher education. Many candidates had signed a solemn promise to that effect. They could have made this a red line in negotiations and the Tories would have had to accommodate it. Instead, their red line was electoral reform, which the voters were not bothered about, and which was seen as a piece of self-interest. You can’t do that and expect voters to trust you in the future. IMO it is that simple.
I wonder when the "Buy 1.06 NOM, safest bet ever" crowd will show up...
So happy I did not take safe NOM, or good trading bet Lab Most Seats 4/1.
Hmm I was on Lab seats and votes in the end, but still had £20 or so profit on the Cons. One thing I'm glad I did do though was bend the shape of my seat band/OM book so a big SNP score would aid it. The 226-250 Labour band bets combined with stacks of Conservative and SNP constituency bets meant it was a very decent nights. Of course some errors and I emphatically didn't call it right, by the end of the polling I'd just lost all faith in how the Lib Dems would do in particular (The ashcroft and Comres marginal polls simply couldn't be reconciled) so fortunately covered the 0-10 band. I thought 16-1 looked a touch large, just a tenner on...
taffys said: "One thing about the lib dem defeat puzzles me. They were punished for being in league with the Tories. And yet many of their defeats were to....er....Tories."
Labour- and Green-leaning voters who backed the LibDems tactically last time punished the LibDems by going back to Labour or the Greens, hence handing victory in those seats to the Tories. (and, some of the 'up yours' vote that the LibDems used to receive as an 'outsider' party went to UKIP). As a way of punishing the LibDems for the coalition it was very effective; as a way of preventing another Tory Government, not so much...
The bit I don't understand is the unexpected Tory victories against Labour in Wales?
The LDs going into power with the Tories meant that they no longer benefited from the anti-Tory voting coalition that had proved to be so powerful over the previous few elections. But Labour also suffered - clearly losing votes to UKIP and the Greens. FPTP in a multi-party system has the potential to deliver very big seat movements on very small changes in Tory and Labour voting shares.
This is going to make future results even harder to call and makes focusing on vote shares alone an even more hapless task. Where the votes are being won/lost is even more important than in the past. The obvious example: Labour got 700,000 more votes overall, but lost seats because it lost so many votes in one particular region (country, yes I know) and won them in places where it was already represented. .
#MikeK said: » show previous quotes I don't think a simple in or out EU referendum will ever take place under this second Cameron government. And heres £100 evens says it won't. Are you on?
I'll do that for £50.
Ok! agreed
Now how do I send you the £25 I now owe you: your wording below.
"Do you want to frame a bet on that: let's say a central point of 18% [mid way between Survation's 24% and the top end of my range] and any figure up to £5 per point on the UKIP vote share."
Thanks: one point to clarify I suppose is how do you define "a simple In-Out referendum". My view is that Cameron will renegotiate and come back with something like "do you approve staying in the EU on the renegotiated terms" - would that win the bet (for me) in your view?
@Aidan_Kerr1: Despite tactical voting the Scottish Conservatives are up 20,000 votes and finish 3rd for the 1st time since 1992.
It doesn't seem to me there is any need for a major rebranding just yet.
Scottish turnout was up a lot so adding 20,000 votes is moving backwards.
Not in Scott's Tory dreamland though.
330/650 isn't dreamland in your ideas?
Maybe you'd rather 58/650? Yeah that's "winning". Oh no, its not. You'll be sitting on the losers side of the house.
I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again. Winning is not about numbers; it's about power. And the SNP have it massively, not because they can bring down the government but because if they're not recognised, they can (or might) bring down the Union.
I agree totally.
But as a Tory who wanted Scotland to go independent (and repeatedly said so on this site), that's not a threat to me. So it fun to tease malcomg in the same way as he regularly taunts Tories. There seems to be a view amongst some that they can dish it out but can't be expected to take it.
I am a big boy and very happy to engage in banter, no big jessie tantrums from me. I like the cut and thrust of a good ding dong and cannot go the whining and hand wringing of softies. Keep up the good work , but take off those union jack underpants now and again.
And you keep polishing your jackboots. Or should it be jockboots?
Almost funny there, better watch yourself
Better get used to it. Meantime Sturgeon says the election is no further mandate for independence. She knows there is no majority for it. No currency no central bank and no tax base. Hardly surprising.
My problem with Watt's argument, is that I rarely - if ever hear the Conservatives talk about equality, and trying to increase social mobility in our society. I rarely hear them talk about trying to create a society where everyone can genuinely prosper.
I don't think Labour 'own' morality - in fact, if anything it has become less of a presence in their politics after 1994. There were problems with those who were disabled and sick not being fairly treated under them, particularly under James Purnell. They were the masters of propaganda and spin for a long time - which in the Iraq saga, partially led to the death of Dr David Kelly. They spent 10 years fighting for their own personal ambitions among themselves (Blairites vs Brownites) rather than trying to reduce income inequality, better public services, increase social mobility, and make sure everyone - no matter class, race, gender, sexuality - can have opportunities to succeed in life. But right now - really, in the last year or so - I did feel they were the least bad option.
Bilge. Total utter bilge. Stinking great vat of bilge with a thin scum of bilge on top.
If you don't hear Tories talking about opportunity or social mobility or helping the less well off then it is because you ain't listening.
And that's it. That's your problem. YOU'RE NOT LISTENING. Which means you can't hear the voters, which is the reason you lost. Again. And Labour will keep losing until people like you grow a brain.
Oh dear, I've upset someone....
I actually explained my argument, though given you've cut it out, and after what you've said it's clear you didn't read it and decided to go into an angry rant. I think it's you who has the problem. You have clear anger issues - especially with anyone that disagrees with you. Oh dear.
Does anyone know an online source of GB-only election results? The BBC only seems to have the UK figures, and individual countries, not GB. Tx.
No-one ever gives the GB-only figures. You have to calculate them yourself by taking the UK figures and then subtracting the Northern Ireland ones.
I was wondering if someone had done it to compare against the opinion polls which of course are GB only. I'm quite capable of adding them up myself but it is for Wikipedia and probably constututes "original research".
Ed Miliband never proposed to criminalise merely insulting Islam, unlike what the memes will tell you. If you were assaulting a Muslim because she was a Muslim, you could have got done for aggravated assault, just like racially-aggravated assaults. But that distinction went out the window in an effort to angry up the anti-Islam voters.
The distinction went out the window because the crime would undoubtedly be abused immediately - the many scandals, including Tower Hamlets, showed how easy it was for the distinction between criticising Islam, and being Islamophobic, to be conflated to the personal political and criminal advantage of specific persons, and the fear of such to the failure to confront this, shows that this would have become even worse under that preposterous proposed law.
I've spent 5 years saying Labour would win, that Ed M was not as bad as his criticis said, that he would not be a disaster as PM even if I preferred Cameron (ideally in a Lib-Con coalition), but that law was a piece of pure political pandering, and potentially very dangerous.
Exactly right.
Seconded. It is one of the main reasons - coupled with the Leveson proposals and Labour's stance on civil liberties - which is why I am delighted that they have been so heavily defeated. I really hope that some of the more thoughtful Labourites within the party go back to first principles and really think hard about where they went wrong in this area.
If a left of centre social democratic party does not stand up for free speech, for equal treatment under the law, for Western liberal values, what the hell is the point of it?
Kellners analysis is/was flawed. All YouGov did was a recontact with people they'd polled before the election - It was NOT in any way shape, or form an exit poll.
If the people YouGov was polling were lying about how they intended to vote before the election, chances are they were going to lie about how they voted after the election.
There may or may not have been a last minute swing to the Tories but YouGov's silly polls and the equally absurd Peter Kellner can't prove what happened one way or another.
The pollsters really should just all go away and shut the **** up for a while.
You may remember I was told in no uncertain term to shut up by OGH and rcs1000, re my pointing out that the polls were either being manipulated or just wrong. I confess that my concern was the way the UKIP vote was being shown; further, in this detail they were mostly right.
Nevertheless there was a herd instinct with all the pollsters to say that Labour and Tories were tied, that started in December and hardly deviated right up to the election and beyond. I think the time has come to say to the pollsters that in a 4 or 5 party analysis they know nothing.
Being 'manipulated' suggests malevolent willful intent, not just that they were completely wrong, which was surely the main concern. Of course the figures are 'manipulated' in the sense they weight things, and apply various metrics, but the failure seems to have been the result of making the wrong judgements, not intentionally bending the data to, presumably, fit the desired outcome.
I think the mantra of a hung parliament became the idea fix, believed by all the parties and the pollsters, and sad to say, was an almost religious belief on PB. It does seem though, that multiparty analysis is beyond the present methods of our pollsters.
My problem with Watt's argument, is that I rarely - if ever hear the Conservatives talk about equality, and trying to increase social mobility in our society. I rarely hear them talk about trying to create a society where everyone can genuinely prosper.
I don't think Labour 'own' morality - in fact, if anything it has become less of a presence in their politics after 1994. There were problems with those who were disabled and sick not being fairly treated under them, particularly under James Purnell. They were the masters of propaganda and spin for a long time - which in the Iraq saga, partially led to the death of Dr David Kelly. They spent 10 years fighting for their own personal ambitions among themselves (Blairites vs Brownites) rather than trying to reduce income inequality, better public services, increase social mobility, and make sure everyone - no matter class, race, gender, sexuality - can have opportunities to succeed in life. But right now - really, in the last year or so - I did feel they were the least bad option.
Bilge. Total utter bilge. Stinking great vat of bilge with a thin scum of bilge on top.
If you don't hear Tories talking about opportunity or social mobility or helping the less well off then it is because you ain't listening.
And that's it. That's your problem. YOU'RE NOT LISTENING. Which means you can't hear the voters, which is the reason you lost. Again. And Labour will keep losing until people like you grow a brain.
Oh dear, I've upset someone....
I actually explained my argument, though given you've cut it out, and after what you've said it's clear you didn't read it and decided to go into an angry rant. I think it's you who has the problem. You have clear anger issues - especially with anyone that disagrees with you. Oh dear.
I SNIPPED it because it was a pointless screed of drivel, and wanted to save you the embarrassment of seeing it duplicated.
No, YOU thought it was a pointless piece of drivel. Your right-wing opinion, doesn't equal fact. Since it's so embarrassing, instead of getting all angry, why don't you actually argue against it, rather take an incredibly condescending tone?
Blimey imagine being Delia this week - first she loses her NHS and then she might miss out on the Premier League because of Ipswich.... who does Ed B support also?
IN PRAISE OF UNIFORM NATIONAL SWING. Using Scottish actual vote shares and UK National swing from actual vote shares gives following seat numbers with variance against actual.
Con 326(-5),Lab 237(+5),SNP 55(-1)LD 11(+3),UKIP 1(-1)(),Green 1(0).
Pretty good so lets not ignore UNS for future GE forecasting.
Red-Urban liberals were terrified the yellow peril would go into bed with the Conservatives again so jumped ship to Labour whereas the SW types were worried about deals with Labour/SNP so went blue.
'The problem with the Liberal Democrats is that they are in no way a liberal party'
Electorally they were fine as long as they had no record to defend and the exclusivity of the 'protest party' that of course all changed in 2010 plus the emergence of the SNP ,UKIP & Greens which gave voters a selection of protest parties.
It was brave to join the coalition but not clever to try and be in government and opposition at the same time.
IN PRAISE OF UNIFORM NATIONAL SWING. Using Scottish actual vote shares and UK National swing from actual vote shares gives following seat numbers with variance against actual.
Con 326(-5),Lab 237(+5),SNP 55(-1)LD 11(+3),UKIP 1(-1)(),Green 1(0).
Pretty good so lets not ignore UNS for future GE forecasting.
Yes that's another one which was knocked down but it actually has proved accurate again.
For me the lib demos were neither in coalition nor out of it. They had power, but never quite lost their hectoring, gesturing tone that comes from decades of opposition. It is a shame because many of the good ideas of this parliament were theirs, including taking low earners out of tax
Ed M should take a leaf out of IDS's book. Rather than leaving parliament, he set up, with the help of others, a think tank (CSJ) that has done valuable research into the causes of poverty and the solutions. He then made it his mission to use the opportunity of government to put that work into practice, to benefit the people he went into politics to serve. Come on, Ed, don't wander off, don't sulk. Find your mission. Work at it. Make it happen.
P.S. Maybe Miss Apocalypse should try listening to IDS sometime.
#MikeK said: » show previous quotes I don't think a simple in or out EU referendum will ever take place under this second Cameron government. And heres £100 evens says it won't. Are you on?
I'll do that for £50.
Ok! agreed
Now how do I send you the £25 I now owe you: your wording below.
"Do you want to frame a bet on that: let's say a central point of 18% [mid way between Survation's 24% and the top end of my range] and any figure up to £5 per point on the UKIP vote share."
Thanks: one point to clarify I suppose is how do you define "a simple In-Out referendum". My view is that Cameron will renegotiate and come back with something like "do you approve staying in the EU on the renegotiated terms" - would that win the bet (for me) in your view?
£25 it is. I'll PM you my bank details.
No matter how you frame it you are onto free money. Cameron has a lot of leverage in the negotiations and no matter what anyone things of the rsult of them there will be a referendum which says something like 'Following renegotiated terms of membership, to you apprive staying in or leaving the EU'
We should remember that the vast majority of commentators betray few indicators of any perception of what is happening in the real world. The total misreading of the election campaign and Cameron being cases in point. The preconceived idea that we cannot get anywhere with the negotiations is a case in point. We do have leverage - the EU itself needs to adapt re the Eurozone. We do not want to be in a closer union and we can certainly stake out an acceptable place in the EU whilst most of them coalesce together. As part of that we can modify the movement of labour rules and protect our interests as the EU/Eurozone changes its own rules. I can only repeat that the danger of a straight EU walk out is that we end up in Schengen as part of the (very difficult) subsequent trade deal.
The voters can then decide. But kippers will always howl that any vote is 'unfair'.
Balthasarsfeast (Audrey Anne) said -- ''I voted LibDem in 2010 and Conservative, just, this time. That’s the swing voter who decides the outcome.''
First: to you - I find it amazing that you were banned for being a swing voter. Second: to every right leaning Toryphile - The above comment is just the reason why the Tory Party MUST be a broad church and why the usual crowd of thick tory backbenchers need to grow a few brain cells. They are entitled to have an opinion and express it and win some achievements, bravo. But regularly voting to skewer their own party is plain crass and will only tar their own party with an extremist voter-averse brush. The LDs regularly self-destroyed their own point in government and then wonder why they got wiped out. Cable is an exemplar of this.
#MikeK said: » show previous quotes I don't think a simple in or out EU referendum will ever take place under this second Cameron government. And heres £100 evens says it won't. Are you on?
I'll do that for £50.
Ok! agreed
Now how do I send you the £25 I now owe you: your wording below.
"Do you want to frame a bet on that: let's say a central point of 18% [mid way between Survation's 24% and the top end of my range] and any figure up to £5 per point on the UKIP vote share."
Thanks: one point to clarify I suppose is how do you define "a simple In-Out referendum". My view is that Cameron will renegotiate and come back with something like "do you approve staying in the EU on the renegotiated terms" - would that win the bet (for me) in your view?
£25 it is. I'll PM you my bank details.
Fine, will pay on Monday as I never use the internet for banking. I'll either send it through my bank or post a cheque to you if you detail your address.
On the ref thing, the "do you approve" line stinks, and is a get out clause by Cammo. There must be a "yes or no" question and nothing else.
taffys said: "One thing about the lib dem defeat puzzles me. They were punished for being in league with the Tories. And yet many of their defeats were to....er....Tories."
Labour- and Green-leaning voters who backed the LibDems tactically last time punished the LibDems by going back to Labour or the Greens, hence handing victory in those seats to the Tories. (and, some of the 'up yours' vote that the LibDems used to receive as an 'outsider' party went to UKIP). As a way of punishing the LibDems for the coalition it was very effective; as a way of preventing another Tory Government, not so much...
The bit I don't understand is the unexpected Tory victories against Labour in Wales?
Ed M should take a leaf out of IDS's book. Rather than leaving parliament, he set up, with the help of others, a think tank (CSJ) that has done valuable research into the causes of poverty and the solutions. He then made it his mission to use the opportunity of government to put that work into practice, to benefit the people he went into politics to serve. Come on, Ed, don't wander off, don't sulk. Find your mission. Work at it. Make it happen.
P.S. Maybe Miss Apocalypse should try listening to IDS sometime.
Trouble is I'd hardly say what IDS had actually done in government has helped the less well off and the poor; it's made their lives even more difficult. And IDS is living proof of what I said previously; that the Conservatives think self-reliance is achieved by cutting benefits, when that is only 50% of the story.
@Aidan_Kerr1: Despite tactical voting the Scottish Conservatives are up 20,000 votes and finish 3rd for the 1st time since 1992.
It doesn't seem to me there is any need for a major rebranding just yet.
Scottish turnout was up a lot so adding 20,000 votes is moving backwards.
Not in Scott's Tory dreamland though.
330/650 isn't dreamland in your ideas?
Maybe you'd rather 58/650? Yeah that's "winning". Oh no, its not. You'll be sitting on the losers side of the house.
I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again. Winning is not about numbers; it's about power. And the SNP have it massively, not because they can bring down the government but because if they're not recognised, they can (or might) bring down the Union.
This is the core of things and seems to be completely lost on a lot of southern Unionists. I think Unionists in Scotland are far more aware of this. Westminster is no longer the only source of power in these islands. Holyrood competes with Westminster, is more popular with Scotland and it's will cannot be ignored without consequences. The SNP have the game in the bag, all they need to do is squeeze in the right places.
They're already set up to get complete and utter capitulation over FFA.
taffys said: "One thing about the lib dem defeat puzzles me. They were punished for being in league with the Tories. And yet many of their defeats were to....er....Tories."
Labour- and Green-leaning voters who backed the LibDems tactically last time punished the LibDems by going back to Labour or the Greens, hence handing victory in those seats to the Tories. (and, some of the 'up yours' vote that the LibDems used to receive as an 'outsider' party went to UKIP). As a way of punishing the LibDems for the coalition it was very effective; as a way of preventing another Tory Government, not so much...
The bit I don't understand is the unexpected Tory victories against Labour in Wales?
There's really no point in arguing with you if you genuinely believe Tories don't care about, and never talk about, social mobility and opportunities for the poor and helping the less well off, and so on and so forth. If you do think that you are either stupid, or terminally blinkered.
Why have the Tories gone to enormous pains to reform welfare benefits? Is it because they want to see beggars screaming for crusts of bread on Bayswater Road, or is it because they sincerely think that the best way out of entrenched poverty is to get people into paying work? Really? What do you reckon?
If they don't care about the the very poorest why do they pour billions into foreign aid (too much, to my mind)? If they hate the disabled and the sick how come they have ringfenced and increased spending on the NHS?
If they never talk about opportunity how come they want Free Schools, and more right to buy, and....
Ach, what's the point. Feel free to reply or not, I'm done!
If there's not point in arguing with me, why respond? It's not like you argued anyway, you just sorted of ranted at me.
On welfare reforms - the Conservatives appear to think anyone on welfare is an evil scrounger, and an awful lot of their reform has been based on that. And given how their welfare reform has affected the sick and disabled, I'd pretty much say they at least are ambivalent towards them.
There's really no point in arguing with you if you genuinely believe Tories don't care about, and never talk about, social mobility and opportunities for the poor and helping the less well off, and so on and so forth. If you do think that you are either stupid, or terminally blinkered.
Why have the Tories gone to enormous pains to reform welfare benefits? Is it because they want to see beggars screaming for crusts of bread on Bayswater Road, or is it because they sincerely think that the best way out of entrenched poverty is to get people into paying work? Really? What do you reckon?
If they don't care about the the very poorest why do they pour billions into foreign aid (too much, to my mind)? If they hate the disabled and the sick how come they have ringfenced and increased spending on the NHS?
If they never talk about opportunity how come they want Free Schools, and more right to buy, and....
Ach, what's the point. Feel free to reply or not, I'm done!
If there's not point in arguing with me, why respond? It's not like you argued anyway, you just sorted of ranted at me.
On welfare reforms - the Conservatives appear to think anyone on welfare is an evil scrounger, and an awful lot of their reform has been based on that. And given how their welfare reform has affected the sick and disabled, I'd pretty much say they at least are ambivalent towards them.
Just watching last nights QT.... Mad Bad Al's really an twat isn;t he.
Oh, it got worse!
I think Ashdown forgot his piles cushion.....
I think we should remember why he needs that cushion. Ashdown got shafted royally by Blair and Campbell over PR. Surely I cannot be the only person to remember that?
Kellners analysis is/was flawed. All YouGov did was a recontact with people they'd polled before the election - It was NOT in any way shape, or form an exit poll.
If the people YouGov was polling were lying about how they intended to vote before the election, chances are they were going to lie about how they voted after the election.
There may or may not have been a last minute swing to the Tories but YouGov's silly polls and the equally absurd Peter Kellner can't prove what happened one way or another.
The pollsters really should just all go away and shut the **** up for a while.
Garbage in Garbage out?
A big mea culpa on my part regarding ELBOW - nine months I spent doing those! Nine months!!
Oh well, time to paraphrase The Joker one final time:
"Do I really look like a guy with a plan? You know what I am? I'm a dog chasing opinion polls. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it! You know, I just... DO things."
IN PRAISE OF UNIFORM NATIONAL SWING. Using Scottish actual vote shares and UK National swing from actual vote shares gives following seat numbers with variance against actual.
Con 326(-5),Lab 237(+5),SNP 55(-1)LD 11(+3),UKIP 1(-1)(),Green 1(0).
Pretty good so lets not ignore UNS for future GE forecasting.
There's really no point in arguing with you if you genuinely believe Tories don't care about, and never talk about, social mobility and opportunities for the poor and helping the less well off, and so on and so forth. If you do think that you are either stupid, or terminally blinkered.
Why have the Tories gone to enormous pains to reform welfare benefits? Is it because they want to see beggars screaming for crusts of bread on Bayswater Road, or is it because they sincerely think that the best way out of entrenched poverty is to get people into paying work? Really? What do you reckon?
If they don't care about the the very poorest why do they pour billions into foreign aid (too much, to my mind)? If they hate the disabled and the sick how come they have ringfenced and increased spending on the NHS?
If they never talk about opportunity how come they want Free Schools, and more right to buy, and....
Ach, what's the point. Feel free to reply or not, I'm done!
If there's not point in arguing with me, why respond? It's not like you argued anyway, you just sorted of ranted at me.
On welfare reforms - the Conservatives appear to think anyone on welfare is an evil scrounger, and an awful lot of their reform has been based on that. And given how their welfare reform has affected the sick and disabled, I'd pretty much say they at least are ambivalent towards them.
Comments
A suspension when things get overheated is probably enough.
Permanent bans should be for spammers and the persistently offensive.
On the whole the mods here get it about right. Mikes site, Mikes rules.
Like Labour needing to decide if they go more left or to the centre so the same applies to the LDems.
There will be no independence referendum before May 2020, unless Cameron takes the UK out of the EU, because he has recommended the country vote to come out of the EU. England may vote to leave the EU, but certainly Scotland and Wales would want to remain part of the EU. At that point the UK breaks up into individual nations.
The main opposition to the Tories is going to be the House of Lords. Cameron will no doubt be putting more Lords in place but it may take some time, as he can only nominate a certain number every year. Labour and Lib Dems will not be able to nominate as many new Lords, as I think it is based on number of MP's in the HOC.
Labour have got one hell of job to change their party, so they can be in a position to challenge again in May 2020. They need to go back to the Blairite era, with someone who middle England is comfortable with. It is no good just appealing to parts of the North of England.
Another was interesting: I went back over every General Election campaign for several decades and found that Labour's share of the vote always falls over the final 3 months to polling day regardless of whether they are in office or opposition. It's very odd, but it does.
In addition I studied the importance of leadership ratings vs party poll share. I put quite a lot of work into that. It's a factor, I think, when it comes to the actual vote. In fact on that subject I think people did vote not just for their local MP (another of Mike's favourites) but for who would be the best PM.
Anyway, ho hum! Hopefully I will be able to stay!
A few thought I was on a 'wind-up'. Labour had known for quite a while that things were not going to plan. For some reason this was not being represented in the public polls...
Presumably with a Con overall majority, should they want to get rid of him they now have the opportunity?
1. his hideously ungallant revealing of bedroom secrets about his ex-wife Katy Perry
2. getting in the mix with Ed Miliband this election.
In my Tory neck of the woods, where people don't normally both to mention who they support because it's obvious, there were a lot of surprised and happy faces from people not expecting a Cameron win, but also plenty of unprompted comment that the LDs had been harsh done by the voters; I feel here in the SW the LDs can, if they don't implode, regain the second places they have been pipped to in many areas, and slowly build from that. If they are replaced long term as the natural second place party here by UKIP or Labour, then they will be in even more trouble.
Nevertheless there was a herd instinct with all the pollsters to say that Labour and Tories were tied, that started in December and hardly deviated right up to the election and beyond. I think the time has come to say to the pollsters that in a 4 or 5 party analysis they know nothing.
First: to you - I find it amazing that you were banned for being a swing voter.
Second: to every right leaning Toryphile - The above comment is just the reason why the Tory Party MUST be a broad church and why the usual crowd of thick tory backbenchers need to grow a few brain cells. They are entitled to have an opinion and express it and win some achievements, bravo. But regularly voting to skewer their own party is plain crass and will only tar their own party with an extremist voter-averse brush.
The LDs regularly self-destroyed their own point in government and then wonder why they got wiped out. Cable is an exemplar of this.
“Ignore most of the opinion polls that you see in the newspapers, because they are so simplistic.”
This. I've never seen an issue cut so deep round here. That has unfortunately been conflated with the false view that their having an impact in government with Lab would be illegitimate (of course it would legitimate), but it was hammered home that the SNP were a threat, and it worked.
I'm resolved to listen now to my non-voting (not once in 50 years), non-politically aware relative, who in the brief moments of political talk that came up was also adamant, despite being a working class Labour leaning if there was compulsory voting chap, that Cameron would obviously win because, as I discounted, people don't like Ed or, in England anyway, the SNP. I've always maintained gut feeling mattered more than policy or knowledge of the parties, but I judged the gut mood poorly, clearly.
A question. whither Ed M? He's quite young and seems to have no interests outside the Labour Party. I found his resignation speech said some of the right things but in an unpleasant, almost bitter tone - not as bad as Ashdown later in the day, but not far off either.
Ashdown & Campbell were just pathetic trying to accuse Cameron of nationalism and a lot of other crap.
Both parties would be wise to put them out to grass ,they are well past their sell dates.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11592907/David-Cameron-should-be-magnanimous-in-victory-but-true-to-himself.html
The changes that the UK has to see if it is to survive need as wide a buy-in as possible. That means a constitutional convention, followed by a settlement endorsed in a referendum. It is only then that we can put the issues to bed.
That's a good one. Herdson's first law: Partisans offering advice to another party should put themselves in the other party's shoes. Herdson's second law: Those who fail to obey the first law tend to recommend that other parties should be more like theirs.
I think Ashdown forgot his piles cushion.....
I am reminded of my visits to the cinema as a child. You would shuffle in somewhere in the middle of the second feature. Later on when you reached the same place in the film we would nudge and say 'This is where we came in' and go to catch the bus.
Well, 8 seats for the LDs is where I came in a few decades ago. 8 is a good number for the Libs. They need to live with that.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/08/question-time-ed-miliband-die-cast-tories-trample-labour-economic-record
Labour in total denial and remaining so...
Labour- and Green-leaning voters who backed the LibDems tactically last time punished the LibDems by going back to Labour or the Greens, hence handing victory in those seats to the Tories. (and, some of the 'up yours' vote that the LibDems used to receive as an 'outsider' party went to UKIP). As a way of punishing the LibDems for the coalition it was very effective; as a way of preventing another Tory Government, not so much...
The bit I don't understand is the unexpected Tory victories against Labour in Wales?
I hear Conservatives talk of wealth creators (and not scaring them); as if they are some isolated force pouring tons into our economy - when really it's a symbiotic relationship - business owners cannot function without workers; and they cannot return profits if enough people do not have disposable income to buy their products. I hear Conservatives talk about the welfare system, and how it needs to be reformed and people need to be 'self-reliant' - yes, the welfare system does need to be reformed and self-reliance is something we ought to want to achieve. But it feels like many on the right don't ask themselves why on earth are so many people dependent on the welfare state? It is not just 'scroungers' and the unemployed, or the sick and disabled - but also many of those in-work too. This would suggest - something in our economy, as it is now isn't right; and perhaps one of the reasons why the welfare state is having to prop up so many people is because many are not getting a fair wage. Many are struggling with rising costs of living and so on - and part of reforming welfare is creating an economy for all. Then people can truly be self-reliant. But I don't hear a message from the Conservatives with ways to try and make work pay. It seems to be centred on simply reducing benefits, which is only half of the story. While I don't doubt that there Conservatives who genuinely do care, I wonder how many of them actually do? I have my sincerest doubts George Osborne lays there awake at night thinking of the poorest in society, the homeless, the mentally ill.
I don't think Labour 'own' morality - in fact, if anything it has become less of a presence in their politics after 1994. There were problems with those who were disabled and sick not being fairly treated under them, particularly under James Purnell. They were the masters of propaganda and spin for a long time - which in the Iraq saga, partially led to the death of Dr David Kelly. They spent 10 years fighting for their own personal ambitions among themselves (Blairites vs Brownites) rather than trying to reduce income inequality, better public services, increase social mobility, and make sure everyone - no matter class, race, gender, sexuality - can have opportunities to succeed in life. But right now - really, in the last year or so - I did feel they were the least bad option.
I'm an atheist and should have the right to say loud and proud if I want to criticisms of Christianity, Islam or anyone else I disagree with. And believers should be able to criticise other believers and atheists back. It's only through free speech that we learn.
Drawing cartoons shouldn't be illegal. Shooting people should.
Whoever made the decision at YG to weight to their flawed January data probably influenced the widespread level of error as the fog of their daily polling clouded the real situation.
Considerable kudos to Comres;
http://www.comres.co.uk/look-past-polls-of-polls-the-conservatives-have-been-leading-all-year/
http://www.comres.co.uk/where-did-it-all-go-wrong-for-the-lib-dems/
http://www.comres.co.uk/comres-statement-on-south-thanet-poll/
Hague seemed to find new respect from many people in his latter years as an MP. But Ed can surely find some academic posting or think tank, global lefty initiative or something if being an MP just hurts too much right now.
I hope Farage carries on, he adds to the gaiety of the nation. Plus the media have already thrown the kitchen sink at him, won't work next time. I know for a small minority of people the EU is the be all and end all but most people are like me and don't give it a second thought, an EU referendum won't alter issues regarding mass immigration, our place in the world etc. I do hope they don't prattle on about electoral reform, who cares?
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/05/07/britains-political-circus/
"It is a fascinating watch and you can see what the Tories were up to now with him and Messina, and the signs were there when it was revealed now much they were spending on Facebook 6 months ago and they were trying to keep it quiet.”
As I posted up-thread is there a case for looking at the allowable spending under the RPA again?
When I was a CAB Trustee we had to include in our accounts an estimate of the value of the time we gave to the Bureau. If we’re looking at what appear oo be professional canvassing teams being moved into target constituencies, shouldn't something of the sort be done there too?
David Goodhart writes for Demos and you can google other articles/analyses he has written. He has also written a book - The British Dream - about post-war immigration, which is a worthwhile read.
'Re. Lab leader, I have a feeling Labour is now looking at a decade out of power.'
I think you are right 100 seat gap just to get level with the Tories & another 8/10 + seats with the new boundaries.
I've spent 5 years saying Labour would win, that Ed M was not as bad as his criticis said, that he would not be a disaster as PM even if I preferred Cameron (ideally in a Lib-Con coalition), but that law was a piece of pure political pandering, and potentially very dangerous.
At this time we as a party need to pause, reflect & take time to consider what our plans are to address the 65m owls I have stored in a barn
Yvette Cooper @YvetteCooper_MP · 2 hrs2 hours ago
FYI Ed B is not "unemployed" on May 7th he was placed on a zero hours contact by the electorate and Tories
Shame it's a parody but still....
This is going to make future results even harder to call and makes focusing on vote shares alone an even more hapless task. Where the votes are being won/lost is even more important than in the past. The obvious example: Labour got 700,000 more votes overall, but lost seats because it lost so many votes in one particular region (country, yes I know) and won them in places where it was already represented. .
£25 it is. I'll PM you my bank details.
Meantime Sturgeon says the election is no further mandate for independence. She knows there is no majority for it. No currency no central bank and no tax base. Hardly surprising.
I actually explained my argument, though given you've cut it out, and after what you've said it's clear you didn't read it and decided to go into an angry rant. I think it's you who has the problem. You have clear anger issues - especially with anyone that disagrees with you. Oh dear.
If a left of centre social democratic party does not stand up for free speech, for equal treatment under the law, for Western liberal values, what the hell is the point of it?
Using Scottish actual vote shares and UK National swing from actual vote shares gives
following seat numbers with variance against actual.
Con 326(-5),Lab 237(+5),SNP 55(-1)LD 11(+3),UKIP 1(-1)(),Green 1(0).
Pretty good so lets not ignore UNS for future GE forecasting.
rcs1000 got half the story right...
'The problem with the Liberal Democrats is that they are in no way a liberal party'
Electorally they were fine as long as they had no record to defend and the exclusivity of the 'protest party' that of course all changed in 2010 plus the emergence of the SNP ,UKIP & Greens which gave voters a selection of protest parties.
It was brave to join the coalition but not clever to try and be in government and opposition at the same time.
He then made it his mission to use the opportunity of government to put that work into practice, to benefit the people he went into politics to serve.
Come on, Ed, don't wander off, don't sulk.
Find your mission. Work at it. Make it happen.
P.S. Maybe Miss Apocalypse should try listening to IDS sometime.
Con: 11,325,865
Lab: 9,347,326
UKIP: 3,862,805
LD: 2,415,888
SNP: 1,454,436
Greens: 1,150,791
PC: 181,694
Others: 241,302
Total votes: 29,980,107
Con: 37.78%
Lab: 31.18%
UKIP: 12.88%
LD: 8.06%
SNP: 4.85%
Greens: 3.84%
PC: 0.61%
Others: 0.80%
Changes compared to 2010:
Con +0.89%
Lab +1.52%
UKIP +9.71%
LD: -15.50%
SNP: +3.16%
Greens: +2.87%
PC: +0.04%
Others: -2.69%
Swing, Con to Lab: 0.31%
2015, Con lead over Lab: 1,978,539 (6.60%)
2010, Con lead over Lab: 2,097,192 (7.23%)
We should remember that the vast majority of commentators betray few indicators of any perception of what is happening in the real world. The total misreading of the election campaign and Cameron being cases in point.
The preconceived idea that we cannot get anywhere with the negotiations is a case in point. We do have leverage - the EU itself needs to adapt re the Eurozone. We do not want to be in a closer union and we can certainly stake out an acceptable place in the EU whilst most of them coalesce together. As part of that we can modify the movement of labour rules and protect our interests as the EU/Eurozone changes its own rules.
I can only repeat that the danger of a straight EU walk out is that we end up in Schengen as part of the (very difficult) subsequent trade deal.
The voters can then decide. But kippers will always howl that any vote is 'unfair'.
On the ref thing, the "do you approve" line stinks, and is a get out clause by Cammo. There must be a "yes or no" question and nothing else.
They're already set up to get complete and utter capitulation over FFA.
On welfare reforms - the Conservatives appear to think anyone on welfare is an evil scrounger, and an awful lot of their reform has been based on that. And given how their welfare reform has affected the sick and disabled, I'd pretty much say they at least are ambivalent towards them.
On welfare reforms - the Conservatives appear to think anyone on welfare is an evil scrounger, and an awful lot of their reform has been based on that. And given how their welfare reform has affected the sick and disabled, I'd pretty much say they at least are ambivalent towards them.
Surely I cannot be the only person to remember that?
A big mea culpa on my part regarding ELBOW - nine months I spent doing those! Nine months!!
Oh well, time to paraphrase The Joker one final time:
"Do I really look like a guy with a plan? You know what I am? I'm a dog chasing opinion polls. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it! You know, I just... DO things."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgzssDOTMXs
BUT you need accurate, reliable polls to feed in.