politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Our GE15 prediction competition: results + chart showing CO

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Our GE15 prediction competition: results + chart showing CON leads % -/+ recorded in final polls

Sporting Index, which is sponsoring PB’s General Election coverage, is providing a competition prize of £200, payable into the winner’s SPIN account. If the winner does not have an account then he/she will have to open one to receive the prize. This is only open to people over the age of 18.

Read the full story here

Philip_Thompson

What's remarkable is how nobody other than Stephen Parker was remotely close to the 8 seats the Lob Dems got. Despite 5 years of very low poll ratings the idea of Lib Dem seats being in single digits just wasn't taken seriously.

AndyJS

GB figures:

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%)

Eh_ehm_a_eh

Philip_Thompson said:

What's remarkable is how nobody other than Stephen Parker was remotely close to the 8 seats the Lob Dems got. Despite 5 years of very low poll ratings the idea of Lib Dem seats being in single digits just wasn't taken seriously.

Perhaps they were swayed by the constant threads on the LD's incumbency vote, and vote swapping stories.

felix

Some thoughts on the London regional polling. I was harangued on here by either speedy or lucky guy for suggesting that Labour would not get up to 10 London gains from the Tories alone. They actually got 4 - all north of the river and in many other seats the swing went to the Tories. I suspect 3 reasons:

1. Measuring London is very difficult unless you very carefully wight re age, class, registration, etc.
2. There can be enormous variations withing London - Battersea , eg is very different form Hampstead.
3. I suspect Labour missed up to 3 N. London possibilities because of the absurd anti-islamophobia proposal. You target one religious group for support and risk offending others just a few streets away.

Philip_Thompson

Eh_ehm_a_eh said:

Philip_Thompson said:

What's remarkable is how nobody other than Stephen Parker was remotely close to the 8 seats the Lob Dems got. Despite 5 years of very low poll ratings the idea of Lib Dem seats being in single digits just wasn't taken seriously.

Perhaps they were swayed by the constant threads on the LD's incumbency vote, and vote swapping stories.

You're probably right. I was convinced the "cockroach like" incumbency meant about 30 minimum. The idea of even teens seemed implausible.

PS Spelling error in LD name in my post above was due to writing on my phone not trying to be funny.

felix

Philip_Thompson said:

Eh_ehm_a_eh said:

Philip_Thompson said:

What's remarkable is how nobody other than Stephen Parker was remotely close to the 8 seats the Lob Dems got. Despite 5 years of very low poll ratings the idea of Lib Dem seats being in single digits just wasn't taken seriously.

Perhaps they were swayed by the constant threads on the LD's incumbency vote, and vote swapping stories.

You're probably right. I was convinced the "cockroach like" incumbency meant about 30 minimum. The idea of even teens seemed implausible.

PS Spelling error in LD name in my post above was due to writing on my phone not trying to be funny.

To be fair any challenges to the LD incumbency mantra were invariably jumped on here by several posters.

AndyJS

Interesting fact: Labour polled 2.4 times as many votes as UKIP. They won 232 times as many MPs.

Dair

john_zims said:

@Life_ina_market_town

'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.

The Liberal Democrats are a Norwegian Blue. And not in a comic sense, they really are finished. I'm pretty sure that the party is insolvent now without Short Money, they have some big outstanding bills and no way to pay the,

Electorally they cannot recover from here. In the 70s they had the option as they were the only third party. Now they are not. They are finished, probably forever.

Dair

david_herdson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

malcolmg said:

Alistair said:

Scott_P said:

@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.

ukelect

The reason that many seat predictors (including UK-Elect) failed so badly to predict the LibDem seat total was because they were fine-tuned by the Ashcroft constituency polls, which seemed to show that the LibDEm incumbency factor really existed. That made me extremely nervous at the time (I said so at the time) but trusted the data rather than my instincts. Damn.

FalseFlag

felix said:

Some thoughts on the London regional polling. I was harangued on here by either speedy or lucky guy for suggesting that Labour would not get up to 10 London gains from the Tories alone. They actually got 4 - all north of the river and in many other seats the swing went to the Tories. I suspect 3 reasons:

1. Measuring London is very difficult unless you very carefully wight re age, class, registration, etc.
2. There can be enormous variations withing London - Battersea , eg is very different form Hampstead.
3. I suspect Labour missed up to 3 N. London possibilities because of the absurd anti-islamophobia proposal. You target one religious group for support and risk offending others just a few streets away.

I suspect many London Labour are ineligible to vote.

AndyJS

The polls weren't that wrong actually because many of them had figures of 34% each with a 3% margin of error. If you apply that margin of error, it's possible to get 37% and 31% which is very close to the result. The problem is people often forget about the 3% margin of error.

felix

Dair said:

david_herdson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

malcolmg said:

Alistair said:

Scott_P said:

@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.

Sounds to me like Cameron is happy to give you what you want - and all without the bother of talking to you very much. Sounds like a win for the rUK to me. Take the ball and run with it. If I was him I'd also let you borrow on the international money markets - though probably not from the BoE.

AndreaParma_82

Congratulations to the winners!

Theuniondivvie

R4 News: 'Downing street source says FFA has been ruled out.'

AndyJS

The election was a victory for provincial England and Wales. They didn’t accept the metropolitan view of Ed Miliband. Labour’s vote went up in trendy areas like Hackney and Islington. They tanked in the small to medium sized towns of England and Wales.

edmundintokyo

AndyJS said:

The polls weren't that wrong actually because many of them had figures of 34% each with a 3% margin of error. If you apply that margin of error, it's possible to get 37% and 31% which is very close to the result. The problem is people often forget about the 3% margin of error.

Since they were all showing the too-low numbers it's probably a systematic issue (either they were wrong or the voters moved the goalposts after the final interviews) rather than sampling error. Although I suppose it's possible that one or two of the phone pollsters was systematically right, but got unlucky with sampling error.

felix

AndyJS said:

The polls weren't that wrong actually because many of them had figures of 34% each with a 3% margin of error. If you apply that margin of error, it's possible to get 37% and 31% which is very close to the result. The problem is people often forget about the 3% margin of error.

Yes but that's working at the extremes of margins. Far better to accept they were pretty crap.

Sunil_Prasannan

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."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgzssDOTMXs

felix

Theuniondivvie said:

R4 News: 'Downing street source says FFA has been ruled out.'

Ah - I stand corrected. We await to see the offer. whatever it is of course will never be enough, but I would certainly favour giving them as much as is practicable without compromising the economic integrity of the rUK

Sunil_Prasannan

The pollsters did much better the week ending 1st May, for some reason,

Ashcroft actually had Con 36 Lab 30 in his national poll ending 26th April

Then there was Ipsos MORI ending 29th April which had Con 35 Lab 30

Dair

felix said:

Dair said:

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.

Sounds to me like Cameron is happy to give you what you want - and all without the bother of talking to you very much. Sounds like a win for the rUK to me. Take the ball and run with it. If I was him I'd also let you borrow on the international money markets - though probably not from the BoE.

Yes and lots of commentators in the bubble think so.

Because they don't understand what FFA means on a fundamental level.

FFA is not a decision to transfer the deficit requirements to Scotland on the CURRENT basis of Fiscal Tranfers. It means negotiating an outcome where the fiscal transfers are no longer decided Unilaterally by Westminster but by both parties.

Currently Scotland pays around £12bn per annum in Fiscal Transfers to the UK Government and gets no say on whethere any or all of this is fair and balanced. It gets decided at Westminster. Even at Trough Oil this fiscal transfer is larger than the "blackhole" £7.6bn claimed by Loyalists that should prevent FFA.

That's why the SNP are playing things so well. Cameron faces Morton's Fork. He is being compelled to offer FFA by commentators and probably most of his own party. But he will be being told that it will not be as good as these people think. However hte only way he could counter the commentators and most of his own party would be by going public. Which is NEVER going to happen because it would reveal that Better Together is a lie and always has been a lie.

ukelect

AndyJS said:

The polls weren't that wrong actually because many of them had figures of 34% each with a 3% margin of error. If you apply that margin of error, it's possible to get 37% and 31% which is very close to the result. The problem is people often forget about the 3% margin of error.

There were hundreds of polls (including the constituency polls). None of them (as far as I am aware) forecast a better Conservative result than actually occurred. If they were working as designed you would have expected to see quite a lot of of them forecasting a GB Conservative vote of 39% or 40% or more, and almost none forecasting a vote below 34%.

MikeSmithson

AndyJS said:

The election was a victory for provincial England and Wales. They didn’t accept the metropolitan view of Ed Miliband. Labour’s vote went up in trendy areas like Hackney and Islington. They tanked in the small to medium sized towns of England and Wales.

And it was the small and medium English towns where most of the marginals were.

I think that the YouGov daily poll has an almost hypnotic effect and pollsters are fearful or producing something that is much different.

EPG

felix said:

Some thoughts on the London regional polling. I was harangued on here by either speedy or lucky guy for suggesting that Labour would not get up to 10 London gains from the Tories alone. They actually got 4 - all north of the river and in many other seats the swing went to the Tories. I suspect 3 reasons:

1. Measuring London is very difficult unless you very carefully wight re age, class, registration, etc.
2. There can be enormous variations withing London - Battersea , eg is very different form Hampstead.
3. I suspect Labour missed up to 3 N. London possibilities because of the absurd anti-islamophobia proposal. You target one religious group for support and risk offending others just a few streets away.

The proposal to introduce a crime of aggravated assault against Muslims just didn't get that much traction outside the usual anti-Islam circles, who don't vote Labour anyway.

Philip_Thompson

Dair said:

john_zims said:

@Life_ina_market_town

'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.

The Liberal Democrats are a Norwegian Blue. And not in a comic sense, they really are finished. I'm pretty sure that the party is insolvent now without Short Money, they have some big outstanding bills and no way to pay the,

Electorally they cannot recover from here. In the 70s they had the option as they were the only third party. Now they are not. They are finished, probably forever.

I think you're right. They've now almost down to their nadir of six seats they hovered around in the fifties and sixties. Back then though their seats were clustered in Liberal strongholds.

Now they don't even have a single South West seat or mainland Scottish one. The eight seats left are scattered around with no common them between them and look incredibly vulnerable to a challenge next time. Even the Council base has been culled.

It took the SDP splinter to surge the Liberals up to being the Lib Dems. I don't see a recovery from here.

GIN1138

Here's Prof. Fishers view on how the Tories did it;

http://electionsetc.com/

Sunil_Prasannan

Congrats to N Simms.

I predicted CON way down in the 280s IIRC....

Dair

Theuniondivvie said:

R4 News: 'Downing street source says FFA has been ruled out.'

Oh this will be fun.

I wonder who will propose it first. SNP opposition motion or Conservative backbencher. Either way Cameron loses even when they filibuster it out - his backbenches will revolt.

Charles

@MikeK FPT

Will PM you my address

On the question of the referendum, I'd agree "do you approve" stinks - I was thinking about it in general terms rather than ballot paper. But I think the question will reference the renegotiated terms.

Suggest that we get @Peterfromputney to arbitrate if we disagree on whether it is an in/out vote?

The_Apocalypse

Theuniondivvie said:

R4 News: 'Downing street source says FFA has been ruled out.'

They've just shot themselves in the foot.

Sunil_Prasannan

Don't forget my chart of weekly Lab leads!

https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/596866462972784641

Dair

Philip_Thompson said:

Dair said:

john_zims said:

@Life_ina_market_town

'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.

The Liberal Democrats are a Norwegian Blue. And not in a comic sense, they really are finished. I'm pretty sure that the party is insolvent now without Short Money, they have some big outstanding bills and no way to pay the,

Electorally they cannot recover from here. In the 70s they had the option as they were the only third party. Now they are not. They are finished, probably forever.

I think you're right. They've now almost down to their nadir of six seats they hovered around in the fifties and sixties. Back then though their seats were clustered in Liberal strongholds.

Now they don't even have a single South West seat or mainland Scottish one. The eight seats left are scattered around with no common them between them and look incredibly vulnerable to a challenge next time. Even the Council base has been culled.

It took the SDP splinter to surge the Liberals up to being the Lib Dems. I don't see a recovery from here.

Their margin in Orkney and Zetland is only 800 now as well. I would expect a lot of the other seats are knife edges too.

What happens when the party files for Bankruptcy? Can they just reform with a new corporate shell? Wouldn't the administrator control the name and symbols and other branding?

ukelect

MikeSmithson said:

AndyJS said:

The election was a victory for provincial England and Wales. They didn’t accept the metropolitan view of Ed Miliband. Labour’s vote went up in trendy areas like Hackney and Islington. They tanked in the small to medium sized towns of England and Wales.

And it was the small and medium English towns where most of the marginals were.

I think that the YouGov daily poll has an almost hypnotic effect and pollsters are fearful or producing something that is much different.

Yes. Where were the polls that forecast a Conservative vote of 39% and more? There should have been outliers on the upside of the real result.

richardDodd

I always felt that the Lib Dems were the ..sit on the fence party..cos its easy to do that..

MikeK

Daily Mirror ‏@DailyMirror 4m4 minutes ago
BREAKING: A military plane has crashed near a coca-cola factory in Spain http://bit.ly/1ciuGGZ

They say Military but it's an Airbus. I'm getting worried about flying on Airbus.

peter_from_putney

Philip_Thompson said:

What's remarkable is how nobody other than Stephen Parker was remotely close to the 8 seats the Lob Dems got. Despite 5 years of very low poll ratings the idea of Lib Dem seats being in single digits just wasn't taken seriously.

Yes, that is surprising - although on the odd occasion I have suggested that the LibDems could do exceptionally badly, I've been well and truly rounded on by OGH.

It's a shame that Martin Day, formerly of this parish, is no longer in evidence. He was always of the opinion that the Yellow Team's Parliamentary team would fit comfortably into two London Black Cabs, equivalent to a maximum contingent of 10 MPs.

Pong

I remember this competition. I sent my entry by post - have you still not received it Mike? It's probably stuck in the post office - it'll drop through your letterbox on monday morning, then you can update the figures with my entry at the top.



Anyway, I've just done all my GE2015 accounting.

I had a betting bank of just over £12k, with pretty much all of it invested by the exit poll.

Net profit = £5793.22

Longest odds winner; Conservatives winning margin of over 40 seats - BACK £0.07 @ 989/1 = +£67 (matched on Thursday AM, thanks to the betfair overround bot)

Shortest odds loser; No Overall Majority - BACK £1000 @ 1.12 (laid off later at higher odds)

Most amusing bet; Labour's pink bus to get a respray (£100 @ 10/1)

Worst value winner; Lib Dems to win Sheffield Hallam (£100 @ 1/4)

Best value loser; Con to gain Halifax £100 @ 9/2

Most unlikely winner; Conservative Majority (£40 @ 25/1)

The *why the hell did I place that bet?* bet; UKIP to win amber valley (£20 @ 20/1)

Cheekiest trade; Backing the SNP to win Glasgow SW @ evens minutes after the Ashcroft poll had a 21 point lead.

Most profitable single bet - Labour to come 2nd in Wyre forest (£200 per point @ 0.5, equiv 19/1) = +£1800

Largest single loss: over 2.5 UKIP seats @ 6/4 = -£500

Bookie of the election; (Joint winners) Coral & William Hill

Best Advice to myself (that I didn’t take); Between 10pm & midnight bet on the exit poll, ESPECIALLY if it doesn’t seem *right*

Best advice to myself (that I reluctantly took); Bet on Con Maj if the odds are high enough, however remote the possibility seems.

Advice for next time – Don’t underestimate the uncertainty. NOM should have never been anywhere near as low as it was (as short as 1.05, on thurs PM, I believe).

What was everyone else's P/L & best/worst election bets?

AndyJS

Congrats to N Simms, I'm guessing there weren't many entries with the LDs on 8 seats.

MikeK

Charles said:

@MikeK FPT

Will PM you my address

On the question of the referendum, I'd agree "do you approve" stinks - I was thinking about it in general terms rather than ballot paper. But I think the question will reference the renegotiated terms.

Suggest that we get @Peterfromputney to arbitrate if we disagree on whether it is an in/out vote?

Yep, thats OK by me. Now let's see, which way does Peter lean............

Slackbladder

richardDodd said:

I always felt that the Lib Dems were the ..sit on the fence party..cos its easy to do that..

Clegg positioned himself that way for sure in the GE. More tory than labour, and more labour than tory.

He sat in the middle, and got utterly run over..

AndreaParma_82

According to Guardian

191 female MPs elected
42 BAME MPs (but Newstatesman says 43...British Future 41)

27 LGBT MPs (according to pink news)

Baskerville

FPT.
Miss A.

The problem is that you argued that Conservatives are not interested in these issues. I illustrated that they are, so you shift the argument to how effective they are.

If you look at the manifesto, it was very clear about the need to raise the minimum wage as the economy recovers.
Raising the income tax threshold puts cash directly into the pockets of working families.
Freezing council tax is of most benefit to those with the lowest incomes.
The benefits cap is set at the median family income; hardly draconian, but a signal to those that work hard that others are not swinging the lead.
If you look at the marriage tax allowance, it is a small, but clear, message about the importance of families and marriage as their glue.
There is, of course, more.

Feel free to disagree with the effectiveness of such policies, but please do not fall into the trap of assuming that people disagree with your policy prescriptions because they don't care or are somehow 'immoral'.

kle4

N Simms totally wrong on the LD numbers - Loser!

I did very poorly. I did a little better a month afterwards, but this one? Wow.

richardDodd said:

I always felt that the Lib Dems were the ..sit on the fence party..cos its easy to do that..

Probably. I think that's why they've gotten my vote several times.

AndyJS

One thing Labour might think about addressing is this sort of thing:

A newly-elected MP being booed by Labour activists a matter of seconds after having been declared the winner. Whatever you think of him, he'd just been endorsed by the voters. Maybe not the best attitude to take if you're in the business of winning elections:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgGoOOwXip0

felix

Sunil_Prasannan said:

The pollsters did much better the week ending 1st May, for some reason,

Ashcroft actually had Con 36 Lab 30 in his national poll ending 26th April

Then there was Ipsos MORI ending 29th April which had Con 35 Lab 30

Isn't that rather like the stopped clock argument?

Ishmael_X

The_Apocalypse said:

Theuniondivvie said:

R4 News: 'Downing street source says FFA has been ruled out.'

They've just shot themselves in the foot.

What else would you expect from such a bunch of pitiful losers?

P.S. Sturgeon has just said she doesn't want FFA.

Ishmael_X

AndyJS said:

The polls weren't that wrong actually because many of them had figures of 34% each with a 3% margin of error. If you apply that margin of error, it's possible to get 37% and 31% which is very close to the result. The problem is people often forget about the 3% margin of error.

But margins of error work both ways. You don't get them 3% out in the same direction 100 times on the trot any more than your coin toss comes up heads 100 times on the trot.

Sean_F

EPG said:

felix said:

Some thoughts on the London regional polling. I was harangued on here by either speedy or lucky guy for suggesting that Labour would not get up to 10 London gains from the Tories alone. They actually got 4 - all north of the river and in many other seats the swing went to the Tories. I suspect 3 reasons:

1. Measuring London is very difficult unless you very carefully wight re age, class, registration, etc.
2. There can be enormous variations withing London - Battersea , eg is very different form Hampstead.
3. I suspect Labour missed up to 3 N. London possibilities because of the absurd anti-islamophobia proposal. You target one religious group for support and risk offending others just a few streets away.

The proposal to introduce a crime of aggravated assault against Muslims just didn't get that much traction outside the usual anti-Islam circles, who don't vote Labour anyway.

Look at the way the Conservative vote rose in the two most Jewish seats in the UK, Hendon and Finchley & Golders Green. Look at the way it rose in the two most Hindu seats in the UK, Harrow East and West. I think that the interview with Muslim News did Labour absolutely no favours at all with those communities.

ukelect

I think the LibDems will be back - although it is a long, long, way back. There is no reason to loathe them any more - tuition fees and the coalition with the Conservatives will fade from memory. They still have some strength in some constituencies, and, during the years of Conservative majority rule, naturally liberal voters will come to look back more kindly on a time when what they will see as the Conservatives worst excesses were tempered somewhat.

Charles

MikeK said:

Charles said:

@MikeK FPT

Will PM you my address

On the question of the referendum, I'd agree "do you approve" stinks - I was thinking about it in general terms rather than ballot paper. But I think the question will reference the renegotiated terms.

Suggest that we get @Peterfromputney to arbitrate if we disagree on whether it is an in/out vote?

Yep, thats OK by me. Now let's see, which way does Peter lean............

Done then. £50, evens, on whether there will be an in-out referendum in cameron's second term.

Plato

Well quite. I was prepared for the LDs to bob up again to about 12% - but I felt beaten over the head on here with how special the LDs were and a Red Line and and and.

I forecast 17 LDs - and thought that was a bit *out there*. Should've halved it.

Eh_ehm_a_eh said:

Philip_Thompson said:

What's remarkable is how nobody other than Stephen Parker was remotely close to the 8 seats the Lob Dems got. Despite 5 years of very low poll ratings the idea of Lib Dem seats being in single digits just wasn't taken seriously.

Perhaps they were swayed by the constant threads on the LD's incumbency vote, and vote swapping stories.

EPG

Sean_F said:

EPG said:

felix said:

Some thoughts on the London regional polling. I was harangued on here by either speedy or lucky guy for suggesting that Labour would not get up to 10 London gains from the Tories alone. They actually got 4 - all north of the river and in many other seats the swing went to the Tories. I suspect 3 reasons:

1. Measuring London is very difficult unless you very carefully wight re age, class, registration, etc.
2. There can be enormous variations withing London - Battersea , eg is very different form Hampstead.
3. I suspect Labour missed up to 3 N. London possibilities because of the absurd anti-islamophobia proposal. You target one religious group for support and risk offending others just a few streets away.

The proposal to introduce a crime of aggravated assault against Muslims just didn't get that much traction outside the usual anti-Islam circles, who don't vote Labour anyway.

Look at the way the Conservative vote rose in the two most Jewish seats in the UK, Hendon and Finchley & Golders Green. Look at the way it rose in the two most Hindu seats in the UK, Harrow East and West. I think that the interview with Muslim News did Labour absolutely no favours at all with those communities.

Labour gained more votes than the Conservatives in Finchley and Golders Green. So this is normal variance.

nigel4england

AndyJS said:

One thing Labour might think about addressing is this sort of thing:

A newly-elected MP being booed by Labour activists a matter of seconds after having been declared the winner. Whatever you think of him, he'd just been endorsed by the voters. Maybe not the best attitude to take if you're in the business of winning elections:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgGoOOwXip0

I was talking with an ex-Labour MP this morning, we were talking about potential leaders. He doesn't like any at the top of the list, he wants David Miliband back.

Plato

Labour only got FOUR London gains from the Tories?

Hell's Teeth. I've been so overwhelmed by the total result and the SW that I hadn't noticed.

Blimey.

felix said:

Some thoughts on the London regional polling. I was harangued on here by either speedy or lucky guy for suggesting that Labour would not get up to 10 London gains from the Tories alone. They actually got 4 - all north of the river and in many other seats the swing went to the Tories. I suspect 3 reasons:

1. Measuring London is very difficult unless you very carefully wight re age, class, registration, etc.
2. There can be enormous variations withing London - Battersea , eg is very different form Hampstead.
3. I suspect Labour missed up to 3 N. London possibilities because of the absurd anti-islamophobia proposal. You target one religious group for support and risk offending others just a few streets away.

AndyJS

It's interesting how constituencies with any sort of university link were much better for Labour.

For example, Cambridgeshire South, where a lot of people associated with Cambridge University live saw a big 7.4 increase in the Labour vote and they came second for the first time:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000934

EPG

Dair said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Dair said:

john_zims said:

@Life_ina_market_town

'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.

The Liberal Democrats are a Norwegian Blue. And not in a comic sense, they really are finished. I'm pretty sure that the party is insolvent now without Short Money, they have some big outstanding bills and no way to pay the,

Electorally they cannot recover from here. In the 70s they had the option as they were the only third party. Now they are not. They are finished, probably forever.

I think you're right. They've now almost down to their nadir of six seats they hovered around in the fifties and sixties. Back then though their seats were clustered in Liberal strongholds.

Now they don't even have a single South West seat or mainland Scottish one. The eight seats left are scattered around with no common them between them and look incredibly vulnerable to a challenge next time. Even the Council base has been culled.

It took the SDP splinter to surge the Liberals up to being the Lib Dems. I don't see a recovery from here.

Their margin in Orkney and Zetland is only 800 now as well. I would expect a lot of the other seats are knife edges too.

What happens when the party files for Bankruptcy? Can they just reform with a new corporate shell? Wouldn't the administrator control the name and symbols and other branding?

The same bankruptcy meme emerged around Labour last election.

Plato

Isn't @Easterross still banned?

Another great loss.

SeanT said:

Well done N Simms, St John et al. Well done Easterross: redeemed.

Incidentally Tories are mopping up in the Locals, too.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/may/09/tories-make-large-gains-in-council-contests-after-general-election-win

felix

Sean_F said:

EPG said:

felix said:

Some thoughts on the London regional polling. I was harangued on here by either speedy or lucky guy for suggesting that Labour would not get up to 10 London gains from the Tories alone. They actually got 4 - all north of the river and in many other seats the swing went to the Tories. I suspect 3 reasons:

1. Measuring London is very difficult unless you very carefully wight re age, class, registration, etc.
2. There can be enormous variations withing London - Battersea , eg is very different form Hampstead.
3. I suspect Labour missed up to 3 N. London possibilities because of the absurd anti-islamophobia proposal. You target one religious group for support and risk offending others just a few streets away.

The proposal to introduce a crime of aggravated assault against Muslims just didn't get that much traction outside the usual anti-Islam circles, who don't vote Labour anyway.

Look at the way the Conservative vote rose in the two most Jewish seats in the UK, Hendon and Finchley & Golders Green. Look at the way it rose in the two most Hindu seats in the UK, Harrow East and West. I think that the interview with Muslim News did Labour absolutely no favours at all with those communities.

This was my point - the London polls were way out because of specific mistakes by Labour as well as their own inherent weaknesses. The swing to Labour even in Finchley, was tiny.

Slackbladder

EPG said:

Dair said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Dair said:

john_zims said:

@Life_ina_market_town

'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.

The Liberal Democrats are a Norwegian Blue. And not in a comic sense, they really are finished. I'm pretty sure that the party is insolvent now without Short Money, they have some big outstanding bills and no way to pay the,

Electorally they cannot recover from here. In the 70s they had the option as they were the only third party. Now they are not. They are finished, probably forever.

I think you're right. They've now almost down to their nadir of six seats they hovered around in the fifties and sixties. Back then though their seats were clustered in Liberal strongholds.

Now they don't even have a single South West seat or mainland Scottish one. The eight seats left are scattered around with no common them between them and look incredibly vulnerable to a challenge next time. Even the Council base has been culled.

It took the SDP splinter to surge the Liberals up to being the Lib Dems. I don't see a recovery from here.

Their margin in Orkney and Zetland is only 800 now as well. I would expect a lot of the other seats are knife edges too.

What happens when the party files for Bankruptcy? Can they just reform with a new corporate shell? Wouldn't the administrator control the name and symbols and other branding?

The same bankruptcy meme emerged around Labour last election.

the lib dems don't have union sugar daddys

Theuniondivvie

Dair said:

Theuniondivvie said:

R4 News: 'Downing street source says FFA has been ruled out.'

Oh this will be fun.

I wonder who will propose it first. SNP opposition motion or Conservative backbencher. Either way Cameron loses even when they filibuster it out - his backbenches will revolt.

Actually, I just listened to it, source said Downing Street 'was not considering FFA' which gives somewhat more wriggle room.

peter_from_putney

Pong said:

I remember this competition. I sent my entry by post - have you still not received it Mike? It's probably stuck in the post office - it'll drop through your letterbox on monday morning, then you can update the figures with my entry at the top.

Advice for next time – Don’t underestimate the uncertainty. NOM should have never been anywhere near as low as it was (as short as 1.05, on thurs PM, I believe).

May I suggest another piece of advice - read, mark learn and inwardly digest whatever Balthasarsfeast (previously known as Audrey Anne) might suggest ...... always assuming that she has not once again been banned from PB.com.
Without doubt and by some distance, the greatest General Election forecaster ever seen on this site.

EPG

Slackbladder said:

EPG said:

Dair said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Dair said:

john_zims said:

@Life_ina_market_town

'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.

The Liberal Democrats are a Norwegian Blue. And not in a comic sense, they really are finished. I'm pretty sure that the party is insolvent now without Short Money, they have some big outstanding bills and no way to pay the,

Electorally they cannot recover from here. In the 70s they had the option as they were the only third party. Now they are not. They are finished, probably forever.

I think you're right. They've now almost down to their nadir of six seats they hovered around in the fifties and sixties. Back then though their seats were clustered in Liberal strongholds.

Now they don't even have a single South West seat or mainland Scottish one. The eight seats left are scattered around with no common them between them and look incredibly vulnerable to a challenge next time. Even the Council base has been culled.

It took the SDP splinter to surge the Liberals up to being the Lib Dems. I don't see a recovery from here.

Their margin in Orkney and Zetland is only 800 now as well. I would expect a lot of the other seats are knife edges too.

What happens when the party files for Bankruptcy? Can they just reform with a new corporate shell? Wouldn't the administrator control the name and symbols and other branding?

The same bankruptcy meme emerged around Labour last election.

the lib dems don't have union sugar daddys

But they knew that about Labour last time too. We should be careful about believing schadenfreude too much.

AndyJS

Hendon should have been one of the easiest Labour gains in the country, especially being in London. Instead the Tory majority went from 106 to 3,724.

EPG said:

Sean_F said:

EPG said:

felix said:

Some thoughts on the London regional polling. I was harangued on here by either speedy or lucky guy for suggesting that Labour would not get up to 10 London gains from the Tories alone. They actually got 4 - all north of the river and in many other seats the swing went to the Tories. I suspect 3 reasons:

1. Measuring London is very difficult unless you very carefully wight re age, class, registration, etc.
2. There can be enormous variations withing London - Battersea , eg is very different form Hampstead.
3. I suspect Labour missed up to 3 N. London possibilities because of the absurd anti-islamophobia proposal. You target one religious group for support and risk offending others just a few streets away.

The proposal to introduce a crime of aggravated assault against Muslims just didn't get that much traction outside the usual anti-Islam circles, who don't vote Labour anyway.

Look at the way the Conservative vote rose in the two most Jewish seats in the UK, Hendon and Finchley & Golders Green. Look at the way it rose in the two most Hindu seats in the UK, Harrow East and West. I think that the interview with Muslim News did Labour absolutely no favours at all with those communities.

Labour gained more votes than the Conservatives in Finchley and Golders Green. So this is normal variance.

Tissue_Price

Just catching up after lots of sleep.

@NickPalmer - congratulations on your freedom! You should definitely take up poker, as I left Broxtowe on Tuesday convinced that you genuinely thought you were a decent odds-on shot!

@DavidHerdson - A good Scottish thread. But the Tories are just fine as they are: they are spectacularly well-positioned to take up the mantle of opposition to the SNP, whether that's within the UK or ultimately in an independent Scotland (something I have always been sanguine about).

Polling repeatedly finds that the Scots are not that much more left-wing than the English in their attitudes; a centrist Tory government coupled with Ruth Davidson's epitomisation of their attitude change means the Conservative party is very well placed for a genuine #torysurge. I'm glad Mundell wasn't washed away in the landslide.

@balthasarsfeast - Chapeau. And much for Mike to ponder too. This is a great site but perhaps it got a bit too close to cheerleading for a view. And Mike's clearly not as removed from the Westminster bubble as he might think. Still, it could be worse, it could have been May2015.com...

Finally, without revealing too much, I hope everyone else won too. Betting on ties (normally as to their colour) has always been popular on here: UKIP v Green tie and Lab v Con Scottish Tie were two beauties.

another_richard

The more I look at the results the more I reach this conclusion:

UKIP's new voters were ex Labour wwc or in former LibDem seats ex LibDem wwc.

In Scotland the SNP's new voters were of the same types but on a much greater magnitude.

The Conservatives through the fear factor managed to keep their wwc voters. Their fall in votes since 1992 has been in middle class urban areas.

The strategic worry for the Conservatives (and opportunity for UKIP) is what will happen to their wwc voters without that fear factor and the inevitable economic and social problems gloabalisation will continue to cause.

Labour is either hated or discredited to Conservative wwc (a feeling likely to increase as Labour becomes ever more metropolitan dominated).

The LibDems are effectively destroyed.

So which party will scoop up the Conservative wwc voters as concerns about immigration, inequality etc grow ?

fitalass

The SNP want FFA alright, but not just now, and not before they have another Indy Referendum in the bag. I am personal planning my future according. If the SNP got FFA now, it would screw their whole end game up, and they know it. So expect to see Sturgeon back tracking on it while then trying to make the argument about why bother with FFA at all when we can just go for full Independence instead.

Dair said:

david_herdson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

malcolmg said:

Alistair said:

Scott_P said:

@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.

kle4

I've just remembered that I thought this was a competition for the 2020 election. Yeah, that's it. Explains my prediction entirely.

AndyJS

Labour got huge swings in London seats where they didn't need it, like Hackney, Islington, Barking, Walthamstow, Lewisham.

felix said:

Sean_F said:

EPG said:

felix said:

Some thoughts on the London regional polling. I was harangued on here by either speedy or lucky guy for suggesting that Labour would not get up to 10 London gains from the Tories alone. They actually got 4 - all north of the river and in many other seats the swing went to the Tories. I suspect 3 reasons:

1. Measuring London is very difficult unless you very carefully wight re age, class, registration, etc.
2. There can be enormous variations withing London - Battersea , eg is very different form Hampstead.
3. I suspect Labour missed up to 3 N. London possibilities because of the absurd anti-islamophobia proposal. You target one religious group for support and risk offending others just a few streets away.

The proposal to introduce a crime of aggravated assault against Muslims just didn't get that much traction outside the usual anti-Islam circles, who don't vote Labour anyway.

Look at the way the Conservative vote rose in the two most Jewish seats in the UK, Hendon and Finchley & Golders Green. Look at the way it rose in the two most Hindu seats in the UK, Harrow East and West. I think that the interview with Muslim News did Labour absolutely no favours at all with those communities.

This was my point - the London polls were way out because of specific mistakes by Labour as well as their own inherent weaknesses. The swing to Labour even in Finchley, was tiny.

david_herdson

Lammy for Labour leader?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/32671418

If it's true that half of Labour's members come from London, it may happen. For that matter, they could do worse though he's still very lightweight.

felix

Plato said:

Labour only got FOUR London gains from the Tories?

Hell's Teeth. I've been so overwhelmed by the total result and the SW that I hadn't noticed.

Blimey.

felix said:

Some thoughts on the London regional polling. I was harangued on here by either speedy or lucky guy for suggesting that Labour would not get up to 10 London gains from the Tories alone. They actually got 4 - all north of the river and in many other seats the swing went to the Tories. I suspect 3 reasons:

1. Measuring London is very difficult unless you very carefully wight re age, class, registration, etc.
2. There can be enormous variations withing London - Battersea , eg is very different form Hampstead.
3. I suspect Labour missed up to 3 N. London possibilities because of the absurd anti-islamophobia proposal. You target one religious group for support and risk offending others just a few streets away.

Given the hyperbole on here a week ago about Battersea being 'interesting' it can't help but make you laugh. That much acclaimed London dominated ground game couldn't even get it right in.. London.

Luckyguy1983

I think there's a deep mutual dislike between Cameron and Salmond. But I don't think the same of Cameron and Sturgeon. I imagine things will be quite cordial, and they will tend to sort things out leader to leader. And I think the influx of SNP MP's to Wesminster, (bar the odd couple of unexpectedly elected half-wits who want a re-run of Bannockburn and refuse to sit next to Tories in the Westminster canteen) will do a great deal to improve mutual understanding between Scottish and RUK politicians.

FrancisUrquhart

But actually it seems that the UKIP rise hurt Labour more than the Tories. Where Ukip were up by less than 7 points the Conservatives were up by 1.5 points on average; Labour up 6.9. Conversely, where Ukip was up by more than 14 points the Conservatives down 0.9 points and Labour were up only 1.6. So the Labour were up 5.3 less where UKIP did well but the corresponding difference for the Conservatives was just 0.6.

Another way of looking at this is that the Tories lost 6 seats to Labour where UKIP were up less than 7 points. But Labour were not taking any seats off the Conservatives where UKIP were up by more than 14 points.

Ukip did better where there were fewer people with degrees, more economically depressed areas with more pensioners, routine manual workers and those with no educational qualifications.

GIN1138 said:

Here's Prof. Fishers view on how the Tories did it;

http://electionsetc.com/

I think the Pollsters and MSM need to go on some re-education courses....they have called the raise of UKIP completely wrong.

Balthasarsfeast

Bit naughty of Ladbrokes: I had to contact them to get them to pay out on my Conservative majority bet. I don't know quite why they didn't settle automatically. Perhaps they, too, couldn't quite believe it?

EPG

AndyJS said:

Hendon should have been one of the easiest Labour gains in the country, especially being in London. Instead the Tory majority went from 106 to 3,724.

EPG said:

Sean_F said:

EPG said:

felix said:

Some thoughts on the London regional polling. I was harangued on here by either speedy or lucky guy for suggesting that Labour would not get up to 10 London gains from the Tories alone. They actually got 4 - all north of the river and in many other seats the swing went to the Tories. I suspect 3 reasons:

1. Measuring London is very difficult unless you very carefully wight re age, class, registration, etc.
2. There can be enormous variations withing London - Battersea , eg is very different form Hampstead.
3. I suspect Labour missed up to 3 N. London possibilities because of the absurd anti-islamophobia proposal. You target one religious group for support and risk offending others just a few streets away.

The proposal to introduce a crime of aggravated assault against Muslims just didn't get that much traction outside the usual anti-Islam circles, who don't vote Labour anyway.

Look at the way the Conservative vote rose in the two most Jewish seats in the UK, Hendon and Finchley & Golders Green. Look at the way it rose in the two most Hindu seats in the UK, Harrow East and West. I think that the interview with Muslim News did Labour absolutely no favours at all with those communities.

Labour gained more votes than the Conservatives in Finchley and Golders Green. So this is normal variance.

But as discussed, they didn't do especially well in London. They only gained a handful of seats.

another_richard

nigel4england said:

AndyJS said:

One thing Labour might think about addressing is this sort of thing:

A newly-elected MP being booed by Labour activists a matter of seconds after having been declared the winner. Whatever you think of him, he'd just been endorsed by the voters. Maybe not the best attitude to take if you're in the business of winning elections:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgGoOOwXip0

I was talking with an ex-Labour MP this morning, we were talking about potential leaders. He doesn't like any at the top of the list, he wants David Miliband back.

If this Miliband fails then try that Miliband.
If the nerd fails then try the dweeb.
If the ruthless one fails try the gutless one.
If the metropolitan one fails then try the metropolitan one.
If the money grubber fails then try the money grubber.
If the disaster in government fails then try the disaster in government.

In a year's time they'll be advocating Young Kinnock.

kle4

Luckyguy1983 said:

I think there's a deep mutual dislike between Cameron and Salmond. But I don't think the same of Cameron and Sturgeon. I imagine things will be quite cordial. And I think the influx of SNP MP's to Wesminster, (bar the odd couple of unexpectedly elected half-wits who want a re-run of Bannockburn and refuse to sit next to Tories in the Westminster canteen) will do a great deal to improve mutual understanding between Scottish and RUK politicians.

I'm hoping the vampirism of the Westminster machine can affect some of them, dents some of the enthusiasm or effectiveness, but I'm not hopeful - I think they will safely inoculate themselves with holy SNP symbols and idea, as it were in this tortured metaphor.

Dair

EPG said:

Dair said:

Their margin in Orkney and Zetland is only 800 now as well. I would expect a lot of the other seats are knife edges too.

What happens when the party files for Bankruptcy? Can they just reform with a new corporate shell? Wouldn't the administrator control the name and symbols and other branding?

The same bankruptcy meme emerged around Labour last election.

Labour had big donrs, not just the Unions but some significant private donors. And their own bank

The LIb Dems don't appear to have any of the necessary supporters to prop them up financially. But the financial consequences are an aside.


Electorally there does not appear to be any pathway back for the Lib Dems. There surely needs to be questions over their status as a Major Party in all three GB nations.

felix

Slackbladder said:

EPG said:

Dair said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Dair said:

john_zims said:

@Life_ina_market_town

'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.

The Liberal Democrats are a Norwegian Blue. And not in a comic sense, they really are finished. I'm pretty sure that the party is insolvent now without Short Money, they have some big outstanding bills and no way to pay the,

Electorally they cannot recover from here. In the 70s they had the option as they were the only third party. Now they are not. They are finished, probably forever.

I think you're right. They've now almost down to their nadir of six seats they hovered around in the fifties and sixties. Back then though their seats were clustered in Liberal strongholds.

Now they don't even have a single South West seat or mainland Scottish one. The eight seats left are scattered around with no common them between them and look incredibly vulnerable to a challenge next time. Even the Council base has been culled.

It took the SDP splinter to surge the Liberals up to being the Lib Dems. I don't see a recovery from here.

Their margin in Orkney and Zetland is only 800 now as well. I would expect a lot of the other seats are knife edges too.

What happens when the party files for Bankruptcy? Can they just reform with a new corporate shell? Wouldn't the administrator control the name and symbols and other branding?

The same bankruptcy meme emerged around Labour last election.

the lib dems don't have union sugar daddys

What? Are they all in the slammer?

felix

Luckyguy1983 said:

I think there's a deep mutual dislike between Cameron and Salmond. But I don't think the same of Cameron and Sturgeon. I imagine things will be quite cordial, and they will tend to sort things out leader to leader. And I think the influx of SNP MP's to Wesminster, (bar the odd couple of unexpectedly elected half-wits who want a re-run of Bannockburn and refuse to sit next to Tories in the Westminster canteen) will do a great deal to improve mutual understanding between Scottish and RUK politicians.

Certainly not if the French ambassador is to be believed.

kle4

Dair said:

EPG said:

Dair said:

Their margin in Orkney and Zetland is only 800 now as well. I would expect a lot of the other seats are knife edges too.

What happens when the party files for Bankruptcy? Can they just reform with a new corporate shell? Wouldn't the administrator control the name and symbols and other branding?

The same bankruptcy meme emerged around Labour last election.

There surely needs to be questions over their status as a Major Party in all three GB nations.

At the moment, definitely. It's based on electoral results (not just polling, UKIP, I'm sorry), and their's do not befit a major party.

Dair

Theuniondivvie said:

Dair said:

Theuniondivvie said:

R4 News: 'Downing street source says FFA has been ruled out.'

Oh this will be fun.

I wonder who will propose it first. SNP opposition motion or Conservative backbencher. Either way Cameron loses even when they filibuster it out - his backbenches will revolt.

Actually, I just listened to it, source said Downing Street 'was not considering FFA' which gives somewhat more wriggle room.

The main difficulty for the SNP, if Cameron doesn't propose or impose it, is they weaken their hand if it is proposed as an Opposition Motion. They want to keep the pretence of not having any interest in FFA to be so clear that the Tories continue to get lured into the trap. Proposing it themselves undermines that.

DavidL

That polling chart is a brilliant demonstration of the uselessness of an industry that doesn't seem to need to get results to get paid.

Just supposing they were competent. Imagine how different the narratives would have been if we had known that the Tories were more than 6% ahead and edging for a majority. Would there have been anything the Lib Dems could have done? I don't know but the polls distorted our politics to an unacceptable level and may well have distorted the results.

FrancisUrquhart

david_herdson said:

Lammy for Labour leader?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/32671418

If it's true that half of Labour's members come from London, it may happen. For that matter, they could do worse though he's still very lightweight.

Lammy for Leader....now it really is getting bonkers....Putting aside his infamous mastermind performance, he was useless minister, so many cock-ups when he was at Department for Business, Innovation & Skills.

Pong

MikeK said:

Daily Mirror ‏@DailyMirror 4m4 minutes ago
BREAKING: A military plane has crashed near a coca-cola factory in Spain http://bit.ly/1ciuGGZ

They say Military but it's an Airbus. I'm getting worried about flying on Airbus.

You know last year, when all those planes crashed/disappeared/got shot down etc?

Yeah, it was the safest year ever in aviation history.

http://news.aviation-safety.net/2015/01/01/despite-high-profile-accidents-2014-was-the-safest-year-ever-according-to-asn-data/

another_richard

Ishmael_X said:

AndyJS said:

The polls weren't that wrong actually because many of them had figures of 34% each with a 3% margin of error. If you apply that margin of error, it's possible to get 37% and 31% which is very close to the result. The problem is people often forget about the 3% margin of error.

But margins of error work both ways. You don't get them 3% out in the same direction 100 times on the trot any more than your coin toss comes up heads 100 times on the trot.

Exactly.

A 3% margin of error means anything from a 6% Conservative lead to a 6% Labour lead is 'acceptable'.

In other words a anything from a Conservative majority to a Labour majority is an acceptable margin of error.

Luckyguy1983

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

I think there's a deep mutual dislike between Cameron and Salmond. But I don't think the same of Cameron and Sturgeon. I imagine things will be quite cordial. And I think the influx of SNP MP's to Wesminster, (bar the odd couple of unexpectedly elected half-wits who want a re-run of Bannockburn and refuse to sit next to Tories in the Westminster canteen) will do a great deal to improve mutual understanding between Scottish and RUK politicians.

I'm hoping the vampirism of the Westminster machine can affect some of them, dents some of the enthusiasm or effectiveness, but I'm not hopeful - I think they will safely inoculate themselves with holy SNP symbols and idea, as it were in this tortured metaphor.

I don't really want unenthusiastic or ineffective MPs. But it's inevitable that they will get some of their corners sanded off, and be exposed to a wider range of views.

Plato

The Staggers is doing a great job today - the Ten Reasons Why We Lost Delusion is hilarious and a must-read from those who need to, but won't.

Anyone who supported Ed Miliband in the Labour leadership contest and afterwards will find it hard, even now, to admit to their error. Rare will be the commentator who asks him or herself whether it’s possible they were wrong about everything all along.

These are perfect conditions for cognitive dissonance, which occurs when the brain attempts to accommodate fiercely held prior beliefs with contradictory new information. Self-delusions will bloom like daffodils in Spring.

In order to get through the coming symphony of spurious rationalisations it might help if you take a drink – I suggest something non-alcoholic if you want to avoid liver failure – every time you hear one of these explanations for Labour’s defeat: >>>

newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/10-delusions-about-labour-defeat-watch-out

another_richard

AndyJS said:

Congrats to N Simms, I'm guessing there weren't many entries with the LDs on 8 seats.

I hope she had some money on.

Slackbladder

another_richard said:

nigel4england said:

AndyJS said:

One thing Labour might think about addressing is this sort of thing:

A newly-elected MP being booed by Labour activists a matter of seconds after having been declared the winner. Whatever you think of him, he'd just been endorsed by the voters. Maybe not the best attitude to take if you're in the business of winning elections:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgGoOOwXip0

I was talking with an ex-Labour MP this morning, we were talking about potential leaders. He doesn't like any at the top of the list, he wants David Miliband back.

In a year's time they'll be advocating Young Kinnock.

Don't give them ideas....

EPG

Dair said:

EPG said:

Dair said:

Their margin in Orkney and Zetland is only 800 now as well. I would expect a lot of the other seats are knife edges too.

What happens when the party files for Bankruptcy? Can they just reform with a new corporate shell? Wouldn't the administrator control the name and symbols and other branding?

The same bankruptcy meme emerged around Labour last election.

Labour had big donrs, not just the Unions but some significant private donors. And their own bank

The LIb Dems don't appear to have any of the necessary supporters to prop them up financially. But the financial consequences are an aside.


Electorally there does not appear to be any pathway back for the Lib Dems. There surely needs to be questions over their status as a Major Party in all three GB nations.

They have won seats Labour never will win.

kle4

david_herdson said:

Lammy for Labour leader?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/32671418

If it's true that half of Labour's members come from London, it may happen. For that matter, they could do worse though he's still very lightweight.

I take it he's not in the Miliband circle, as I barely recall him every being mentioned in the past 5 years apart from occasionally about the London mayor position.

Speaking, have the Tories got any closer to deciding who to throw to the London Labour wolves after Boris steps down?

felix

EPG said:

AndyJS said:

Hendon should have been one of the easiest Labour gains in the country, especially being in London. Instead the Tory majority went from 106 to 3,724.

EPG said:

Sean_F said:

EPG said:

felix said:

Some thoughts on the London regional polling. I was harangued on here by either speedy or lucky guy for suggesting that Labour would not get up to 10 London gains from the Tories alone. They actually got 4 - all north of the river and in many other seats the swing went to the Tories. I suspect 3 reasons:

1. Measuring London is very difficult unless you very carefully wight re age, class, registration, etc.
2. There can be enormous variations withing London - Battersea , eg is very different form Hampstead.
3. I suspect Labour missed up to 3 N. London possibilities because of the absurd anti-islamophobia proposal. You target one religious group for support and risk offending others just a few streets away.

The proposal to introduce a crime of aggravated assault against Muslims just didn't get that much traction outside the usual anti-Islam circles, who don't vote Labour anyway.

Look at the way the Conservative vote rose in the two most Jewish seats in the UK, Hendon and Finchley & Golders Green. Look at the way it rose in the two most Hindu seats in the UK, Harrow East and West. I think that the interview with Muslim News did Labour absolutely no favours at all with those communities.

Labour gained more votes than the Conservatives in Finchley and Golders Green. So this is normal variance.

But as discussed, they didn't do especially well in London. They only gained a handful of seats.

Gosh are you determined to miss the point. They made both policy and ground war mistakes which affected at least 3 London seats specifically.

Dair

EPG said:

Slackbladder said:

the lib dems don't have union sugar daddys

But they knew that about Labour last time too. We should be careful about believing schadenfreude too much.

I can't comment for others but on my part there is no shadenfreude. I quite like the ideas of the Liberal Party which have been fairly consistent in the Lib Dem proposal even if contaminated by the SDP socialist dogma. The liberal voices in the party eventually won out. I would have liked them to continue.

But there has to be some realism. When the Liberals were dead, in the 50s and 60s they still had that core support in the Highland and Islands of Scotland keeping them alive. That's gone now. They have no core anywhere, no money, no significant VI share.

Reality has to be recognised.

kle4

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

I think there's a deep mutual dislike between Cameron and Salmond. But I don't think the same of Cameron and Sturgeon. I imagine things will be quite cordial. And I think the influx of SNP MP's to Wesminster, (bar the odd couple of unexpectedly elected half-wits who want a re-run of Bannockburn and refuse to sit next to Tories in the Westminster canteen) will do a great deal to improve mutual understanding between Scottish and RUK politicians.

I'm hoping the vampirism of the Westminster machine can affect some of them, dents some of the enthusiasm or effectiveness, but I'm not hopeful - I think they will safely inoculate themselves with holy SNP symbols and idea, as it were in this tortured metaphor.

I don't really want unenthusiastic or ineffective MPs. But it's inevitable that they will get some of their corners sanded off, and be exposed to a wider range of views.

I was merely being facetious, as in fact I would agree with you on that.

EPG

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

I think there's a deep mutual dislike between Cameron and Salmond. But I don't think the same of Cameron and Sturgeon. I imagine things will be quite cordial. And I think the influx of SNP MP's to Wesminster, (bar the odd couple of unexpectedly elected half-wits who want a re-run of Bannockburn and refuse to sit next to Tories in the Westminster canteen) will do a great deal to improve mutual understanding between Scottish and RUK politicians.

I'm hoping the vampirism of the Westminster machine can affect some of them, dents some of the enthusiasm or effectiveness, but I'm not hopeful - I think they will safely inoculate themselves with holy SNP symbols and idea, as it were in this tortured metaphor.

I don't really want unenthusiastic or ineffective MPs. But it's inevitable that they will get some of their corners sanded off, and be exposed to a wider range of views.

They have one purpose: independence in Europe. Unlike most parties, Westminster and its milieu of ministries, think-tanks, and London PR firms is useless to the SNP. There is nothing for them to be allured by in the city they consider equivalent to Babylon. The most relevant comparison is the Irish delegation to Westminster after the 1880s, which only became more and more extreme as time went on.

alex.

I know that some Scottish Independence supporters are a bit fixated on the belief that England/Wales can't survive without Scotland and Independence would devastate their economy, whilst somehow leaving Scotland rolling in economic prosperity, but it really is a bit silly. All the headlines at the moment are about how Sturgeon is going to defeat "austerity" on the back of their overwhelming electoral success, but it's all a bit Syriza. Whatever Scotland voted for, England clearly didn't (on a FPTP basis). The idea that the Conservatives are either going to end austerity, or somehow let the Scots off it is obviously a complete no-no.

But then I assume the SNP know that. The point of opposing austerity is not to actually achieve this, but just to use it to drive a wedge between Scotland and the rest of the UK.

felix

Slackbladder said:

another_richard said:

nigel4england said:

AndyJS said:

One thing Labour might think about addressing is this sort of thing:

A newly-elected MP being booed by Labour activists a matter of seconds after having been declared the winner. Whatever you think of him, he'd just been endorsed by the voters. Maybe not the best attitude to take if you're in the business of winning elections:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgGoOOwXip0

I was talking with an ex-Labour MP this morning, we were talking about potential leaders. He doesn't like any at the top of the list, he wants David Miliband back.

In a year's time they'll be advocating Young Kinnock.

Don't give them ideas....

Labourites love a dynasty!

Plato

Many of us were hit over the head with so many polls that it was almost irresistable - how could they ALL be wrong?

As we've learnt subsequently - some were buried and then others fiddled their models to *fit in* so no one was exposed at the end.

Well - all that happened was Collective Guilt not Innocence.

It's certainly bruised my faith in all pollsters for a while.

ukelect said:

The reason that many seat predictors (including UK-Elect) failed so badly to predict the LibDem seat total was because they were fine-tuned by the Ashcroft constituency polls, which seemed to show that the LibDEm incumbency factor really existed. That made me extremely nervous at the time (I said so at the time) but trusted the data rather than my instincts. Damn.

The_Apocalypse

Baskerville said:

FPT.
Miss A.

The problem is that you argued that Conservatives are not interested in these issues. I illustrated that they are, so you shift the argument to how effective they are.

If you look at the manifesto, it was very clear about the need to raise the minimum wage as the economy recovers.
Raising the income tax threshold puts cash directly into the pockets of working families.
Freezing council tax is of most benefit to those with the lowest incomes.
The benefits cap is set at the median family income; hardly draconian, but a signal to those that work hard that others are not swinging the lead.
If you look at the marriage tax allowance, it is a small, but clear, message about the importance of families and marriage as their glue.
There is, of course, more.

Feel free to disagree with the effectiveness of such policies, but please do not fall into the trap of assuming that people disagree with your policy prescriptions because they don't care or are somehow 'immoral'.

Firstly, I do not think that anyone who disagrees with my policy perceptions is 'immoral', or bad, or anything like that. I don't think someone is bad because they have a different life perspective to me, I just simply disagree with them. If anything, in the previous thread it was other people making rather negative declarations about me, because they simply didn't like my POV.

The polices you mention seem to be very orientated towards the working poor, but are nonetheless a good start (especially the one on the minimum wage) - if only in their welfare reforms, their polices didn't impact the sick and disabled so badly.

So I would ask this; why didn't the Conservatives make these polices at the centre of their campaign? Because it appears, an awful lot these polices were not advertised by the Conservatives at all, and most ordinary people who voted for them probably wouldn't have read their manifesto, either.