Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For first time since Osbo’s March 2012 budget more people s

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited March 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For first time since Osbo’s March 2012 budget more people say they want a CON majority than a LAB one

More people tell YouGov that their preferred #GE2015 outcome is a CON majority than a LAB one -a crossover twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/st…

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,030
    First!
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    So the ideal time for Cammie to bang on about europe or immigration again then?

    I'm sure he won't want to disappoint the kippers after all. ;)

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,624
    Luckily for Ed Miliband, in Britain who gets to be PM isn't up to the voters. It's up to the voting system, which seems to have taken a shine to him.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    This is a very good post about two arguments frequently posited: that raising the minimum wage doesn't hurt employment, and low skilled immigration doesn't reduce wages.

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2005/05/infinite_contra.html

    The first argument requires you to believe demand for low-skilled work is highly inelastic, and the second argument requires you to believe demand for low-skilled work is highly elastic. You can't believe both.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 8,811
    Labour might be starting to feel the effects of their 'blank sheet of paper' strategy. There's only so long you can go 'you're doing it all wrong' before people ask 'what would you do different then?'.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 35,924
    Having never bought into the idea that Labour would win an outright majority in 2015 this does not surprise me. I have never been able to see beyond another hung Parliament, hopefully leading to a Lab/LD coalition.



  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    The UK's services sector grew at its fastest pace for five months in January, outpacing the manufacturing and construction sectors.

    Output rose 0.3% in January compared with the month before, the Office for National Statistics said.

    Compared with a year earlier, the services sector - which makes up more than three-quarters of the UK's annual economic output - rose 0.8%.

    The largest contributions came from business and financial services.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21964070
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530

    I have never been able to see beyond another hung Parliament

    Presumably because we've had so many of them since the second world war. Two is it and then this one?

    EiT is right, under FPTP this kind of poll is of very limited usefullness.

    The PM one is slightly more useful but nowhere near as useful as overall approval ratings or VI. Since actually being the PM incurs a tiny bit of an advantage when being considered as Prime Ministerial in the first place.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,528
    The blank sheet of paper will be hurting Labour, yes - but not nearly as much as when they start writing on it....
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,528
    The next twelve months of domestic politics will be marked by the shift from Labour to UKIP, culminating in a really horrible election result for Labour just 12 months before the general.

    Then it will be anybody's guess how you model the outcome of the next election....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,030
    The EU says the Cypriot capital controls are ok:

    "These restrictive measures will remain in force for 7 days. The Commission will continue monitoring the need to extend the validity of or revise the measures."

    http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-298_en.htm
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,528

    The EU says the Cypriot capital controls are ok:

    "These restrictive measures will remain in force for 7 days. The Commission will continue monitoring the need to extend the validity of or revise the measures."

    http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-298_en.htm

    Eurocracy in action. Bureaucracy without democracy.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530

    The next twelve months of domestic politics will be marked by the shift from Labour to UKIP,

    So how much do you expect the kippers to beat labour by in the May local elections?
    Or at least the tories or lib dems, they'll beat at least one of them, right?

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Having never bought into the idea that Labour would win an outright majority in 2015 this does not surprise me. I have never been able to see beyond another hung Parliament, hopefully leading to a Lab/LD coalition.

    I'm also expecting UKIP to drop back to the ~7% level. My subjective impression of speaking to UKIP-Conservative waiverers is that a lot of them, while still supporting UKIP, are giving the Tories another look due to recognition of their concerns. I think they'll still need to be courted a bit more, but a large number will come back. Particularly if the Tories start spelling out what they'll try to get back from the EU.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,528
    Mick_Pork said:

    The next twelve months of domestic politics will be marked by the shift from Labour to UKIP,

    So how much do you expect the kippers to beat labour by in the May local elections?
    Or at least the tories or lib dems, they'll beat at least one of them, right?

    UKIP won't have the same candidate coverage this May in the locals as they will in the Euros next year - which is where they will fly....

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,528
    tim said:

    Anyone wondering why the unemployment and growth figures don't stack up, well they do

    ONS ‏@statisticsONS 36m
    UK labour #productivity fell by 0.5% in q4 2012 on output per hour basis http://goo.gl/r8NfF #ONS

    What a flaccid comment. Would you rather productivity and unemployment both rose? A trite little comment from tim that demonstrates the vacuum at the heart of Labour's critique of the economy...
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,030

    I have never been able to see beyond another hung Parliament, hopefully leading to a Lab/LD coalition.

    At this stage a Lab largest hung parliament looks most likely - but what price Lib Dem support, and what price to the Lib Dems of participation?

    We may see a minority Labour with confidence & supply.....

    ...whoever it is, it is not going to be pretty.....
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530

    as they will in the Euros next year - which is where they will fly....

    With slightly more aplomb than Farage did at the GE one would hope. ;)
    They came second in 2009 Euro elections, how many MPs did that get them in 2010?

  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited March 2013

    At this stage a Lab largest hung parliament looks most likely

    A roughly 10 point VI lead across most of the polling. You have an odd way of looking at FPTP elections. A hung parliament needs a race to be extremely close. At this stage it just isn't.

    Unless or until that gap gets closed a hung parliament is a pipe dream.

  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited March 2013
    So toxic is Dave amongst women that, in this poll, they give him a lead of 7 points over Ed M on the 'Who would make the best PM?' question (28 to 21). Strip out the Don't Knows and that's 52 to 39. The corresponding figures for men are 34 to 23, or 54 to 37 stripping out Don't Knows.

    On the Con Maj vs Lab Maj question, the remarkable thing is that the figures have remained so stable for months, but with lots of Don't Knows. Ed has clearly not convinced; if he becomes PM, it will be by default.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 35,924
    edited March 2013
    Mick_Pork said:

    I have never been able to see beyond another hung Parliament

    Presumably because we've had so many of them since the second world war. Two is it and then this one?

    EiT is right, under FPTP this kind of poll is of very limited usefullness.

    The PM one is slightly more useful but nowhere near as useful as overall approval ratings or VI. Since actually being the PM incurs a tiny bit of an advantage when being considered as Prime Ministerial in the first place.

    It's very, very hard to see the Tories winning as many seats as they did in 2010, let alone more. But Labour does have a major issue in the south outside London, while it's not hard to see Labour moving backwards in Scotland. I'd expect a handful of Labour gains in the south, a strong performance in London, some gains in the Midlands, not a huge number in Wales and the North and a fall back in Scotland (assuming the independence vote is No. If it's a yes, I'd expect a major decline). Overall, this will probably enough to make Labour the largest party, but not enough for a majority. However, if UKIP stays strong and the LDs hold the seats where they are facing Tory challenges, Labour could squeak a small majority. I reckon that's less likely than a hung Parliament, though.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,030
    Mick_Pork said:

    You have an odd way of looking at FPTP elections.

    You have a touching faith in the robustness of Labour's lead.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,528
    Mick_Pork said:

    as they will in the Euros next year - which is where they will fly....

    With slightly more aplomb than Farage did at the GE one would hope. ;)
    They came second in 2009 Euro elections, how many MPs did that get them in 2010?

    I'm not saying UKIP will take seats themselves - I'm saying it will make it lottery to try and say what happens if the last poll before the GE is Labour 32%, Tories 32%, LibDems 12%, UKIP 16%, others 8%
  • Is Labour's weakening down to people realising at last that David Miliband is not their leader?
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Slackbladder

    'Labour might be starting to feel the effects of their 'blank sheet of paper' strategy. '

    Voters are pissed off with the rising cost of food not to mention rising energy & petrol costs,with playing around with pensions,salaries not keeping pace with inflation & of course immigration.

    Labour has nothing to say about any of these issues.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,283
    The tories are slowly recovering from the battering that they got from the budget last year. This year's budget has stood up well and there has been nothing equivalent.

    The result is an indication of a minimum level of competence. People may not like the decisions but they seem reasonably coherent. When that happens they need a better alternative and Labour is simply not giving one. When politicians like Mandelson are saying it really is time to drop the too far, too fast nonsense and that is all they have swing voters are not being given a choice. The publicity surrounding David Miliband's departure is not going to help either.

    None of this means the government is popular or that Labour will not win the next election. It just indicates that it is not going to fall into their lap. Labour need to set out a vision of what they would do differently and start selling it. That will not happen overnight. These things take time.

    For the first half of this Parliament the blank sheet of paper worked well for Ed. As the next election hoves into view he needs to start writing on it.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530

    I'm not saying UKIP will take seats themselves - I'm saying it will make it lottery to try and say what happens if the last poll before the GE is Labour 32%, Tories 32%, LibDems 12%, UKIP 16%, others 8%

    Putting aside numbers plucked amusingly from the air, we actually know what effect a bigger kipper vote has since there was still a kipper vote in 2010. It by and large took votes from the tories in seats where they would much rather it didn't. Enough to cause Cameron's inability to win a majority? Debatable, though a few tories did seem to think so at the time.

    A bigger kipper vote would mean more of that pain. (it would also take a limited chunk from the lib dems and labour depending on just how 'protest' a protest vote it is). So the question is how big is bigger? Impossible to say this far out but the lib dems are also relying on the polling misjudging their vote so we shall see who is right in the end.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    @tim - When it comes to pointless reshuffles and ministers being moved before they have had time to master their briefs, Tony Blair is the all-time UK world record holder, isn't he?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,030
    Some other reactions to the Hayes move - Oliver Wright of the Indie:

    "Could it be that this is not a demotion for Hayes? - and that Cameron's getting what he badly needs - a minister for his own backbenchers"
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    tim said:

    Anyone wondering why the unemployment and growth figures don't stack up, well they do

    ONS ‏@statisticsONS 36m
    UK labour #productivity fell by 0.5% in q4 2012 on output per hour basis http://goo.gl/r8NfF #ONS

    It's Christmas you muppet! Extra workers to handle an expected rush.

    It's not like in the mid-Noughties, when Labour were pishing billions into the NHS. So bad were the productivity figures that Gormless has to recast them and Cronie sent his new Stats-office to Cardiff. [T'Economists "send in the clowns" comment.]

    But you know that Wee-Timmy, don'tch-yah!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,370
    Cyprus situation could be an opportunity (apparently):
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/28/cyprus-economic-woe-resolve-conflict

    Hmm. Not sure about that, though I must admit my knowledge of the Cyprus political/military scene isn't great.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited March 2013

    You have a touching faith in the robustness of Labour's lead.

    Hardly. I prefer evidence to tea party tory anecdote. Evidence of which there is plenty.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/GB_Polling_May_2010_to_Jan_2013.jpg

    I do though expect the fop to continue with his touching and inexplicable faith in the incompetent Osbrowne. A faith which hardly portends any kind of huge shift for the tories any time soon.



  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,030
    Other tweets tim is not sharing with us on Hayes - BBC Norman Smith:

    No 10 on appointment of John Hayes as link man with Tory backbenches:""a popular figure with the Parliamentary party.. gets on with the PM"
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,030
    Mick_Pork said:


    Hardly. I prefer evidence to tea party tory anecdote.

    Show me the polling numbers for May 2015. Its faith.

  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420

    If it's a yes, I'd expect a major decline).

    Clueless, feckin clueless! If the Scots vote for independence it would be extremely logical (and cynical) for them to elect Scots-Labour into gubermint. Labour rely upon Scots MP's, north and south, to rule: How better to screw the English...?

    :muppet-watch:
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,283
    Very positive write up on the changes by Brogan but of course Tim will be right and it is all a disaster and signs of incompetence: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100209478/at-last-mr-cameron-calls-in-the-grown-ups/

    Well, its a view I suppose.
  • manutdmanutd Posts: 2
    It's maybe my maths but the % of people wanted a Conservative government is 36% not 35% - A Majority Con Gov - 29% + Con/Lib Dem Col - 7% = 36%!!! Only a 5 point lead over a coalition of 2 of the 3 main parties, midterm and with the toughest and most unpopular decisions since the 1930's and Labour only have a lead of 5% and Ed Mili losing on best PM - If you think Labour are getting in at the next election you are crazy. When it comes to scrutiny in 2015 Labour will collapse like a deck of cards. Don't forget the Cons had regular leads of over 25% and hit 50% and what happened at the election?!! Con Majority or Con/Lib since boundary changes was dumped more likely.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited March 2013

    It's very, very hard to see the Tories winning as many seats as they did in 2010, let alone more.

    If that's hard exactly how hard do you think it is for the lib dems to approach their number of seats they got in 2010? It needs three votes to balance out almost exactly for a hung parliament. Not just the tories and labour being close but a big enough chunk of lib dems to make it feasible. No chance of that right now and even if Clegg goes it's still a long shot.

  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,630
    Early tally for Meath Eath by-election in Ireland

    FG ahead but quite close with FF. Labour disastrously, they may be behind both Sinn Fein and Direct Democracy for Ireland

    2011

    FG 40.9%
    Lab 21%
    FF 19.6%
    SF 8.9%
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,030
    Interesting 'Fact Check' on fuel poverty and whether renewables are increasing it - 'difficult to measure and if so, not by much (£20/year)' would seem to be the answers - both sides are over claiming:

    http://fullfact.org/factchecks/cost_renewable_energy_pushing_households_fuel_poverty-28828
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    tim said:

    @RichardNabavi

    Best PM ratings?
    LOL.


    Good to see Osborne killed Charles Hendrys career for absolutely nothing isn't it.
    Your poisonous Chancellor really has damaged your party at every level.

    tim said:

    @RichardNabavi

    Best PM ratings?
    LOL.


    Good to see Osborne killed Charles Hendrys career for absolutely nothing isn't it.
    Your poisonous Chancellor really has damaged your party at every level.

    Your poisonous Chancellor damaged the country at every level.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,030
    @tim - of course, it's 'a disaster' - as Brogan so pithily sums it up:

    "These changes are important. To Mr Cameron's credit, they suggest he too is focused on what the likes of me have been complaining about, namely the lack of smart politics at the centre."
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530

    Show me the polling numbers for May 2015. Its faith.

    Have you been drinking? The robustness of labour's poll lead is there for anyone to see. If the polls were darting around erratically for months around a tory/labour lead you might have a point, but since it self-evidently isn't you are clutching at straws as usual.

    At least you didn't try to 'prove' it with a Star Trek film.

    LOL

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 35,924
    Ed may well become PM by default in 2015. Just as Cameron did in 2010 and Blair did in 2005. It's quite usual for PMs to gain office based on the notion they lead the least worst option.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,030
    @Mick_Pork

    Get in your Tardis dear and show me the numbers from May 2015.....until then, your faith remains touching.....and a glorious hostage to fortune.....
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    edited March 2013
    tim said:

    @fluffythoughts

    norman smith ‏@BBCNormanS 1m
    Re-balancing the economy ? Output per hour fell by 0.8% in the manufacturing sector in 4th quarter of 2012 say ONS

    All those extra lathe workers on the tills at Xmas

    Wee-Timmy, after Neue-Slabours de-industrialisation policy (1997 - 2010) you are aware that manufacturing is about 12% of GDP, no? A fall of 0.8% is hardly measureable in GDP terms.

    So what caused the fall of the rest of productivity? Could it be down to Cronie, Gormless and DMxMP not bothering to work in the UK? Or maybe Hugh Grant's sacrificing his "acting" [sic] career in order to mentor wee-Militwunt...?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,030
    James Kirkup in the Telegraph:

    "After months, if not years, of warnings about poor party management, the PM has finally acted. He knows that May will bring awful results for the Tories in the local elections. If they're awful enough, there will be fresh talk of leadership challenges and backbench plots. Mr Hayes has excellent connections in some of the circles where such talk can be heard; his appointment looks like an attempt to head off a summer of discontent in the Conservative Party.

    Loyalists will see this as a sensible move from a prudent leader who responds calmly to events. Others will smell fear."

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100209497/john-hayes-goes-to-no-10-is-david-cameron-admitting-to-fear-of-his-own-party/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    Either way....lefties are fuming, righties happy.....
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,382
    edited March 2013
    In the 2015 GE why would the Scots vote anything other than SNP?

    If the referendum is lost, there will be negotiations to secure more powers for Scotland. I would argue that SNP are best placed to do that, so a strong showing for them will strengthen their hand.

    If the referendum is won, there will be negotiations to secure the best deal for Scotland. I would argue that SNP are best placed to do that, so a strong showing for them will strengthen their hand.

    Why would you vote anything other than SNP in 2015 GE if you are a Scot and live in Scotland?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 35,924
    Mick_Pork said:

    It's very, very hard to see the Tories winning as many seats as they did in 2010, let alone more.

    If that's hard exactly how hard do you think it is for the lib dems to approach their number of seats they got in 2010? It needs three votes to balance out almost exactly for a hung parliament. Not just the tories and labour being close but a big enough chunk of lib dems to make it feasible. No chance of that right now and even if Clegg goes it's still a long shot.

    LDs holding their own against the Tories, a relatively small Tory to Labour switch in marginals, a fall in the number of Labour of MPs in Scotland looks the likelist scenario to me at this stage. If I am right, that is hung Parliament territory.

    The further south you go in the UK, the less the LDs are disliked - especially where they are defending seats against the Tories.

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,460
    As the table shows, the majority government preference has been virtually tied since April last year - we probably shouldn't read anything special into the MOE twitch here. But it's undoubtedly true that the omerta strategy for Labour has its costs, one of which is that lots of people who plan to vote Labour are not motivated by enthusiasm for Labour or any specific policies but just a general preference or dislike of the alternatives.

    The interesting question is what UKIP and 2010 LibDem votes do in Con/Lab marginals. Labour's steady lead is based overwhelmingly on 2010 LibDem defectors, and if they started going home we'd be in trouble. I don't see much sign of that - if anything the 2010 LibDem defectors are more anti-Coalition than average Labour voters. They are not especially pro-Labour (that's why they didn't vote for us in 2010) but they're ferociously determined to get the government out. Today's poll has this picture of 2010 LibDem preferences (all LibDems, not just defectors):

    A Tory Government: 9
    A Tory-LibDem Government: 16
    A Lab-LibDem Government: 31
    A Labour Government: 23
    Don't know: 21

  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited March 2013

    Get in your Tardis dear and show me the numbers from May 2015

    You have a touching faith in the robustness of Labour's lead.

    Oh dear. Not having a good day are you? Even for an amusing tea party tory.

    You claimed it was faith I showed you the clear evidence

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/GB_Polling_May_2010_to_Jan_2013.jpg

    In case you still didn't understand (or are too busy babbling about Star Trek and the Tardis) the red line is the labour VI lead which shows absolutely no sign of the huge reversal you are faithfully dreaming of. (after Osbrowne gifted little Ed that lead last year). That means the labour lead is robust. Grasped it yet?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,030
    philiph said:

    Why would you vote anything other than SNP in 2015 GE if you are a Scot and live in Scotland?

    Short of an absolute humiliation in the independence vote - which is very unlikely - (I suspect Independence will lose, but probably by less than the polls now suggest) - I agree - the SNP should do well in the 2015 GE - as 'Scotland's voice in Westminster' for either independence negotiations, or further devolution of powers.

    Why, under either scenario would you vote for the party with most to lose from a change to the status quo....?

  • eekeek Posts: 15,856
    Socrates said:

    This is a very good post about two arguments frequently posited: that raising the minimum wage doesn't hurt employment, and low skilled immigration doesn't reduce wages.

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2005/05/infinite_contra.html

    The first argument requires you to believe demand for low-skilled work is highly inelastic, and the second argument requires you to believe demand for low-skilled work is highly elastic. You can't believe both.

    One thing it doesn't argue but I can show from actual evidence is that as the minimum wage has increased its dragged more and more jobs into that category. Talking to a large retailer its shifted nearly all jobs into its net (not just sales jobs and warehouse work) but virtually anything which requires just a bit of skill (office work, forklift driver, supervisor)....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,030
    @tim - Cameron strengthening his connection with his own party and being praised for doing so for by the right is a bad day for me, how exactly?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,030
    edited March 2013
    Mick_Pork said:

    Grasped it yet?

    Today is 28th March 2013 - the GE is over 2 years away. Grasped it yet?

  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530

    LDs holding their own against the Tories

    Still isn't enough to get near their 2010 seat number. They'd have to do a great deal better than that.

    The lower the lib dem MP count, the less chance of a hung parliament under FPTP.

  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,382
    eek said:

    Socrates said:

    This is a very good post about two arguments frequently posited: that raising the minimum wage doesn't hurt employment, and low skilled immigration doesn't reduce wages.

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2005/05/infinite_contra.html

    The first argument requires you to believe demand for low-skilled work is highly inelastic, and the second argument requires you to believe demand for low-skilled work is highly elastic. You can't believe both.

    One thing it doesn't argue but I can show from actual evidence is that as the minimum wage has increased its dragged more and more jobs into that category. Talking to a large retailer its shifted nearly all jobs into its net (not just sales jobs and warehouse work) but virtually anything which requires just a bit of skill (office work, forklift driver, supervisor)....
    I agree that the Minimum Wage has increased the number who are paid at a lower rate. An employer now knows what the 'going rate' is, and for all jobs which used to be low paid, or low paid + 5%, 10% 15% or 20%, are now migrating down to the minimum.

    The unintended consequences of this are now hurting many employees with a lower skills base, (hence the scream for a living wage which will end up doing the same).
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited March 2013

    Today is 28th March 2013 - the GE is over 2 years away. Grasped it yet?

    So either point me to the evidence that the lead isn't robust or stop putting so much amusing naive faith in this imagined massive swing that the polls show absolutely no sign of.

    You aren't going to turn a 10% labour lead into a tory lead just by praying in front of your shrine of Cammie and Osbrowne, so unless you have something better to offer as proof it is self-evidently you operating on faith alone and ignoring the polling evidence in a way stuarttruth would be proud of.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,025
    @ Mick_Pork
    labour lead is robust.

    Apologies for being a newbie and lurker, etc so not quite understanding the rules but am I able to ask whether you would like a £10 bet that the GE result will be closer than today's (YouGov) poll lead of 10pts?

    Would be happy, eager, even, to ensure winnings go to this site.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,909

    I remember people saying that 1979 was a key election to win. With the humungous amount of North Sea revenue expected, the winner would be in power for a decade at least. That came to pass, but it was more to do with black swans; the Falklands, the Militant infiltration, and the SDP split.

    2010 was seen as a good one to lose, and 2015 might be the same, but politicians prefer the short-term. Get into power and hope something turns up.

    EdM's blank sheet is a good example. If you put down policies, you're giving a hostage to fortune. Better lie low and say nuffin.

    It could work.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,030
    James Lansdale confirming Brogan's angle:

    "For the Kremlinologists: John Hayes is intended to be the new Andrew MacKay, David Cameron's eyes, ears and counsellor on party matters."
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited March 2013
    TOPPING said:

    @ Mick_Pork
    labour lead is robust.

    Apologies for being a newbie and lurker, etc so not quite understanding the rules but am I able to ask whether you would like a £10 bet that the GE result will be closer than today's (YouGov) poll lead of 10pts?

    Would be happy, eager, even, to ensure winnings go to this site.

    Thanks but no thanks. In case you didn't understand I'm not arguing that the lead can't ever narrow but that the polls show it is robust. Which they self-evidently do.

    If you think it can be reversed to the extent Carlotta seems to you can get excellent odds elsewhere to put all the money you wish down.

  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530

    John Hayes is intended to be the new Andrew MacKay, David Cameron's eyes, ears and counsellor on party matters."

    Did MacKay get slapped down hard by a lib dem minister too? :)

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,030
    Colour me stunned - Dellingpole for UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/james-delingpole/8874511/why-im-a-convert-to-ukip/

    Now they've got the anti-wind farm vote too.....
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,382
    Mick_Pork said:

    TOPPING said:

    @ Mick_Pork
    labour lead is robust.

    Apologies for being a newbie and lurker, etc so not quite understanding the rules but am I able to ask whether you would like a £10 bet that the GE result will be closer than today's (YouGov) poll lead of 10pts?

    Would be happy, eager, even, to ensure winnings go to this site.

    Thanks but no thanks. In case you didn't understand I'm not arguing that the lead can't ever narrow but that the polls show it is robust. Which they self-evidently do.

    If you think it can be reversed to the extent Carlotta seems to you can get excellent odds elsewhere to put all the money you wish down.

    I think Robust and consistent are different.

    Almost by definition as the only opposition party Labour will benefit in this parliament. When push comes to shove at election time (General, not noise of locals or euros) we may discover that the lead was consistent but not robust (as robust implies unlikely to move). The question is do Labour lead because of the policy, belief and promise that the party issues to the electorate, or because there isn't another alternative opposition? One is Robust and one is Consistent.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited March 2013
    philiph said:

    I think Robust and consistent are different.

    If we're getting into the parsing of the word instead of the polling evidence it's not really particularly helpful. The lib dems have been been been basically flatlining around 10% since the end of 2010. Is that robust or consistent? It hardly matters, it's constant and shows little sign of change either.
    philiph said:

    (General, not noise of locals or euros)

    Locals aren't noise. That's a party's base right there. You can maybe call one or two set of locals noise if it's a bizarre result but not repeated big gains or hammerings year on year. Those matter.
    philiph said:

    The question is do Labour lead because of the policy, belief and promise that the party issues to the electorate, or because there isn't another alternative opposition?

    Neither. Osbrowne gifted little Ed labour's lead with his omnishambles incompetence. He might not have gave them an additional 10% this year but that hardly means he's no longer a toxic liability. If Osbrowne went then that's the kind of huge change that could see a big shift in the polling, but Cammie puts chum before party so it's still pretty unlikely.

    Even with polling narrowing as it usually does in the final months, narrowing is hardly the same as overturning a 10% lead. It looked like a hung parliament for months in 2010 because that's what the polling pointed to for months. Anyone who said a tory majority was nailed on in 2010 in the final months looked a fool because they ignored the polling to an extent Romney would be proud of.




  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    edited March 2013
    philiph said:

    In the 2015 GE why would the Scots vote anything other than SNP?

    Oh God, are you serious? Scotland will vote for the best option for Scots' interests.

    A party led by the spawn of Polish quislings, debouched via Belgian-Communists (COMINTERN, Molotov-Ribbentrop to that 'nice' Mr Hitler; well, until he comes for your-and-yours) and populated by Scottish Unionists is exactly what an independent Scotland will vote for.

    Ignore the Bangladesh-Burmese 2012 settlement at the International Court of the Seas* (ruling equidistant sea-borders) and ravage English waters down to the Tweed. Scots are canny; give them that...!

    * Why is Germany is hosting this organisation? Us English and our Dutch cousins have more history, as too do the Danes....
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,025
    @Mick_Pork
    gotit no probs thx
    as for robustnesss, even on the chart you attach there is plenty of widening, narrowing and crossover....if you were a chartist you might even see a pattern whereby a narrowing was overdue (I'm not a chartist).
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 6,979
    Mick_Pork said:

    philiph said:

    I think Robust and consistent are different.

    If we're getting into the parsing of the word instead of the polling evidence it's not really particularly helpful. The lib dems have been been been basically flatlining around 10% since the end of 2010. Is that robust or consistent? It hardly matters, it's constant and shows little sign of change either.


    There has been quite a lot of change. The LDs were down at 7 & 8 with YouGov. Now it's in the range 12-13. But it spoils your story.

    Also to note that the SNP are going to do nohing like as well against the LDs in Scottish seats @ GE2015.





  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    edited March 2013
    "For the first half of this Parliament the blank sheet of paper worked well for Ed. As the next election hoves into view he needs to start writing on it."

    @DavidL

    Does he? I am not so sure. Maybe he needs to sketch in a few ideas, just some platitudes and some aspirations, you understand. Then he can sit back and wait to be wafted into Downing Street.

    The Labvour "tribal" vote will hold up and this will be supplemented by disaffected Lib Dem vote. Meanwhile Cameron has done spectacularly well in pissing off large numbers of people who he needs to vote for him. His "tribal" or core vote cannot be relied upon and he hasn't and, I judge, will not, attract new voters to replace them. Add to that the Conservative activist base is collapsing, whereas Labour can rely on the willing hands of the Unions.

    So, all in all, I think Labour can win the next GE even if they go into it without a coherent policy to their name.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,030
    philiph said:

    The question is do Labour lead because of the policy, belief and promise that the party issues to the electorate, or because there isn't another alternative opposition? One is Robust and one is Consistent.

    Exactly.

    Expect to be rebutted by polling evidence showing Labour with a commanding lead on the single most important issue - the economy.

    Or not.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,025
    @HurstLlama

    slightly different - the last two changes of government included a pledge (rightly or wrongly) to maintain policy. If EdM does this it leaves him nowhere to go if he still wants to argue "Coalition bad"....
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530



    There has been quite a lot of change. The LDs were down at 7 & 8 with YouGov. Now it's in the range 12-13. But it spoils your story.

    You are confusing small temporary shifts with the overall picture. Again the evidence is clear.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/GB_Polling_May_2010_to_Jan_2013.jpg

    Also to note that the SNP are going to do nohing like as well against the LDs in Scottish seats @ GE2015.

    What polls are you basing that on? Or are you basing it on the 2011 elections or even the 2012 locals?

    I hate to tell you but they show quite the reverse.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    TOPPING said:

    @Mick_Pork>as for robustnesss, even on the chart you attach there is plenty of widening, narrowing and crossover....if you were a chartist you might even see a pattern whereby a narrowing was overdue (I'm not a chartist).

    The tory crossover/crash was Osbrowne's omnishambles budget.
    It seem I wasn't sufficiently clear, that is from when the lead has been robust.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I don't generally comment very often on polling numbers because:

    1) people read into them what they want to read into them
    2) polling figures in 2013 are not polling figures in 2015
    3) no one ever changes their minds about what they mean

    But it's probably worth summarising a bit where we stand now, as I see it.

    1) Labour have a consistent lead of roughly 10 points over the Conservatives. The gap is there or thereabouts with most polling companies right now.
    2) That lead is built out of dislike of the Conservatives and this Government rather than any enthusiasm for Labour.
    3) The public is pissed off in general (hence the buoyant UKIP polling figures).
    4) The initial violent hatred for the Lib Dems is waning a bit, but Nick Clegg is still widely disliked.

    So we seem to be in a holding pattern. The rating downgrade did not have the impact on public perceptions that I expected (I thought it would be a hammer blow for the Conservatives, but it seems to have been fully factored in by the public). But on the other hand, the budget has done nothing to improve Conservative fortunes. It still seems all to play for and much depends on how the economy performs. The British public, rightly, are results merchants.

    There are a couple of big unknowns. Labour seems to draw much of its most enthusiastic current support from people who did not vote for them at the last election. If its polling figures fade before the next election, they will presumably fade among other groups. This suggests that Labour might do relatively better in some seats that it does not currently hold with big 2010 Lib Dem votes and relatively less well in seats that it does hold where the Lib Dems featured less in 2010. But how might this pan out?

    The other big unknown is what current UKIP supporters will do in practice at the next general election. On the one hand, they are drawn disproportionately from the ranks of disgruntled ex-Conservatives, but on the other hand they are not offering protest support of Labour. These people seem very angry. When it comes to the next election, who do they hate most?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Mick_Pork said:

    philiph said:

    I think Robust and consistent are different.

    If we're getting into the parsing of the word instead of the polling evidence it's not really particularly helpful. The lib dems have been been been basically flatlining around 10% since the end of 2010. Is that robust or consistent? It hardly matters, it's constant and shows little sign of change either.


    There has been quite a lot of change. The LDs were down at 7 & 8 with YouGov. Now it's in the range 12-13. But it spoils your story.

    Also to note that the SNP are going to do nohing like as well against the LDs in Scottish seats @ GE2015.





    When it comes to Westminster elections, the SNP are really poorly placed to take advantage of any Lib Dem weakness. There are very few of the Lib Dem seats where the SNP were remotely in contention in 2010.

    This will prompt a fusillade of observations about SNP strength in those areas in 2011, but those were in different elections under a different system for a different purpose. 2010 looked much more like 2005 than 2007.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,030
    The righties and GreenPeace seem happy with Fallon's move:

    Doug Parr, Director of Policy, Greenpeace:

    "Britain is at a crossroads, with decisions being made now that will define how we get and use energy for the next 30-40 years. As such, Michael Fallon has a real opportunity to clean up our power sector, capitalise on clean, home-grown energy and properly open Britain for green business.

    In opposition he authored a law to drive investment in renewable energy, and as deputy chairman of the Conservatives he described the renewables sector as “the work force of tomorrow".

    We look forward to him putting this vision into practice and safeguarding green jobs and growth."

    Of course, this is terrible for Cameron.....
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited March 2013
    antifrank said:

    This will prompt a fusillade of observations about SNP strength in those areas in 2011, but those were in different elections under a different system for a different purpose. 2010 looked much more like 2005 than 2007.

    No. It scarcely needs any recall of 2011 since 2015 will be all about Cameron and Clegg's lib dem tory coalition government being under scrutiny and up for re-election. Perhaps Mike thinks Clegg's coalition with the tories is a winning argument for the lib dems in scotland?

    I tend to think not myself. ;)

  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited March 2013

    Of course, this is terrible for Cameron.....


    It would be terrible for Cameron's tiny windmill on his roof. If it hadn't vanished. ;)
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 805

    lots of people who plan to vote Labour are not motivated by enthusiasm for Labour or any specific policies but just a general preference or dislike of the alternatives

    But we already knew this; only a few weeks ago, tim told us that defeating the Conservatives is all that matters. Defining oneself by what one hates seems a rather dispiriting state of being, but to be fair tim does thrive on it.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,030
    And yet another rightie thinks the Hayes/Fallon move a good one - Tim Montgomerie:

    "Two of the Conservative Party's success stories get bigger roles: Fallon and Hayes"

    http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2013/03/two-of-the-conservative-partys-success-stories-get-bigger-roles-fallon-and-hayes.html

    no wonder tim is upset.....
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Mick_Pork said:

    antifrank said:

    This will prompt a fusillade of observations about SNP strength in those areas in 2011, but those were in different elections under a different system for a different purpose. 2010 looked much more like 2005 than 2007.

    No. It scarcely needs any recall of 2011 since 2015 will be all about Cameron and Clegg's lib dem tory coalition government being under scrutiny and up for re-election. Perhaps Mike thinks Clegg's coalition with the tories is a winning argument for the lib dems in scotland?

    I tend to think not myself. ;)

    I'm not as sanguine as our host about the Lib Dem chances in Scotland. But the SNP still don't look well-placed to benefit. The Lib Dems have 11 Westminster seats in Scotland. At the 2010 election, the SNP were 2nd in one of them, 3rd in five of them and 4th in five of them. While Malcolm Bruce certainly looks vulnerable to the SNP, Labour look better placed than the SNP to benefit from a Lib Dem collapse.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Socrates

    'My subjective impression of speaking to UKIP-Conservative waiverers is that a lot of them, while still supporting UKIP, are giving the Tories another look due to recognition of their concerns.'

    If they are serious about wanting an in/out EU referendum,junking the ECHR and avoid the inevitable return of mass immigration under Labour,then they will do that.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Looks like labour's relentless negativity is backfiring a bit. Ed is starting to look like 'spoilt [email protected]' out of Viz...

    Voters now want to see what Ed has in his hand. Trouble is, formulating policy is going to be very difficult with the left and right of the party already at the each others throats.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    john_zims said:

    @Socrates

    'My subjective impression of speaking to UKIP-Conservative waiverers is that a lot of them, while still supporting UKIP, are giving the Tories another look due to recognition of their concerns.'

    If they are serious about wanting an in/out EU referendum,junking the ECHR and avoid the inevitable return of mass immigration under Labour,then they will do that.

    Only if it looks like it could make a difference. If the Tories aren't going to get in regardless, then you'd rather UKIP do well to continue to have a major voice in the conversation in future.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited March 2013
    antifrank said:

    Labour look better placed than the SNP to benefit from a Lib Dem collapse.

    I've said before on here the hardest thing to gauge will be how the SNP/Labour vote will shake up after the independence referendum in the event of Yes or No.

    While that is uncertain (though not totally I think the vote of both will be more 'robust' *sigh* than many think) what isn't uncertain is that the lib dems will have to defend their coalition with the tories against a somewhat less than receptive scottish public. Put onto that the tories chances in scotland after years of westminster rule and it does seem to boil down to how that split shakes out.

    I've never thought the SNP would grab every lib dem seat but if Clegg is still there then the lib dems are in for a world of pain from labour and the SNP. Even if he isn't they will still be under the cosh.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    This is all looking rather odd.

    RT @MichaelLCrick: Nick Clegg's account of what he's done re Mike Hancock seems full of serious discrepancies. I will outline in a blog shortly.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    tim said:

    JoeMurphy
    If Cornerstone is now the answer Cameron has completely changed the question.


    Following Marine Le Pens endorsement of his immigration posturing it seems that detoxification has gone the same was as deficit reduction.Finished.

    And Charles Manson liked the Beatles, so John Lennon must be evil.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 8,811
    Michael Crick ‏@MichaelLCrick 2m
    Nick Clegg's account of what he's done re Mike Hancock seems full of serious discrepancies. I will outline in a blog shortly.

    Anyone see a pattern of Clegg dealing with problems with lib dem sleazes?
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530

    Anyone see a pattern of Clegg dealing with problems with lib dem sleazes?

    Is he going to do another hurried and in no way contradictory statement for the cameras?
    That worked out so well the last time. ;)

  • samsam Posts: 727
    If there is a by election in Portsmouth South, would it be Eastleigh like in its vote losses/gains?

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,932
    O/T

    Just signed a deal to sell one of my favorite companies. World leader in multivalent vaccine development and manufacturing. Great price and management happy, but still sad to see her go.

    :-(
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,932
    tim said:


    Trying to get rid of NHS Direct will be the classic "saving" that increases spending

    Whenever I used them they were useless. the concept is great, but it needs to be better executed and, failing that, is a waste of money
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Tim

    How are those Labour NHS cuts going down in Wales?
    Is it Labour's template for the NHS in England?
  • On Topic: Maybe peole are waking up to the scale of the mess we are in - and who caused it. Austerity has not started yet, but it will have to.

    What's becoming increasingly clear to me is that Redward will become PM by default. He's playing an opposition game and opposing everything - fair dinkum for now. That might get him elected. It's no platform for government and the 'what will you do' questions on spending and the deficit will have to be answered, at least directioanlly in the manifesto and absolutely in the first budget. The Labour 2015 -2017 government is shaping up to be the most calamitous in our history. They will lead us to a default. I hope EdM is readying himself for this.
  • MontyMonty Posts: 346

    The next twelve months of domestic politics will be marked by the shift from Labour to UKIP, culminating in a really horrible election result for Labour just 12 months before the general.

    Then it will be anybody's guess how you model the outcome of the next election....

    This idea is reminiscent of the 80s when SDP/Liberal Alliance supporters were always claiming that a 'surge' was just around the corner. Didn't happen then, won't happen now.
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800

    Michael Crick ‏@MichaelLCrick 2m
    Nick Clegg's account of what he's done re Mike Hancock seems full of serious discrepancies. I will outline in a blog shortly.

    Anyone see a pattern of Clegg dealing with problems with lib dem sleazes?

    He's a Lib Dem, what do you expect?

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,932
    tim said:

    @Charles

    The research shows the opposite, it saves money and has very high satisfaction rates.

    But I'm sure your anecdote is what you believe, and that's what matters to the PB Tories

    The research I have seen says that the most predominant recommendation is "go and talk to your doctor". Which achieves precisely zero.

    If it was good at triaging and making a proper determination about the appropriate course of action then it would be helpful. But it isn't. And "satisfaction" ratings are worth diddly squat when you are assessing effectiveness.

    But then I make my living working and investing in the healthcare space. And you work in a wine shop.
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    john_zims said:

    @Socrates

    'My subjective impression of speaking to UKIP-Conservative waiverers is that a lot of them, while still supporting UKIP, are giving the Tories another look due to recognition of their concerns.'

    If they are serious about wanting an in/out EU referendum,junking the ECHR and avoid the inevitable return of mass immigration under Labour,then they will do that.

    They won't do it with Cameron in charge

  • samsam Posts: 727
    edited March 2013
    Monty said:



    This idea is reminiscent of the 80s when SDP/Liberal Alliance supporters were always claiming that a 'surge' was just around the corner. Didn't happen then, won't happen now.

    Isnt the difference that SDP split the opposion while UKIP are splitting the majority of the government? So it feels like UKIP are having a tangible effect.

This discussion has been closed.