@ Cyclefree "Your point about Labour's vote is a good one. But being perceived as the party for Muslim immigrants - if this is the case - does not obviate it getting votes elsewhere. Labour seems to get votes from all sorts of groups but sometimes seem oblivious to the fact that some of these groups have incompatible interests and may repel others whose votes it wants - which may explain the incoherence of some of its policies."
Five years ago everyone on the left here was talking about the coming inevitable Democratic age, given demographics were increasing the percentage of ethnic and social groups which vote Democrat, and reducing GOP blocs. This, of course, ignores the point you are making - that as the Dems become the party of immigrants, they lose the white working class males, which had until then been their strongest bloc.
So now the Dems are the party not of ideas, but of single women, champagne socialists, latinos, blacks, and Asians (and to a lesser extent the LGBT community).
I'd be interested in knowing whether there was any truth to that rumour that the early postal votes showed disaster looming. I asked at the time and was told no, but wasn't entirely convinced I was being told the truth.
As for my impressions at the time, obviously they were wrong. The "Tories seem to have given up on Broxtowe" comment was based on three apparent straws in the wind - a friend close to the Tories in Loughborough was told that they were confident partly because they'd been reinforced with people who had been intended for Broxtowe, as that was now seen as beyond reach; a Swiss journalist interviewed AS (for publication after the election), who said philosophically that everyone expected her to lose, but who could tell, really; and there was a real gap in Tory leaflet delivery. I don't think I ever said AS had given up (not in her nature), but the Tory effort seemed to be faltering.
Against that, our canvass data was puzzlingly poor compared with the national polls - in fact it looked marginally worse than 2010 (though I'm quite certain there was a sharp further move in the last couple of days). I had an interest in encouraging any Tory move away, so I didn't volunteer that information (I've never claimed to tell the *whole* truth here), but in any case the national polls were so consistent that I just discounted them. I should have known better, and I apologise to anyone misled in their punting.
Thanks for this. It is tough when you are the candidate and have a lot tied up in it, but at least you have other strings to your bow, that might not be the case for other colleagues who lost in 2010 and 2015.
Im glad you have mentioned your canvassing information. I suspect it was pretty accurate, you failed to record the swing to cons because the swing would have been in your 'against' (or whatever labour call it). For those that havent canvassed, when you knock on a door, those that support you are usually pretty willing to volunteer the information that they vote for your side, but if they dont vote for you, many times they wont actually specify who it is they are voting for, just that its not you.
There's a good chance that it is within this group that churn existed.
But, the more important point is that if in the hyper marginal of broxtowe Labour was falling short of taking it, a seat that should be 'nailed on', with a popular long term mp who just got pipped at the post with the national swing in 2010, then this must have been happening across the country. Someone was sitting on this data, or failing to explain it to the leadership.
We also know that the Tory internal polling was much more accurate if not spot on.
No we don't. We can reasonably surmise from David Cameron's last-week campaign stops that the Conservatives knew about the miserable state of the Lib Dems, but we have zero evidence as to what they knew about Tory-Labour marginals.
This is completely wrong.
If they did not know that there were not going to be significant losses to Labour, then the strategy of putting so much effort into LibDem-held seats would have made no sense. In fact it would have been counter-productive, because if an outright majority was out of reach, any seat lost to Labour was worth two seats gained from the LibDems.
What's more, this was pointed out before the election:
'Against that, our canvass data was puzzlingly poor compared with the national polls - in fact it looked marginally worse than 2010 (though I'm quite certain there was a sharp further move in the last couple of days).'
So all that stuff about red liberals and your amazing canvass returns you kept on telling us was just complete bullshit.
I'd be interested in knowing whether there was any truth to that rumour that the early postal votes showed disaster looming. I asked at the time and was told no, but wasn't entirely convinced I was being told the truth.
Presumably that's because no-one is actually supposed to know that.
It is quite possible to get an impression of how things are going from a postal vote tally. The tally is statistically valid as long as the sample is big enough. You only need a few hundred to build up a picture. In Scotland it would have taken less than a few hundred in a dozen constituencies to know what was going to happen and that the polls mirrored votes cast.
'Against that, our canvass data was puzzlingly poor compared with the national polls - in fact it looked marginally worse than 2010 (though I'm quite certain there was a sharp further move in the last couple of days).'
So all that stuff about red liberals and your amazing canvass returns you kept on telling us was just complete bullshit.
So much for your so called 'Positive Politics'.
(this information, if Nick had chose to release it would have had people on this forum making different betting decisions... But you can understand why he might not let it slip... )
O/T - does The Screaming Eagles actually have an AV thread perennially in the works? I can never tell if it's a joke or not
I had a thread prepared before the election, which kept on getting over taken by other events, fortunately that worked in my favour, as the piece was headlined
"Opposing AV might be Dave's biggest mistake, it could have been the only way to get a Tory Majority"
So I'm now working on a new AV thread, just needs a few minor tweaks.
I think a big reason for the disconnect between Labour HQ's expectations and what Labour organisers on the ground in marginals were finding, is perhaps that nobody had factored in how much any Labour vote increase would be disproportionately in their safe seats. Apparently, Labour's national private polls were projecting a 3-4% Tory lead nationally, which remember based purely on uniform swing should've resulted in the two parties being very close on seats - but we now know that even a 3-4% lead would've resulted in a healthy Tory lead on seats because of how much better the Tories were performing in the marginals.
We also know that the Tory internal polling was much more accurate if not spot on.
No we don't. We can reasonably surmise from David Cameron's last-week campaign stops that the Conservatives knew about the miserable state of the Lib Dems, but we have zero evidence as to what they knew about Tory-Labour marginals.
This is completely wrong.
If they did not know that there were not going to be significant losses to Labour, then the strategy of putting so much effort into LibDem-held seats would have made no sense. In fact it would have been counter-productive, because if an outright majority was out of reach, any seat lost to Labour was worth two seats gained from the LibDems.
What's more, this was pointed out before the election:
By the way, i'm killing time at Heathrow - China flight two hours late - and have discovered Terminal 2's excellent "Gorgeous Kitchen" - only the second really good airport restaurant I've ever encountered (the other was in Vienna, where the Hotel Sacher have a branch restraurant in the UK waiting area!).
Wolgang Puck has a number of restaurants in US terminals. Chicago O'Hare is the first I ate at. Good simple fare - not haute cuisine but excellent grub nevertheless.
I think a big reason for the disconnect between Labour HQ's expectations and what Labour organisers on the ground in marginals were finding, is perhaps that nobody had factored in how much any Labour vote increase would be disproportionately in their safe seats. Apparently, Labour's national private polls were projecting a 3-4% Tory lead nationally, which remember based purely on uniform swing should've resulted in the two parties being very close on seats.
But these people arent daft. They are seasoned campaigners. The very top team might change with the leadership, but the people who keep the machine running will be long term players. A good seasoned senior experienced campaign organiser can look at the numbers and do basic analysis in his head, and he can enter the data for a per constituency analysis very quickly. Ed cannot have seriously thought he was going to be PM, unless he wasnt told about the intelligence, or he just refused to believe what he was told.
I think a big reason for the disconnect between Labour HQ's expectations and what Labour organisers on the ground in marginals were finding, is perhaps that nobody had factored in how much any Labour vote increase would be disproportionately in their safe seats. Apparently, Labour's national private polls were projecting a 3-4% Tory lead nationally, which remember based purely on uniform swing should've resulted in the two parties being very close on seats - but we now know that even a 3-4% lead would've resulted in a healthy Tory lead on seats because of how much better the Tories were performing in the marginals.
It's a shame that IOS has gone into hiding ( or not dependent on your viewpoint). He said that Labour had the best ground game and canvassing returns were good etc etc so maybe he could have enlightened us as to why this turned out to be not the case.
It's a shame that IOS has gone into hiding ( or not dependent on your viewpoint). He said that Labour had the best ground game and canvassing returns were good etc etc so maybe he could have enlightened us as to why this turned out to be not the case.
Alternatively he was full of shit.
Now that's unfair.
He has presumably spent the last month pouring over the superior algorithms to try to find where the bug was.
I think a big reason for the disconnect between Labour HQ's expectations and what Labour organisers on the ground in marginals were finding, is perhaps that nobody had factored in how much any Labour vote increase would be disproportionately in their safe seats. Apparently, Labour's national private polls were projecting a 3-4% Tory lead nationally, which remember based purely on uniform swing should've resulted in the two parties being very close on seats - but we now know that even a 3-4% lead would've resulted in a healthy Tory lead on seats because of how much better the Tories were performing in the marginals.
It's a shame that IOS has gone into hiding ( or not dependent on your viewpoint). He said that Labour had the best ground game and canvassing returns were good etc etc so maybe he could have enlightened us as to why this turned out to be not the case.
Alternatively he was full of shit.
Unless you have constituency wide information (which is kept usually very tightly and not shared with the activists) or you have access to wider information, you wouldnt know. Unless IOS was a senior staffer or a senior part of a campaign he quite simply wouldnt know.
'(this information, if Nick had chose to release it would have had people on this forum making different betting decisions... But you can understand why he might not let it slip... )'
He could have said that as it was the campaign proper he would not be revealing any further canvass details instead he chose to deliberately tell porkies.
I think a big reason for the disconnect between Labour HQ's expectations and what Labour organisers on the ground in marginals were finding, is perhaps that nobody had factored in how much any Labour vote increase would be disproportionately in their safe seats. Apparently, Labour's national private polls were projecting a 3-4% Tory lead nationally, which remember based purely on uniform swing should've resulted in the two parties being very close on seats - but we now know that even a 3-4% lead would've resulted in a healthy Tory lead on seats because of how much better the Tories were performing in the marginals.
I don't think it was particularly difficult to guess Labour would pile up votes in their safe seats given the fact that Ed Miliband was running a campaign a long way to the left of the average voter. Huge swings to Labour in the likes of Walthamstow and Islington were always on the cards.
It's been said that Conservative high command started to get polling data saying they would be enough in the lead from about the last week. It has also been said that Ed Miliband believed that his party was sufficiently strong (although still behind) to force out Cameron right up to the exit poll
But the odd campaigning behavior (Cameron campaigning in the South West, Miliband campagning in Worcester) isn't consistent with this. It leads me to think that Cameron and Miliband knew of the situation from about four weeks before. This also fits in with the Jon Ronson Guardian video (with the uncooperative Labour party) and the Matthew Paris Times article expressing optimism, and the fact that although Paddy Ashdown was genuinely shocked by the exit poll, Harman and Gove in the studio were not obviously surprised
So, one simple question: who's telling the truth?
This is why I said earlier I want Kieran to ask him when were the internal polls held and what were the results.
If the referendum isn't going to be in May 2016, maybe it will be on 15th September instead since that was roughly the same time of year as the Scottish independence referendum.
"The very thin silver lining to the disastrous postal ballot field reports is Scotland: while the position in is bad, it is not the total meltdown suggested by the polls."
2 days before the election I was in St Ives and who should turn up but Cameron? I thought what the hell is he doing here of all places?
With hindsight I should have gone into the nearest betting shop.
Ditto with me - Osborne turning up in Eastbourne.
There were lots of indications, and they were noted here.
Is this information held centrally somehwhere? Central Office press releases? If we can't collate the info, it's not useful
I don't see how that's useful. Gordon Brown was in Kent during the 2010 campaign but he lost all Labour's seats in the county.
If we can track their movements and then crossref that to the polled estimate for the constituency they're campaigning in, we can plot that on a graph. If the graph rises then they are campaigning in safer and safer seats, and we can infer that they believe they are doing worse than the polls. Similarly if they are campaigning in more and more unsafe/implausible seats, then we can infer they believe they are doing better than the polls. If the graph is level, then their behavior is consistent with the polls.
So we can build a way of estimating their belief that's based on easily available data in real time, rather that relying on party personnel polling here to feed us tidbits.
I don't know if it'd work and (as you point out) it may not. But it's worth a try.
Hence my original question: where is campaigning behavior recorded?
2 days before the election I was in St Ives and who should turn up but Cameron? I thought what the hell is he doing here of all places?
With hindsight I should have gone into the nearest betting shop.
Ditto with me - Osborne turning up in Eastbourne.
There were lots of indications, and they were noted here.
Is this information held centrally somehwhere? Central Office press releases? If we can't collate the info, it's not useful
I don't see how that's useful. Gordon Brown was in Kent during the 2010 campaign but he lost all Labour's seats in the county.
If we can track their movements and then crossref that to the polled estimate for the constituency they're campaigning in, we can plot that on a graph. If the graph rises then they are campaigning in safer and safer seats, and we can infer that they believe they are doing worse than the polls. Similarly if they are campaigning in more and more unsafe/implausible seats, then we can infer they believe they are doing better than the polls. If the graph is level, then their behavior is consistent with the polls.
So we can build a way of estimating their belief that's based on easily available data in real time, rather that relying on party personnel polling here to feed us tidbits.
I don't know if it'd work and (as you point out) it may not. But it's worth a try.
Hence my original question: where is campaigning behavior recorded?
I know the telegraph had a map of where the leaders had visited, although I am not sure if it gave the constituency instead of just the town. If the numbers are collated, it'd be interesting to see in terms of 2010 majority, as well as Lord A's numbers.
I don't totally buy the idea that because Cameron has ruled out a Referendum to coincide withe the elections already scheduled for May next year that there will be no such poll until Autumn 2016. Why can he not follow the 1975 precedent and simply hold it a month later in June 2016?
2 days before the election I was in St Ives and who should turn up but Cameron? I thought what the hell is he doing here of all places?
With hindsight I should have gone into the nearest betting shop.
Ditto with me - Osborne turning up in Eastbourne.
There were lots of indications, and they were noted here.
Is this information held centrally somehwhere? Central Office press releases? If we can't collate the info, it's not useful
I don't see how that's useful. Gordon Brown was in Kent during the 2010 campaign but he lost all Labour's seats in the county.
If we can track their movements and then crossref that to the polled estimate for the constituency they're campaigning in, we can plot that on a graph. If the graph rises then they are campaigning in safer and safer seats, and we can infer that they believe they are doing worse than the polls. Similarly if they are campaigning in more and more unsafe/implausible seats, then we can infer they believe they are doing better than the polls. If the graph is level, then their behavior is consistent with the polls.
So we can build a way of estimating their belief that's based on easily available data in real time, rather that relying on party personnel polling here to feed us tidbits.
I don't know if it'd work and (as you point out) it may not. But it's worth a try.
Hence my original question: where is campaigning behavior recorded?
I know the telegraph had a map of where the leaders had visited, although I am not sure if it gave the constituency instead of just the town. If the numbers are collated, it'd be interesting to see in terms of 2010 majority, as well as Lord A's numbers.
Capital young fellow! I can go thru the following:
2 days before the election I was in St Ives and who should turn up but Cameron? I thought what the hell is he doing here of all places?
With hindsight I should have gone into the nearest betting shop.
Ditto with me - Osborne turning up in Eastbourne.
There were lots of indications, and they were noted here.
Is this information held centrally somehwhere? Central Office press releases? If we can't collate the info, it's not useful
I don't see how that's useful. Gordon Brown was in Kent during the 2010 campaign but he lost all Labour's seats in the county.
If we can track their movements and then crossref that to the polled estimate for the constituency they're campaigning in, we can plot that on a graph. If the graph rises then they are campaigning in safer and safer seats, and we can infer that they believe they are doing worse than the polls. Similarly if they are campaigning in more and more unsafe/implausible seats, then we can infer they believe they are doing better than the polls. If the graph is level, then their behavior is consistent with the polls.
So we can build a way of estimating their belief that's based on easily available data in real time, rather that relying on party personnel polling here to feed us tidbits.
I don't know if it'd work and (as you point out) it may not. But it's worth a try.
Hence my original question: where is campaigning behavior recorded?
I know the telegraph had a map of where the leaders had visited, although I am not sure if it gave the constituency instead of just the town. If the numbers are collated, it'd be interesting to see in terms of 2010 majority, as well as Lord A's numbers.
Capital young fellow! I can go thru the following:
Andy, the clues were there that Labour were faltering in Broxtowe for a while if you looked in the right places, including PB.com. Personally, I thought it was a huge error for the local Labour party to go so negative, and then to attack Anna so aggressively as the constituency's new and very forthright MP.
It would have been useful to know Labour were faltering in Broxtowe because from that information it would have been possible to deduce that the party wasn't going to win Amber Valley, Erewash, Sherwood, etc.
Ahaha Labour abstaining on all the Scottish stuff. You know where you're at with the Tories and the SNP.
Labour couldn't run a bath right now.
I think there is a deeper thing happening here.
There is a palpable anger in Scotland over this, it is going uncommented in the media but it is genuine and the demand for the Second Referendum just took a massive boost.
The 15th June 2015 could be the final nail in the Union's coffin.
Comments
*Scottish Conservative Unionist Membership :-)
"Your point about Labour's vote is a good one. But being perceived as the party for Muslim immigrants - if this is the case - does not obviate it getting votes elsewhere. Labour seems to get votes from all sorts of groups but sometimes seem oblivious to the fact that some of these groups have incompatible interests and may repel others whose votes it wants - which may explain the incoherence of some of its policies."
Five years ago everyone on the left here was talking about the coming inevitable Democratic age, given demographics were increasing the percentage of ethnic and social groups which vote Democrat, and reducing GOP blocs. This, of course, ignores the point you are making - that as the Dems become the party of immigrants, they lose the white working class males, which had until then been their strongest bloc.
So now the Dems are the party not of ideas, but of single women, champagne socialists, latinos, blacks, and Asians (and to a lesser extent the LGBT community).
The postal article is still up lol
Im glad you have mentioned your canvassing information. I suspect it was pretty accurate, you failed to record the swing to cons because the swing would have been in your 'against' (or whatever labour call it). For those that havent canvassed, when you knock on a door, those that support you are usually pretty willing to volunteer the information that they vote for your side, but if they dont vote for you, many times they wont actually specify who it is they are voting for, just that its not you.
There's a good chance that it is within this group that churn existed.
But, the more important point is that if in the hyper marginal of broxtowe Labour was falling short of taking it, a seat that should be 'nailed on', with a popular long term mp who just got pipped at the post with the national swing in 2010, then this must have been happening across the country. Someone was sitting on this data, or failing to explain it to the leadership.
If they did not know that there were not going to be significant losses to Labour, then the strategy of putting so much effort into LibDem-held seats would have made no sense. In fact it would have been counter-productive, because if an outright majority was out of reach, any seat lost to Labour was worth two seats gained from the LibDems.
What's more, this was pointed out before the election:
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/654865/#Comment_654865
'Against that, our canvass data was puzzlingly poor compared with the national polls - in fact it looked marginally worse than 2010 (though I'm quite certain there was a sharp further move in the last couple of days).'
So all that stuff about red liberals and your amazing canvass returns you kept on telling us was just complete bullshit.
So much for your so called 'Positive Politics'.
"Opposing AV might be Dave's biggest mistake, it could have been the only way to get a Tory Majority"
So I'm now working on a new AV thread, just needs a few minor tweaks.
2 days before the election I was in St Ives and who should turn up but Cameron? I thought what the hell is he doing here of all places?
With hindsight I should have gone into the nearest betting shop.
One of them used to be about AV.
Ed cannot have seriously thought he was going to be PM, unless he wasnt told about the intelligence, or he just refused to believe what he was told.
Alternatively he was full of shit.
He has presumably spent the last month pouring over the superior algorithms to try to find where the bug was.
There were lots of indications, and they were noted here.
Carswell comes across a little sad as a pseudo independent with no chum, had he lost the front row seat too in the house? Needs a white suit.
'(this information, if Nick had chose to release it would have had people on this forum making different betting decisions... But you can understand why he might not let it slip... )'
He could have said that as it was the campaign proper he would not be revealing any further canvass details instead he chose to deliberately tell porkies.
I think you'll enjoy it.
But the odd campaigning behavior (Cameron campaigning in the South West, Miliband campagning in Worcester) isn't consistent with this. It leads me to think that Cameron and Miliband knew of the situation from about four weeks before. This also fits in with the Jon Ronson Guardian video (with the uncooperative Labour party) and the Matthew Paris Times article expressing optimism, and the fact that although Paddy Ashdown was genuinely shocked by the exit poll, Harman and Gove in the studio were not obviously surprised
So, one simple question: who's telling the truth?
This is why I said earlier I want Kieran to ask him when were the internal polls held and what were the results.
'But the odd campaigning behavior (Cameron campaigning in the South West, Miliband campagning in Worcester) isn't consistent with this.'
The giveaway for me was Miliband visiting North Warwickshire constituency two days before polling day.
That was reliable, then.
So we can build a way of estimating their belief that's based on easily available data in real time, rather that relying on party personnel polling here to feed us tidbits.
I don't know if it'd work and (as you point out) it may not. But it's worth a try.
Hence my original question: where is campaigning behavior recorded?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/45-times-secretary-clinton-pushed-the-trade-bill-she-now-opposes/index.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Danish_general_election,_2015
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11520254/Election-2015-Where-are-the-party-leaders-campaigning-today.html
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/series/election-live-2015
- lift off the data and work out a timetable of who was where and when. That shouldn't take too long...
http://ukgeneralelection.com/2015/05/02/leaders-campaign-visits-the-totals-so-far-5/#more-3087
There is a palpable anger in Scotland over this, it is going uncommented in the media but it is genuine and the demand for the Second Referendum just took a massive boost.
The 15th June 2015 could be the final nail in the Union's coffin.