Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Final vote tally from last month’s locals shows UKIP in sec
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Final vote tally from last month’s locals shows UKIP in second place in seats contested
These figures differ considerably from the notional national vote extrapolations put out by the broadcasters and Professors Rallings and Thrasher on the night and on the following two days. They were serving a different purpose trying to relate the elections to a general election.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
You can't make a statement like that without a comparable.
I know it's not a perfect proxy, but Tories + UKIP was 54%. What was it last time the seats were contested?
Labour this time was 21%. What was it last time the seats were contested?
'Shy' (or embarrassed) Tories are obviously still a phenomena.
On May 2nd The Tories were defending twice as many seats as the LDs and Labour combined.
My recall is that in 2009 the Tories secured almost half the vote
There were a few uncontested seats mainly Conservative which if contested would have brought Comres a little closer to the actual result .
He played pretty well today- now down to 150/1
All Dave needs to do is match Nigel's promises on Pullman Cars and he will storm home in 2015.
We're all speechless!
I have to disagree with the notion that Labour's poor showing was " down solely to the nature of the seats contested. " I think that the unsatisfactory nature of Labour's leadership , namely Ed Balls and Ed Miliband , played a significant and deleterious part.
https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/350976759841296385
2013 YTD (Diff vs 2012)
Plan A: 32 (-)
Plan B: 40 (+1)
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/k1jily9hen/YG-Archives-Pol-Trackers-Economy 2 -280613.pdf
And Labour only picked up 7 points while the LibDems lost 11.
No one did well, except UKIP (in terms of share of the vote, not seats)
Check out what some bloke called antifrank said after the local elections on this thread:
http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/05/04/the-revolt-of-the-shires-camerons-last-warning/
If the Conservatives lose 5% of their MPs in 2015 they might lose power, if they lose 10% of their MPs then they definately lose power.
Its effectively irrelevant how many MPs UKIP get - 0, 1, 2, 10, 20 - because they're not aiming for government are they.
But greater support for UKIP makes it harder for the Conservatives to win an election.
Instead we have Conservative supporters obsessing about UKIP not making enough gains while ignoring the seats they're losing to Labour.
I'd be pretty worried about your firm if you couldn't analyze basic data accurately....
If UKIP can poll well in next year's local elections, which are held on the same day as the Euros, then I'd expect to see them gain from both Labour and Conservatives, as a lot more urban seats are contested..
" Instead of endorsing what mattered – health care for all – Mr Cameron endorsed our particular system delivering it. It is the worst in the Western world. It is organised from the centre and run by the producers and the trade unions. The one thing it cannot do is what we all most want – to look at the whole patient and meet his or her medical needs. Anyone on a waiting list (currently 24 weeks in our area for a rheumatology appointment) experiences this. So does anyone elderly, or with an elderly relation. So do the queues in A and E, the sick who cannot get a GP at weekends; so did the dead in Mid Staffs or Barrow-in-Furness.
Out of a sense of their own weakness, the Conservatives put themselves in hock to the sort of service that a man like David Nicholson delivers. It was out of a similar vulnerability – in Labour’s case, about how to deal with capitalists – that Gordon Brown abased himself in front of the bankers. It has all gone wrong. As the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt rushes from studio to studio trying to get ahead of the story, you can tell by his hunted look that he sees this, too late. "
Doubtless the next government will make a similar mistake in another field and the next government after that. All based upon an inward looking political class relying on the 'expertise' of self-serving and incompetant executive classes.
Liberal Democrat David Chidgey 24,473 44.3 %
Labour Marilyn Birks 15,234 27.6 %
Conservative Stephen Reid 13,675 24.7 %
UKIP Nigel Farage 952 1.7 %
Eastleigh by election 2013
Mike Thornton Liberal Democrat 13,342 32.1 %
Diane James UKIP 11,57 27.8 %
Maria Hutchings Conservative 10,55 25.4 %
John O'Farrell Labour 4,088 9.8 %
I wonder where those UKIP votes are coming from ?
Personally I reckon they'll be 5-6% at the next GE. If they get up to 8% it's going to be a "terrrible night for the Conservatives" or whatever James-over-the-water used to post in a Canadian accent.
My analysis still stands, even if the votes are in the lower end of the range (i.e. where it disproportionately hurts the Tories).
NOTA is probably the biggest threat to Labour at the next election. That and LibDem returners
While its very easy to see scenarios in which the Conservatives lose MPs and power I can't see a scenario in which things go well for the Conservatives.
Let us assume that the Conservatives do well in 2015, they hold off Labour and UKIP and gain a few seats from the LibDems finishing with 315 MPs.
What happens then ?
In a weak minority government, attacked by Labour, LibDems and UKIP, unable to blame everything anymore on Labour, having to deal with all the underlying problems they've merely postponed because they were too politically difficult.
Sounds like political hell to me and the sort of scenario which could lead to Conservative destruction in 2018-20.
Huge crash - Tony Martin out, Geraint Thomas injured, Peter Sagan and Contador hurt too. Utter farce.
Every day over the past few weeks tim has treated us to a fabulous farrago of fanciful falsity; an opulence of obliquity; a plethora of pretense; a hotchpotch of humbug; and a deranged disorder of deceit and distortion. All such perfidy collectively defined simply in our great dictionaries as "timfoolery".
For tim has been telling us that George Osborne has been spending more of our money each year than the twin Scottish incontinents Badger and Gord did in their years of folly and misrule.
tim might have equally claimed that Osborne has been spending more money than Healey did in the 1970s, or Attlee did in the 1940s or Boudica did in defeating the Roman XI Legio Hispana in the first century AD. For tim's claims take no account of the changing value of money over time.
Thankfully Grandiose came to the rescue and pointed me to the Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses Report (PESA) for 2012. In PESA 2012 is a chapter which deals with trends in public expenditure with comparative tables of both nominal and real term figures, together with GDP ratios. The real term figures fix spending each year, from 1971-1 to 2014-15 (forecast) at 2011-12 price levels (using ONS deflators published on 28 June 2012).
The PESA reports are published annually in July. The current figures do not take into account any changes to planned expenditure made since June 2012 and the 2012-13 figures are forecasts rather than outcomes. This probably means that the figures for 2012-2015 overstate actual and current planned expenditure. The recent ONS revisions to GDP are also not factored in to the figures meaning that the GDP ratios for 2005-2010 will be revised negatively in PESA 2013. I will update the table in this post in a few weeks when this year's report is released.
The following is a table using figures extracted from Table 4.1 "Public Expenditure Aggregates, 1971-2 to 2014-15". The figures extracted are those given for "Total Managed Expenditure" and are the highest aggregate for Public Sector Expenditure. All figures are consistent with the ONS National Accounts. The key points to make are that expenditure increases in nominal terms every year during the period, barring 2012-13 in which there is a small fall 0f -1.65%.
In real terms, however, there is a significant difference when performance under Labour is compared to that under the Coalition Government. Brown and Darling increased Total Managed Expenditure by 17.5% during the five years between 2005 and 2010. In the five subsequent years Osborne is forecast to have reduced spend by -3.8%.
On spending to GDP ratios, Brown-Darling hit a peak of 47.3% in 2009-10 the highest ratio for some 30 years. You have to go back to the very early 1980s and 1970s under Wilson, Callaghan and Healey in the 1974-6 period for higher ratios. During the last Brown Darling term, the Spend to GDP ratio deteriorated from 40.8% to 47.3%.
Under Osborne the GDP ratio has already fallen from the Darling high to 43.4% and is forecast to fall to 42.2% by the end of this parliament.
So now the light of truth shines strong. No more of this timfoolery.
And guess what, they go back to voting Labour.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/06/milibands-eu-referendum-dilemma/
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2013/06/the-referendum-bill-puts-pressure-on-ed-miliband-to-rise-above-dithering-tempered-by-opportunism.html
Now if we want to talk about real world rather than real terms then people regard spending £9.90 instead of £10 previously as a cut but not spending £10.10 instead of £10 previously and then making explanations about inflation.
Osborne's got nobody to blame but himself for the consequences of his austerity machismo strutting of 2010.
Edit - I see they already have.....
In fact, the ratio in 2007-08 was lower than 2005-06. It flies in the face of that much repeated PBTory lie of Labour's profligacy since 2002.
In fact, you will find that in 2008 and indeed until 2010, the UK debt / GDP ratio was lower than that of Germany, the much vaunted fiscally conservative country.
Public Sector Aggregates: Total Managed Expenditure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Year Nominal Change | Real Change | GDP Ratio Change
£ bn % | £ bn % | % %
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling
2005-06 524.0 ˄ 6.42% | 605.5 ˄ 4.04% | 40.8 ˄ 0.74%
2006-07 550.0 ˄ 4.96% | 619.0 ˄ 2.23% | 40.7 ˅ -0.25%
2007-08 582.9 ˄ 5.98% | 640.0 ˄ 3.39% | 40.7 - 0.00%
2008-09 629.7 ˄ 8.03% | 673.0 ˄ 5.16% | 44.3 ˄ 8.85%
2009-10 670.2 ˄ 6.43% | 705.6 ˄ 4.84% | 47.3 ˄ 6.77%
| |
2005-10 ˄ 25.53% | ˄ 17.52% | ˄ 14.38%
----------------------------------------------------------------
George Osborne
2010-11 689.6 ˄ 2.89% | 706.1 ˄ 0.07% | 46.6 ˅ -1.48%
2011-12 694.9 ˄ 0.77% | 694.9 ˅ -1.59% | 45.5 ˅ -2.36%
2012-13 683.4 ˅ -1.65% | 665.4 ˅ -4.25% | 43.4 ˅ -4.62%
2013-14 720.0 ˄ 5.36% | 684.0 ˄ 2.80% | 43.6 ˄ 0.46%
2014-15 733.5 ˄ 1.88% | 679.8 ˅ -0.61% | 42.2 ˅ -3.21%
2010-15 ˄ 8.63% | ˅ -3.80% | ˅ -12.09%
--------------------------------------------------------------
If Tom's timfoolery boils down to saying that Osborne is spending more than his predecessors then the figures you've posted (which I've copied) seems to indicate he's right!
(But I enjoyed your Wheeltappers and Shunters post very much)
But then you've already made yourself look rather silly with your obsessing about UKIP while ignoring the strategic weakness the Conservatives are in.
But keep on asking how many gains UKIP made each week if it keeps you happy.
While at some point after 2015 we will have to have actual austerity rather than 'austerity'.
cf. Luke 15:7
What did you make of their enthusiasm for stay-in-EU, pro gay marriage & immigration, Boris Johnson?
Con, 34.38, Lab, 21.19, UKIP, 19.90, LD, 13.86, Green, 3.54
2009
Con 44%, LD 25%, Lab 13%, UKIP 5% in 2009.
Charles, you are right. Labour "only" gained 7 points whereas the Tories gor right royally f*cked !
I have no problem with public spending over 40% of GDP but you need to have tax take in a similar range too.
Betting PostBacked the Mercedes drivers to win tomorrow. Just a feeling:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/great-britain-pre-race.html
I also note your choice of 'Brown as Chancellor' - under Labour governments, spending peaked at 47.3% in 9/10 - its been lower every year since. But do go into 2015 defending Labour's economic record - as I pointed out earlier today, Labour have made zero headway in the past 12 months on 'plan B'.
The ONS gives government debt as:
1975 52.0%
1976 53.8%
1977 52.3%
1978 49.1%
1979 47.2%
1980 44.0%
1981 46.1%
1982 46.1%
1983 44.8%
1984 45.1%
1985 45.1%
1986 43.2%
1987 40.9%
1988 36.6%
1989 30.4%
1990 27.5%
1991 26.0%
1992 27.2%
1993 31.4%
1994 36.5%
1995 40.1%
1996 41.9%
1997 42.1%
1998 41.2%
1999 39.1%
2000 36.2%
2001 31.4%
2002 30.7%
2003 31.8%
2004 33.3%
2005 34.7%
2006 35.9%
2007 36.5%
2008 37.2%
2009 45.1%
2010 57.1%
2011 66.8%
2012 72.0%
2013 75.1%
Given that government debt is a lagging indicator to the general economy that does give support to my belief that 2000 was the all time peak of the UK economy.
After that we needed increasing amounts of debt, firstly household then government, to keep up the pretences and to fund our consumption addiction.
If you wish to disregard the effects of the bank crash then you also need to disregard the effects of the hundreds of billions those banks pumped into the economy between 2000 and 2008. Without those the weaknesses of the UK economy would have been apparant a decade ago and Labour would not have been reelected in 2005.
They like Boris because he's a non-political politician who looks different and because the London alternatives are seriously not ot their liking.
Whether they would vote for him if he was Conservative leader I have serious doubts about.
In real terms, TME has gone down. I don't understand the point of using nominal spending.
So the million dollar question is does helping UKIP help them relatively speaking or not - and if so what is the sweet spot in terms of harming Labour more than themselves?
Patrick Hennessy @PatJHennessy 1m
How popular is Osborne's welfare crackdown? Find out in SunTel/@ICMResearch Wisdom Index poll later
We have too much consumption spending funded by borrowing. Whether this borrowing funded consumption is made directly by individuals or via government borrowing and spending is largely irrelevant.
And I see no evidence that Osborne thinks there's anything wrong with this debt funded consumption.
The contrary in fact, debt funded consumption keeps voters happy.
But at some point it must come to a stop.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul 3m
In case you missed it: @johnmcternan pays tribute to his former boss, Julia Gillard http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10148550/Julia-Gillard-Australian-blokes-have-done-their-country-down.html …
.....'Immigration' (or to be precise, 'net migration') was the single biggest factor identified as the cause of the housing shortage in the YouGov housing poll.....Similarly, 'reducing net migration' was the single biggest factor in helping fix the issue....
I'm not particularly happy with that either.....but there it is!
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/spvk3deces/YouGov-Survey-results-housing-130620.pdf
Edit - and its the joint second issue (within MOE) among Labour voters for fixing it too
David Cameron @David_Cameron 6h
I've just arrived in Afghanistan - where on this Armed Forces Day I'll be thanking our troops for all they do to keep us safe
David Cameron @David_Cameron 2h
It's been a privilege talking to the men and women serving Britain in Helmand on Armed Forces Day pic.twitter.com/xEEufyLwzD
FG - 28% (+2)
FF - 22% (-4)
SF - 17% (+1)
Lab - 12% (+1)
Increasing the number of houses won't reduce rents and therefore housing benefit unless they're increasing faster than the increase in the number of households.
Pretending otherwise is just nonsense.
You are all at sea.
The history of Labour's fiscal incontinence varies across the thirteen years between 1997 and 2010.
In the first term, Blair managed to keep Mrs Rochester firmly locked up in the attic of No 10 (they swapped flats precisely so that Mrs R. didn't have access to the keys). So inheriting a strong economy from Major and Clarke, with oil and gas production at their peak and promises to keep to the Tory spending plans kept, Labour turned in a decent performance.
The problems started in 2001, when a young admirer of Mrs R, one Ed Balls. Esq. of Nottingham, managed to pick the locks of the attic and released his beloved onto the world.
And when the electorate allowed Balls and Mrs R full reign in 2005, the lunacy really took off. Blair was murdered and both No 10 and 11 were turned into a veritable asylum.
It is all detailed in the table below (see earlier post for the Cuckoo's Nest years): It is not Jane Austen we need to put on our banknotes but Charlotte Brontë.
Progress.
(I still havent forgiven you for your cruel, cruel attack on me during the week!)
Or we could try to control nett immigration.
From a purely economic POV, it is close, because immigrants contribute significantly more to the economy that they take out.
But from a social POV, for many of us, the answer is clear-cut.
We do not want see these extra houses in our backyard. And we don't want see these new houses in anybody else's backyard either. We have but one rational choice on the ballot paper: UKIP.
From 2008 to date the Public Sector Net Debt figures diverged into two streams: the first excluding "financial interventions" and the second aggregrating all net debt.
You need to show this to see the real picture: 2000 probably was the peak (at least for some time) for the UK economy. It was midway between the North Sea Oil and Gas production peaks which guaranteed a healthy GDP figure, a massive positive contribution to the balance of trade figures and significant government tax revenues.
However it also allowed complacency to set in. Manufacturing was allowed to decline and Gordon decided to throw prudence off the rigs and ramp borrowing up in a time of plenty.
The really unforgivable government was the second Labour term, between 2001-2005(-7). Surbiton has some justification in saying that 2005-2010 required extra borrowing to combat the financial crisis, but this doesn't apply to 2001-2005 when much wealth and competitive advantage was squandered.
The govt only has a limited effect. There are only a few things they can do. They can't control demographic changes, such as more single person house-holds, or greater longevity.
They ought to be able to control immigration, although being in the EU....
The govt should influence what they can, and not worry about what they cannot control.
@DavidKendrick I just don't get that attitude. I live on the outskirts of a lovely wee village, and we have just had our utilities here improved in preparation for a new housing development. To me this is good news, and its going to help support our village school and local shops etc which is essential to the fabric of the village and benefits everyone.
Edit - Not suggesting whole sale building anywhere without rules here. But we do have to compromise here, and also realise that changes to our villages, towns and cities is inevitable as more housing is going to be needed for the future. I just don't see how turning your face away to any changes as being a viable option?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23099379
And of course Croatia joins the EU on Monday.