Who needs a majority, when (according to L&N at present) you have around an 80% chance of still being in government, post 2015...?
Two possibilities here.
1) your model is fatally flawed, and we should all laugh at you when you mention it
2) you are feeding it garbage
Because the probability of a Labour majority is not zero.
Agreed. I could only do 10000 MC runs, and not one produced a Labour majority. I dare say 1 million runs might have generated a handful of Labour majority scenarios, which is still very close to 0%.
It's a clever model. It not only takes account of opinion poll error, but also takes account of possible error in the model itself...
However, as I've said before, one should bear in mind the following caveat. The model correctly forecast every election from 1945-2010, and most of the ones back to 1910. But that was during a period of single-party government and a 2/3 party system. The political landscape looks rather different now.
So the elephant in the room might be not that the model is flawed. The model might simply now be entirely redundant. However, to counter that, at some point the coalition will disengage and fight the election as separate parties. So we might put a little more faith in the model at that point in time, say in about 18 months time...
I am merely keeping PB informed of what the model is saying. You must judge for yourselves what store to put by it.
Er - surely not ? More houses are being built ? By the private sector ??
"Building began on a total of 29,510 UK homes in the second quarter of this year, a figure 6pc higher than the previous three months, official data showed. On an annual basis, 110,530 homes were started in the year to June 2013, 7pc up on the 12 months before.
The pick-up in housebuilding activity was driven by private housing starts, which rose 7pc to 23,990 on a quarterly basis, while starts by housing associations were 3pc lower at 5,110."
If Rod is claiming the chances of a Lab Maj are 0% then he's worse than ScottP and fitalass. I'll have a few quid on that at 1,000,000/1
Noticed his reticence in posting the forecasts from Aug 2008 and Aug 2003? Surely it's obvious why
I posted the 2008 figure the last time you asked, last month. Look it up, I can't be arsed doing it again. I can't do the 2003 because the model was not in existence/parameters have changed.
"One of the reasons – in fact the main reason – Britain has thus far trailed other major economies in economic recovery is that consumption has failed to come back after the shock of the banking crisis in the same way as it has elsewhere. Well now it appears to be, and the UK is therefore seeing relatively strong growth compared to others."
A good way to run a prediction competition for the next general election would be one where people choose a national swing which gets applied to each constituency, but entrants then get the chance to modify individual constituency predictions where they think the national swing won't apply.
A good way to run a prediction competition for the next general election would be one where people choose a national swing which gets applied to each constituency, but entrants then get the chance to modify individual constituency predictions where they think the national swing won't apply.
Ermm. The national swing won't apply in most constituencies, and in about 1/3 will be more than +/-3.5% from the average...
We would expect around 3/4 of seats to exhibit swings greater than +/-1% away from the national swing.
If Rod is claiming the chances of a Lab Maj are 0% then he's worse than ScottP and fitalass. I'll have a few quid on that at 1,000,000/1
Noticed his reticence in posting the forecasts from Aug 2008 and Aug 2003? Surely it's obvious why
I posted the 2008 figure the last time you asked, last month. Look it up, I can't be arsed doing it again. I can't do the 2003 because the model was not in existence/parameters have changed.
No you posted your projection using July 2008 MORI data and we found your misuse of the model came up with
Con vote lead: 17.7% Con seat lead: 189 seats
Predicted for the 2010 election
I'm now asking you for the August 2008 prediction please Because that one will be even more hilarious
Looks like Labour are in even deeper shit then. Remember the Tories were the Opposition in 2008?
I'm not going to waste my valuable time (best part of a hour) to generate another number from 5 years ago for you to faff around with. If you're that interested you can bull up on the subject yourself...
Pulpstar - Not at the moment, but I was at uni with the Tory candidate. On topic, this once again shows how crucial Cameron is to the Tory brand, but the Tories have never been liked, wasn't the old saying 'Labour, wrong but romantic, the Tories right but repulsive!'
"At that time, the cuts were just an argument – it was easy for the public to accept them because they seemed distant and intangible, or at least they seemed like something that would happen to other people. Now they're starting to bite, most people know somebody who has been made redundant, if they're not getting made redundant themselves."
Given the falls in unemployment and the rises in employment, "most people" it seems are public sector employees.
So if RodCrosby says Labour`s majority chances are close to zero,I`ll be happy to take 100:1 from him on a Labour majority.
He is not saying close to zero. He is saying, it is zero. Tories have a 20% chance of an outright victory. There were apparently 10000 simulations done.
Smoke was then seen coming out of the computer.
The program is called Monte Carlo.
He would , of course, accept 100:1 shot against you. He is on a banker !
So if RodCrosby says Labour`s majority chances are close to zero,I`ll be happy to take 100:1 from him on a Labour majority.
He is not saying close to zero. He is saying, it is zero. Tories have a 20% chance of an outright victory. There were apparently 10000 simulations done.
Smoke was then seen coming out of the computer.
The program is called Monte Carlo.
He would , of course, accept 100:1 shot against you. He is on a banker !
I think they entered Lib Dems into the program by mistake.Some Tories seem to be losing their mind.
So if RodCrosby says Labour`s majority chances are close to zero,I`ll be happy to take 100:1 from him on a Labour majority.
He is not saying close to zero. He is saying, it is zero. Tories have a 20% chance of an outright victory. There were apparently 10000 simulations done.
Smoke was then seen coming out of the computer.
The program is called Monte Carlo.
He would , of course, accept 100:1 shot against you. He is on a banker !
I'm saying the model after 10000 MC runs came up with exactly zero Labour majorities...
Who needs a majority, when (according to L&N at present) you have around an 80% chance of still being in government, post 2015...?
Two possibilities here.
1) your model is fatally flawed, and we should all laugh at you when you mention it
2) you are feeding it garbage
Because the probability of a Labour majority is not zero.
Agreed. I could only do 10000 MC runs, and not one produced a Labour majority. I dare say 1 million runs might have generated a handful of Labour majority scenarios, which is still very close to 0%.
It's a clever model. It not only takes account of opinion poll error, but also takes account of possible error in the model itself...
However, as I've said before, one should bear in mind the following caveat. The model correctly forecast every election from 1945-2010, and most of the ones back to 1910. But that was during a period of single-party government and a 2/3 party system. The political landscape looks rather different now.
So the elephant in the room might be not that the model is flawed. The model might simply now be entirely redundant. However, to counter that, at some point the coalition will disengage and fight the election as separate parties. So we might put a little more faith in the model at that point in time, say in about 18 months time...
I am merely keeping PB informed of what the model is saying. You must judge for yourselves what store to put by it.
But if your model is, for whatever reason, producing such obvious utter garbage, why do you keep posting it?
Scientists in the US have discovered a new animal living in the sheltered bogs of upland Scotland.
It has been named Scottorius, and is the first new species of carnivore to be identified in the Western hemisphere in 35 years.
It has taken more than a decade to identify the mammal, a discovery that scientists say is incredibly rare in the 21st Century.
It is believed to exist on the finest malt whisky, and breeds rarely. It is believed to have been hunted to extinction by the more-numerous incomers, the ScottusNattus and the ScottusLabiosus.
Scientists have pledged to try to preserve the last existing examples of the species, although First Minister Alex Salmond has admitted the only hope might be for them to be taken to Edinburgh Zoo, where a perfect environment will be created for them - a grouse moor and Land Rovers, a statue of Margaret Thatcher, and bibles. A pipeline to the nearest distillery is currently being planned, to be paid for by the millions of visitors who flock to see this rarest of adorable creatures.
Average wage 1997 - £14,367 adjusted for inflation to 2010 value - £20,393 Average wage 2010 - £23,504 Increase in nominal terms - 64% adjusted for inflation 15.25%
Average house price 1997 - £63,176 Average house price 2010 - £164,000 Increase 160%
Average wage 2010 - £14,367 adjusted for inflation to 2013 value - Average wage 2013 -
Increase in nominal terms - adjusted for inflation
A good way to run a prediction competition for the next general election would be one where people choose a national swing which gets applied to each constituency, but entrants then get the chance to modify individual constituency predictions where they think the national swing won't apply.
Ermm. The national swing won't apply in most constituencies, and in about 1/3 will be more than +/-3.5% from the average...
We would expect around 3/4 of seats to exhibit swings greater than +/-1% away from the national swing.
I know the idea isn't very adequate but most people won't have time to go through every constituency making predictions.
Hopi's points are progressive and dependent on preceding assumptions.
His criticism of Osborne's fiscal policy comes in his second point:
a medium term reduction in the deficit based on wildly unrealistic projections for spending cuts. After 2015, continuing with the current approach will likely lead first to missed targets and then to tax increases, hidden or otherwise.
The targets that the Coalition government have regularly met are in spending reduction. Danny Alexander has a very firm grip on government spending. So to call the spending budgets "unrealistic projections" is simply wrong and Hopi would be better checking his facts with the PESA 2013 figures and the OBR's forward expenditure projections.
Deficit reduction forecasts are more difficult as they rely on control of both government receipts and expenditure. The delay in the target date for eliminating the deficit in the Cyclically Adjusted Current Budget, which is the government's Primary Fiscal Mandate, was mainly caused by falling revenues, which in turn was a consequence of growth falling in response to the Eurozone crisis.
With growth 'flatlining' the deficit neither reduced nor increased, even though total managed expenditure was being reduced in real terms.
The economy is now growing at trend on a reduced cost base. Even the Eurozone is beginning to float rather than sink. This means that the government's target deficit is almost certain to be reducing at a strong rate. We will know for sure in September when OBR publish their next Economic and Fiscal Outlook.
This makes Hopi's assumption that the current government's fiscal policy will lead to "to missed targets and then to tax increases" very questionable.
And if that assumption fails the "differentiation strategy" proposed for Labour in his subsequent points will end up being built on sand.
RT @Sun_Politics BREAKING: Hate preacher Abu Qatada's wife and five kids have finally left Britain and are flying to Jordan
Wouldn't have happened under labour.
The Tories let him in in the first place, as they did Abu Hamza and Bakri Mohammed. Don't forget the shelter the Major Govt gave to Algerian Islamist terrorists either
That article is wonderful. Nearly 700 words on 'the cuts', and not a reference to, not the merest smidgen of a grudging token acknowledgement of, the possibility that spending four pounds for every three in revenue could be a hint that spending might need to be cut.
There really are people out there who, apparently in all sincerity, think 3 + 1 = 3.
It seems inevitable that the (admittedly very tentative) acknowledgement from the two Eds that there might just be a little bit of a problem denying the laws of arithmetic will indeed lead to increasing disappointment amongst the deficit-deniers.
Average wage 2010 - £14,367 adjusted for inflation to 2013 value - Average wage 2013 -
Increase in nominal terms - adjusted for inflation
Perhaps, you would do us the honours !
Site I used only has figures to 2012, for that -
Average wage 2010 - £23,504 adjusted for inflation to 2012 - £25,517 Average wage 2012 - £24,452 Increase in nominal terms - +4% adjusted for inflation - 4.2% fall
Average house price 2010 - £164,000 Average house price 2012 - £162,621 1% fall
If we use house prices adjusted for inflation in both the 1997-2010 and 2010-2012 periods
Average house price 1997 - adjusted for inflation to 2010 - £89,675 So 1997-2010 - 82.9% increase compared to 15.25% increase in wages (house increase 5.4x wage increase)
Average house price 2010 - adjusted for inflation to 2012 - £178,269 So 2010-2012 - 8% fall compared to 4.2% fall in wages (house price fall 1.9x wage fall)
Don't think two years of tough economic times can usefully be compared to the Brown borrowing, busting boom of 13 years duration though...
RT @Sun_Politics BREAKING: Hate preacher Abu Qatada's wife and five kids have finally left Britain and are flying to Jordan
Wouldn't have happened under labour.
The Tories let him in in the first place, as they did Abu Hamza and Bakri Mohammed. Don't forget the shelter the Major Govt gave to Algerian Islamist terrorists either
That may be a bit unfair. According to that well-known authoritative source Wikipedia, Abu Qatada was sentenced in absentia by Jordan in 1999, so it would be interesting to know when the original crimes took place. It would have been difficult for the Conservative government to deny him asylum based on crimes that had not yet occurred.
One of his crimes was the Jordan bombing plot in 2000, although that was a later crime. I can't quickly find when the original crime was supposed to have happened. Was it before or after he claimed asylum?
But if your model is, for whatever reason, producing such obvious utter garbage, why do you keep posting it?
Listen sonny, for the best part of five years I enjoyed a far better class of abuse here when I said the Tories wouldn't make it in 2010...
So, now when I say it's looking tits up for Labour, I would hope to receive the same.
I wonder if you'll still be around on 8th May 2015?
No abuse from me.
I'm merely pointing out that your model (which presumably you want us to note / discuss?) is obviously producing utter garbage, as the probability of a Labour majority is clearly not zero.
I'm then asking - as it's producing such obvious garbage, why post it at all?
Scott P..Today so far we have had "As a father" "Squid pointing" "Daves pimping on grieving families" "Daves Date night" all repeated several times.. ..and a ref to a foaming Guiness..not too dusty for one day.
"Labor won't have to stay up late on the evening of September 7 for the bad news of the electoral result, according to a new analysis of betting market odds.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's party will lose the election by 22 seats, collecting 63 seats to the oppositions's 85, according to analysis done for The Australian Financial Review by statisticians Kaighin McColl and Leng Lee.
The analysis is based on betting data from August 11":
@JGForsyth: Miliband might be having an awful August, but he’s got 2 structural advantages that mean Labour will be competitive http://t.co/94ocOgwLZ4
And lets not forget who blew the boundary changes
@oflynnexpress: @JGForsyth yes and one of them is a gift from Jesse Norman and Nadhim Zahawi. Not the finest hour of the Osborne-ites.
Yep. Labour will get back in with much the same vote as the Tories.
No doubt you'll put it down to Tory unpopularity rather than the unfairness in the system.
As an opponent of FPTP the ideal result would be for the Tories to win the popular vote narrowly with Labour most seats with UKIP and the Lib Dems polling roughly the same but UKIP getting no MPs while the LDs get 30
36/35/11/11 would be amusing
Cameron could retire as PM (Photo Montage) and live the rest of his days wondering A.How he lost the unloseable election in 2010 B.How his amateurism then lost the boundary changes
Dave only pulled the boundary changes after seeing the results of the Lebo and Norpeth model.
Just think what he will be able to do to MP numbers and House of Lords reform when returned with a thumping majority.
Has anyone counted the number of "Ed is crap" articles today?
The Conservatives have noticed this attitude from Labour, which may be one reason they’ve grown more confident lately. At the moment they can announce whatever cuts they like, then dare Ed Miliband to say he’d reverse them, which he never does. George Osborne could lean across to him all day long, tasering the Shadow Cabinet, and Ed Balls would appear on Channel 4 News to say: “We will make clear proposals concerning these measures, as soon as we have fully costed them, but until then we’ll continue to wriggle on the floor screaming and will not be pressured into hasty announcements.”
But if your model is, for whatever reason, producing such obvious utter garbage, why do you keep posting it?
Listen sonny, for the best part of five years I enjoyed a far better class of abuse here when I said the Tories wouldn't make it in 2010...
So, now when I say it's looking tits up for Labour, I would hope to receive the same.
I wonder if you'll still be around on 8th May 2015?
Doesn't tim have a point that using the Lebo and Norpoth model this far in advance is pointless?
You'd be better off using the by-election swings - which is what you were doing prior to 2010.
Of course, L&N will probably be better than the by-election swings when we get to February 2015, but we aren't there yet.
Precisely. Although anyone predicting from by election swings would look very silly in 2015 when their 20% UKiP share doesn't happen. Which is why Rod has picked up a petrol engine, filled it with diesel and is attempting to drive it around with no one noticing his folly.
tim
Sir Roderick won this argument weeks ago.
The L&N model is designed to predict a General Election result using data from opinion polls undertaken two to three months before the election date.
Whenever possible, we formed the average from surveys two and three months prior to the date of a general election.
Sir Roderick has never claimed his running of the L&N model to obtain a forecast is a valid prediction of the 2015 GE results. He has merely suggested that the forecast may be valid if the GE was held in three months time.
I am sure that even Sir Roderick would accept that public knowledge that a General Election is to be held in three months is likely to affect the way in which people respond to a poll. And also that polling responses 2 years out may not be as valid as those 2-3 months from a known election date.
Still the running of the model produces interesting and useful results provided we take into account the above qualifications.
The exercise is certainly not worthless just because you dislike the output.
Tony Blair to UN Summit 1997 "I speak to you not just as a the new British Prime Minister, but AS A FATHER"
Gordon Brown on the Marr Show 2006 "AS A FATHER, any time I now see a child suffering, any time I see a child neglected, I feel that's a stain on the soul of our society"
Certainly true in Wales. This newspaper records the following FACTS
''A breakdown by nation reveals an alarming widening of the attainment gap between Wales and England across two key indicators.
England’s overall pass rate has increased by 0.1% to 98.1%, while the percentage of pupils obtaining at least an A grade has fallen by 0.2% to 26.3% – a far slower rate than that recorded in Wales.'''
As expected, Wales’ overall A-level pass rate has stagnated at 97.6% – which remains some way below the UK average. Full article here.
The L&N model is designed to predict a General Election result using data from opinion polls undertaken two to three months before the election date.
Whenever possible, we formed the average from surveys two and three months prior to the date of a general election.
Sir Roderick has never claimed his running of the L&N model to obtain a forecast is a valid prediction of the 2015 GE results. He has merely suggested that the forecast may be valid if the GE was held in three months time.
I am sure that even Sir Roderick would accept that public knowledge that a General Election is to be held in three months is likely to affect the way in which people respond to a poll. And also that polling responses 2 years out may not be as valid as those 2-3 months from a known election date.
Still the running of the model produces interesting and useful results provided we take into account the above qualifications.
The exercise is certainly not worthless just because you dislike the output.
Avery, even you know that any model using current opinion poll figures would not give Labour 0% chance of winning an absolute majority.
What Rod must be doing is then adjusting the poll figures with his Swingback theory and coming up with a votes distribution.
Note, this wholly depends on the swingback theory and the parameters that he has chosen. For once, Labour is the only major opposition party , so the Lib Dems receiving their usual share of "protest" votes will be much less and also UKIP will definitely get, at least, 6% [ my own very conservative estimate ]. Swingback does happen. But this time it won't be a two-dimensional game.
"At that time, the cuts were just an argument – it was easy for the public to accept them because they seemed distant and intangible, or at least they seemed like something that would happen to other people. Now they're starting to bite, most people know somebody who has been made redundant, if they're not getting made redundant themselves."
Given the falls in unemployment and the rises in employment, "most people" it seems are public sector employees.
So if RodCrosby says Labour`s majority chances are close to zero,I`ll be happy to take 100:1 from him on a Labour majority.
He is not saying close to zero. He is saying, it is zero. Tories have a 20% chance of an outright victory. There were apparently 10000 simulations done.
Smoke was then seen coming out of the computer.
The program is called Monte Carlo.
He would , of course, accept 100:1 shot against you. He is on a banker !
Monte Carlo is a simulation technique, not the name of a programme.
Personally I find them a little blunt, but they do have their uses
"One of the reasons – in fact the main reason – Britain has thus far trailed other major economies in economic recovery is that consumption has failed to come back after the shock of the banking crisis in the same way as it has elsewhere. Well now it appears to be, and the UK is therefore seeing relatively strong growth compared to others."
Good and sensible article.
Can I point out that retail sales are at a record high.
Its not wealth consumption which fell in the UK - the government has been subsidising it by over £100bn per year during the past five years.
The part of the economy which declined and has failed to come back is wealth creation.
The UK economy's recent stronger growth is merely Mr Creosote starting on the next course.
200 employed to make negative comments every day about South Korea. I wonder if any of them can match Tim's productivity. Imagine if they all did. Gulp.
Anecdotier got a bit confused today claiming that a 0.4% reduction in A Grades was the result of rigorous marking but a bigger fall in Wales was bad because it wasn't due to, oh I don't know, fill in the theory of your choice
David L ... 200 people repeatedly commenting on Cameron pointing at a squid in a fish market..that ought to bring about a peaceful settlement in Korea.... out of sheer boredom
Avery, even you know that any model using current opinion poll figures would not give Labour 0% chance of winning an absolute majority.
What Rod must be doing is then adjusting the poll figures with his Swingback theory and coming up with a votes distribution.
Note, this wholly depends on the swingback theory and the parameters that he has chosen. For once, Labour is the only major opposition party , so the Lib Dems receiving their usual share of "protest" votes will be much less and also UKIP will definitely get, at least, 6% [ my own very conservative estimate ]. Swingback does happen. But this time it won't be a two-dimensional game.
Surby
I cannot vouch for Sir Roderick running the L&N model correctly. You will have to ask him to verify that.
But my guess is that Sir Roderick has followed the methodology prescribed in the Lebo and Norpeth paper to which he has linked on PB.
As for Labour having a 0% chance of winning an absolute majority, this would not appear to be a flawed outcome of the model.
Indeed, my own model predicts that Labour has less than a 0% chance of an overall majority.
- If gay people want to make that choice they are entitled to do so - But it's against the law to promote homosexuality in Russia - We may be different to other Europeans, but we ask people to respect our laws
- If gay people want to make that choice they are entitled to do so - But it's against the law to promote homosexuality in Russia - We may be different to other Europeans, but we ask people to respect our laws
Which bit of that is homophobic?
"If we allow to promote and do all this stuff on the street, we are very afraid about our nation because we consider ourselves like normal, standard people,"
That bit, implies that gays aren't normal, but abnormal
"One of the reasons – in fact the main reason – Britain has thus far trailed other major economies in economic recovery is that consumption has failed to come back after the shock of the banking crisis in the same way as it has elsewhere. Well now it appears to be, and the UK is therefore seeing relatively strong growth compared to others."
Good and sensible article.
Can I point out that retail sales are at a record high.
Its not wealth consumption which fell in the UK - the government has been subsidising it by over £100bn per year during the past five years.
The part of the economy which declined and has failed to come back is wealth creation.
The UK economy's recent stronger growth is merely Mr Creosote starting on the next course.
Sadly I agree largely. Recent uptick is welcome as opposed to the opposite but we need to sell more abroad and consume less at home, and get the price of money back to normality. We are only just starting the adjustment. The water is still coming in at the rate of more than 7% a year into the ship of state and selling houses to each other to stimulate activity is methadone at best.
- If gay people want to make that choice they are entitled to do so - But it's against the law to promote homosexuality in Russia - We may be different to other Europeans, but we ask people to respect our laws
Which bit of that is homophobic?
Exactly what I thought when I heard the interview on R5 earlier. I'm very disappointed, but not at all surprised, at the way the beeb are reporting it. If she'd attacked her own country I wouldn't have fancied her chances of competing at the next world championships for Russia.
- If gay people want to make that choice they are entitled to do so - But it's against the law to promote homosexuality in Russia - We may be different to other Europeans, but we ask people to respect our laws
Which bit of that is homophobic?
"If we allow to promote and do all this stuff on the street, we are very afraid about our nation because we consider ourselves like normal, standard people,"
That bit, implies that gays aren't normal, but abnormal
- If gay people want to make that choice they are entitled to do so - But it's against the law to promote homosexuality in Russia - We may be different to other Europeans, but we ask people to respect our laws
Which bit of that is homophobic?
"If we allow to promote and do all this stuff on the street, we are very afraid about our nation because we consider ourselves like normal, standard people,"
That bit, implies that gays aren't normal, but abnormal
Russia don't seem to have woken up to the complete nightmare that they're going to have in the Winter Olympics if a succession of athletes will either come out or will make strongly pro-gay equality statements. The track and field athletes at the World Athletics have already shown that some of them are potentially up for making a statement.
Are they going to arrest Olympians? If not, are they going to tolerate their laws being ignored?
There's quite a few other unpalatable things she's said
Unpalatable to us, but it's quite unfair to expect an athlete representing their country at their home world championship to criticise their country and president. Would you really have the balls to do that if you were in her position?
Warner puts a boot into those worrying about a few extra BBQs being bought..
"One of the reasons – in fact the main reason – Britain has thus far trailed other major economies in economic recovery is that consumption has failed to come back after the shock of the banking crisis in the same way as it has elsewhere. Well now it appears to be, and the UK is therefore seeing relatively strong growth compared to others."
Good and sensible article.
Can I point out that retail sales are at a record high.
Its not wealth consumption which fell in the UK - the government has been subsidising it by over £100bn per year during the past five years.
The part of the economy which declined and has failed to come back is wealth creation.
The UK economy's recent stronger growth is merely Mr Creosote starting on the next course.
Welcome back, ar.
Jeremy Warner, Osborne and I are pragmatists, You take growth wherever you can, while rebalancing and structuring the economy.
Current growth is more broadly based than in the mid noughties. There is a march of the makers even if it hasn't yet marched very far.
Trade figures are improving. Manufacturing figures are improving, Production figures are improving. Construction figures are improving. Some at record levels but mostly recovering lost ground.
Business investment and supporting credit supply is yet to turn up but this is anticipated to begin in the second half of this year.
I am uncertain what you mean by "wealth creation". I note that the ONS published its "National Balance Sheet, 2013 Estimates" this morning but have only read the key findings so far.
• Without removing the effects of inflation, estimates of UK total net worth more than trebled in the 25 years from 1987 to 2012.
• UK total net worth at the end of 2012 was estimated at £7.3 trillion; this was equivalent to approximately £114,000 per head of population or £275,000 per household.
These are nominal figures and show an upward 25 year trend with a small tick down in 2007-9. Would be interesting to see the real terms figures and I will dig deeper into the bulletin to look for them over the next few days.
Comments
It's a clever model. It not only takes account of opinion poll error, but also takes account of possible error in the model itself...
However, as I've said before, one should bear in mind the following caveat. The model correctly forecast every election from 1945-2010, and most of the ones back to 1910. But that was during a period of single-party government and a 2/3 party system. The political landscape looks rather different now.
So the elephant in the room might be not that the model is flawed. The model might simply now be entirely redundant. However, to counter that, at some point the coalition will disengage and fight the election as separate parties. So we might put a little more faith in the model at that point in time, say in about 18 months time...
I am merely keeping PB informed of what the model is saying. You must judge for yourselves what store to put by it.
"Building began on a total of 29,510 UK homes in the second quarter of this year, a figure 6pc higher than the previous three months, official data showed. On an annual basis, 110,530 homes were started in the year to June 2013, 7pc up on the 12 months before.
The pick-up in housebuilding activity was driven by private housing starts, which rose 7pc to 23,990 on a quarterly basis, while starts by housing associations were 3pc lower at 5,110."
http://hopisen.com/2013/an-exercise-in-positivity/
" housing, energy, transport and credit costs"
not health, not education, not jobs, not tax changes, not immigration - is this agenda exciting enough ?
We would expect around 3/4 of seats to exhibit swings greater than +/-1% away from the national swing.
I'm not going to waste my valuable time (best part of a hour) to generate another number from 5 years ago for you to faff around with. If you're that interested you can bull up on the subject yourself...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/15/ed-miliband-labour-egged-austerity
"At that time, the cuts were just an argument – it was easy for the public to accept them because they seemed distant and intangible, or at least they seemed like something that would happen to other people. Now they're starting to bite, most people know somebody who has been made redundant, if they're not getting made redundant themselves."
Given the falls in unemployment and the rises in employment, "most people" it seems are public sector employees.
Smoke was then seen coming out of the computer.
The program is called Monte Carlo.
He would , of course, accept 100:1 shot against you. He is on a banker !
It has been named Scottorius, and is the first new species of carnivore to be identified in the Western hemisphere in 35 years.
It has taken more than a decade to identify the mammal, a discovery that scientists say is incredibly rare in the 21st Century.
It is believed to exist on the finest malt whisky, and breeds rarely. It is believed to have been hunted to extinction by the more-numerous incomers, the ScottusNattus and the ScottusLabiosus.
Scientists have pledged to try to preserve the last existing examples of the species, although First Minister Alex Salmond has admitted the only hope might be for them to be taken to Edinburgh Zoo, where a perfect environment will be created for them - a grouse moor and Land Rovers, a statue of Margaret Thatcher, and bibles. A pipeline to the nearest distillery is currently being planned, to be paid for by the millions of visitors who flock to see this rarest of adorable creatures.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23701151
Average wage 2013 -
Increase in nominal terms - adjusted for inflation
Perhaps, you would do us the honours !
Now he's a Tory when he says that Labour wont win one.
Poor guy.
As I recall, a much repeated phrase from the Tabloids from 2008 and onwards – but then of course it it was the private sector.
So, now when I say it's looking tits up for Labour, I would hope to receive the same.
I wonder if you'll still be around on 8th May 2015?
His criticism of Osborne's fiscal policy comes in his second point:
a medium term reduction in the deficit based on wildly unrealistic projections for spending cuts. After 2015, continuing with the current approach will likely lead first to missed targets and then to tax increases, hidden or otherwise.
The targets that the Coalition government have regularly met are in spending reduction. Danny Alexander has a very firm grip on government spending. So to call the spending budgets "unrealistic projections" is simply wrong and Hopi would be better checking his facts with the PESA 2013 figures and the OBR's forward expenditure projections.
Deficit reduction forecasts are more difficult as they rely on control of both government receipts and expenditure. The delay in the target date for eliminating the deficit in the Cyclically Adjusted Current Budget, which is the government's Primary Fiscal Mandate, was mainly caused by falling revenues, which in turn was a consequence of growth falling in response to the Eurozone crisis.
With growth 'flatlining' the deficit neither reduced nor increased, even though total managed expenditure was being reduced in real terms.
The economy is now growing at trend on a reduced cost base. Even the Eurozone is beginning to float rather than sink. This means that the government's target deficit is almost certain to be reducing at a strong rate. We will know for sure in September when OBR publish their next Economic and Fiscal Outlook.
This makes Hopi's assumption that the current government's fiscal policy will lead to "to missed targets and then to tax increases" very questionable.
And if that assumption fails the "differentiation strategy" proposed for Labour in his subsequent points will end up being built on sand.
Time for Hopi to rethink.
The reason is that they don't need to work from script.
RT @Sun_Politics BREAKING: Hate preacher Abu Qatada's wife and five kids have finally left Britain and are flying to Jordan
Wouldn't have happened under labour.
There really are people out there who, apparently in all sincerity, think 3 + 1 = 3.
It seems inevitable that the (admittedly very tentative) acknowledgement from the two Eds that there might just be a little bit of a problem denying the laws of arithmetic will indeed lead to increasing disappointment amongst the deficit-deniers.
Average wage 2010 - £23,504 adjusted for inflation to 2012 - £25,517
Average wage 2012 - £24,452
Increase in nominal terms - +4% adjusted for inflation - 4.2% fall
Average house price 2010 - £164,000
Average house price 2012 - £162,621
1% fall
If we use house prices adjusted for inflation in both the 1997-2010 and 2010-2012 periods
Average house price 1997 - adjusted for inflation to 2010 - £89,675
So 1997-2010 - 82.9% increase compared to 15.25% increase in wages (house increase 5.4x wage increase)
Average house price 2010 - adjusted for inflation to 2012 - £178,269
So 2010-2012 - 8% fall compared to 4.2% fall in wages (house price fall 1.9x wage fall)
Don't think two years of tough economic times can usefully be compared to the Brown borrowing, busting boom of 13 years duration though...
One of his crimes was the Jordan bombing plot in 2000, although that was a later crime. I can't quickly find when the original crime was supposed to have happened. Was it before or after he claimed asylum?
Impressive.
Same old nasty party.
LOL
Rob Marchant @rob_marchant
WATCH: #Isinbayeva, be ashamed for swallowing your vile president's propaganda, wholesale. No good can come of this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNrw8WMm6Rg
No doubt you'll put it down to Tory unpopularity rather than the unfairness in the system.
I'm merely pointing out that your model (which presumably you want us to note / discuss?) is obviously producing utter garbage, as the probability of a Labour majority is clearly not zero.
I'm then asking - as it's producing such obvious garbage, why post it at all?
You'd be better off using the by-election swings - which is what you were doing prior to 2010.
Of course, L&N will probably be better than the by-election swings when we get to February 2015, but we aren't there yet.
If it's on your card then tick it off.
What's Thursday's prize for a full house?
"Squid pointing"
"Daves pimping on grieving families"
"Daves Date night"
all repeated several times..
..and a ref to a foaming Guiness..not too dusty for one day.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's party will lose the election by 22 seats, collecting 63 seats to the oppositions's 85, according to analysis done for The Australian Financial Review by statisticians Kaighin McColl and Leng Lee.
The analysis is based on betting data from August 11":
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/labor-to-lose-by-22-seats-new-analysis-20130815-2rynj.html
Just think what he will be able to do to MP numbers and House of Lords reform when returned with a thumping majority.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/08/labours-uninspiring-response-to-a-level-results/
Why does not Rod answer that or stick to his swing back theory ?
Especially with a goverment nobody put their x against at the last election.
Sir Roderick won this argument weeks ago.
The L&N model is designed to predict a General Election result using data from opinion polls undertaken two to three months before the election date.
Whenever possible, we formed the average from surveys two and three months prior to the date of a general election.
Sir Roderick has never claimed his running of the L&N model to obtain a forecast is a valid prediction of the 2015 GE results. He has merely suggested that the forecast may be valid if the GE was held in three months time.
I am sure that even Sir Roderick would accept that public knowledge that a General Election is to be held in three months is likely to affect the way in which people respond to a poll. And also that polling responses 2 years out may not be as valid as those 2-3 months from a known election date.
Still the running of the model produces interesting and useful results provided we take into account the above qualifications.
The exercise is certainly not worthless just because you dislike the output.
Maybe, Labour council by-elections results are comparitively good.
Gordon Brown on the Marr Show 2006 "AS A FATHER, any time I now see a child suffering, any time I see a child neglected, I feel that's a stain on the soul of our society"
So when the swing back doesn`t suit the narrative you change the theory.
“@TelegraphSport: Tim Bresnan ruled out of the fifth Ashes Test with a stress fracture in his lower back” > Broke his back to win Ashes
Certainly true in Wales. This newspaper records the following FACTS
''A breakdown by nation reveals an alarming widening of the attainment gap between Wales and England across two key indicators.
England’s overall pass rate has increased by 0.1% to 98.1%, while the percentage of pupils obtaining at least an A grade has fallen by 0.2% to 26.3% – a far slower rate than that recorded in Wales.'''
As expected, Wales’ overall A-level pass rate has stagnated at 97.6% – which remains some way below the UK average. Full article here.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/a-level-results-live--gap-5731448
Rod, conveniently uses opinion poll data in his simulations.
I bet the betting data will give an entirely different result.
What Rod must be doing is then adjusting the poll figures with his Swingback theory and coming up with a votes distribution.
Note, this wholly depends on the swingback theory and the parameters that he has chosen. For once, Labour is the only major opposition party , so the Lib Dems receiving their usual share of "protest" votes will be much less and also UKIP will definitely get, at least, 6% [ my own very conservative estimate ]. Swingback does happen. But this time it won't be a two-dimensional game.
Personally I find them a little blunt, but they do have their uses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method
Its not wealth consumption which fell in the UK - the government has been subsidising it by over £100bn per year during the past five years.
The part of the economy which declined and has failed to come back is wealth creation.
The UK economy's recent stronger growth is merely Mr Creosote starting on the next course.
200 employed to make negative comments every day about South Korea. I wonder if any of them can match Tim's productivity. Imagine if they all did. Gulp.
What Rod must be doing is then adjusting the poll figures with his Swingback theory and coming up with a votes distribution.
Note, this wholly depends on the swingback theory and the parameters that he has chosen. For once, Labour is the only major opposition party , so the Lib Dems receiving their usual share of "protest" votes will be much less and also UKIP will definitely get, at least, 6% [ my own very conservative estimate ]. Swingback does happen. But this time it won't be a two-dimensional game.
Surby
I cannot vouch for Sir Roderick running the L&N model correctly. You will have to ask him to verify that.
But my guess is that Sir Roderick has followed the methodology prescribed in the Lebo and Norpeth paper to which he has linked on PB.
As for Labour having a 0% chance of winning an absolute majority, this would not appear to be a flawed outcome of the model.
Indeed, my own model predicts that Labour has less than a 0% chance of an overall majority.
Won't be Onions, he's ruled out due to a broken finger.
Mike Selvey thinks it will be between Finn, Tremlett and Woakes.
If it is Dernbach, all sorts of records could tumble.
- If gay people want to make that choice they are entitled to do so
- But it's against the law to promote homosexuality in Russia
- We may be different to other Europeans, but we ask people to respect our laws
Which bit of that is homophobic?
That bit, implies that gays aren't normal, but abnormal
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2013/08/15/yelena-isinbayeva-supports-anti-gay-law-russia/2659293/
Still object to the use of the word "rant" though if it was only one objectionable sentence
Are they going to arrest Olympians? If not, are they going to tolerate their laws being ignored?
They're setting themselves up to look very silly.
Jeremy Warner, Osborne and I are pragmatists, You take growth wherever you can, while rebalancing and structuring the economy.
Current growth is more broadly based than in the mid noughties. There is a march of the makers even if it hasn't yet marched very far.
Trade figures are improving. Manufacturing figures are improving, Production figures are improving. Construction figures are improving. Some at record levels but mostly recovering lost ground.
Business investment and supporting credit supply is yet to turn up but this is anticipated to begin in the second half of this year.
I am uncertain what you mean by "wealth creation". I note that the ONS published its "National Balance Sheet, 2013 Estimates" this morning but have only read the key findings so far.
• Without removing the effects of inflation, estimates of UK total net worth more than trebled in the 25 years from 1987 to 2012.
• UK total net worth at the end of 2012 was estimated at £7.3 trillion; this was equivalent to approximately £114,000 per head of population or £275,000 per household.
These are nominal figures and show an upward 25 year trend with a small tick down in 2007-9. Would be interesting to see the real terms figures and I will dig deeper into the bulletin to look for them over the next few days.