By the way Mike where is our article on the Tories having less than 95,000 members.
The fact Cameron has lost over 160,000 members and no one seems to care in the press is incredible in my opinion. Can you imagine what would happen if Ed Miliband reduced it by anything like that.
I thought the figures were out and it was about 57k.
Who were they, why has it seemingly fallen so dramatically, where have they gone, can the Tories get them back, is it mainly a Tory problem or will it happen across the board as a symptom of political decline, does it matter, what does it mean for the Tory Party's future and possibly for politics generally?
Who to believe - the WSJ, or the actual Berkshire Hathaway accounts?
I've heard it elsewhere. Mr Buffett isn't stupid, he knows a top when he sees one. Stanley Druckenmiller (a one time associate of Buffett) and Jim Rogers are record cash invested too. These 3 are legends of the street - they're seeing exactly what I'm seeing going ahead, a huge credit deflationary crash. And in that environment, cash in the most liquid currency going, the US Dollar, is the best investment. True, USD is in a temporary downtrend, but its not too far from completing now in my opinion.
I don't "applaud high house prices based on debt based property speculation".
I support a gradual reduction in the ratio of house prices to income. A reasonable target might be to reduce the ratio from the upper quartile of OECD countries to around the median level over a decade.
This would require house prices to fall in real terms (but not nominal terms) over the course of the decade, preferably at a linear rate but practically with as little volatility as possible. The best way to achieve this would be to regulate supply of mortgage credit.
I would also like to see increases in private sector residential property construction, so that it meets demand and supports the goal of real terms pricing reduction as stated above, In this context,
I would also like to see private sector construction of low cost social housing to meet demand and construction supply profitability, but this will require a new business model to be established with implications for local council and housing benefits costs.
My approach to housing policy is pragmatic and managerial. Look at where we are today, decide where we want to be at a defined date in the future and define a policy to get there which is feasbile to implement, suitable to the UK economic environment, and acceptable to the target political constituency. This involves taking the most likely course of economic outcomes and environment as measured at regular stages through the project. This approach is of necessity gradualist and evolutionary.
I am not saying that your view of a global credit crash is invalid or unarguable. It is just not, according to a general consensus of economic and political opinion, most likely. I certainly don't believe that a UK government should implement policies on the basis of a 'least likely' outcome of global economic catastrophe It should however carry out contingency planning for worst case outcomes, but not adopt policies which make such outcomes self-fulfilling.
All; of which makes this post rather boringly sensible. So please do carry on with your Cassandra predictions.
In places like Hartlepool it seems like the Tories are being virtually replaced by UKIP as the right of centre alternative, (although I know a lot of their voters are not really in that category).
I wish! That is the number register and not all registered. So there ends up being all this guess work as the Tories won't just publish the figures.
But the best guesses are that they are between 90 - 95k and they are losing around 40 members every day. Which may not sound a lot but if they don't stop that they will have only 70,000 members by the next election.
I am hoping Dave does something to really piss them off then by the time of the next leadership election they will have lost a full 200k under him.
The Lebo and Norpoth debate is pretty simple. Their model depends on a pendulum effect coupled with PM approval two months before the election. Taking this into account before the last election they forecast a Tory seat total of 311 (central forecast) with a lead over Labour of forty odd seats.
However they make it very clear in their papers that it is the proximity to the election of PM approval is key as it is a better guide than govt approval which falls away as a guide with the approach of an election whereas PM approval does not. That is a specific point they make regarding the specific timing of their model forecasts
So the bastardisation of this model a prediction using the 2008 July polling led Rod to find
Con lead vote share 17.7% Con lead in seats 187
Utter bollocks of course because the election wasn't timed for September/October 08
Then to run simulations on that model which result in 0% chances of Labour Majority for 2015 (or 100% chances of a Con Maj in 2008) is of course facile.
Yep. Rod is feeding garbage into a questionable model, and producing garbage as a result.
I would be shamed to declare that my treasured predictive "social science" model predicted 0% or 100% certainty of any outcome, I still wonder why Rod bothered.
What it means to be a political party and a member of a political party is changing.
They're not going to be mass-member organisations any more, not Labour, not the Tories, none of them. At least not like the past.
Carswell's right. Perhaps even charge them nothing at all to be members, save for proof of identity. Then at least they're there to call on. I expect we'll see much more ad-hoc donation campaigns.
Utter bollocks of course because the election wasn't timed for September/October 08
I guess retrospective analysis is the best form of prediction!
Brown of course could have chosen to call an election in September 2008. The fact that he didn't is neither here or there with respect to the accuracy of the model...
1) people are dieing 2) there are a lot of people who are leaving for political reasons and the coalition 3) they are losing councillors - and that means often they lose their membership and their families and friends etc
The wider problem the Tories have is that they have always existed as a cultural party and the culture of joining parties is declining.
Labour is and was always political. You don't join the Labour party unless you want something changed. There will always be people who want to see things done differently.
I think a question that hasn't really been asked is how many European votes the BNP are likely to get, which I imagine is a question of how much it will fall from 6.2% and who that might help most.
So Tory Membership is less than double that of UKIP. Amazing.
No that is incorrect , the 58,000 is the figure from those Conservative Associations that actually published a figure in their annual statement of account . A reasonable extrapolation for those that did so is an overall figure of around 95,000 at the end of 2012
What it means to be a political party and a member of a political party is changing.
They're not going to be mass-member organisations any more, not Labour, not the Tories, none of them. At least not like the past.
Carswell's right. Perhaps even charge them nothing at all to be members, save for proof of identity. Then at least they're there to call on. I expect we'll see much more ad-hoc donation campaigns.
ConHome has a good article on those lines today.
"A looser but better organised machine. An intelligent, dynamic understanding of a wider support base. And a whole-hearted integration with the community.
If you live in Welwyn Hatfield, every year you’ll be invited to the local Christmas Market at Hatfield House. Run by the Conservatives. You’re welcome to join in ‘Wel Hats’, a Wednesday knitting session to raise funds for Help for Heroes. Hosted by the Conservatives. You’ll be invited to a range of non-Conservative community events. Advertised by the Conservatives. You can attend the Summer Party of the Mixed Group, to fundraise for the Christmas Lunch of local elderly people in sheltered housing. Hosted by the Conservative MP. You can help your MP to solve real local issues by joining him knocking on doors every few weeks – no need to wear the rosette if you don’t want to and everyone’s welcome to pub lunch afterwards. Run by the Conservatives. You can attend a Q&A fish ‘n’ chips event twice a year to quiz your MP on anything and everything. Run by the Conservatives.
At these events, mirrored across the country, helpers are working shoulder-to-shoulder with Conservatives to serve the community. When it comes to election time, the same helpers will be motivated to help us out not because of some membership card but because of the shared community service. The technology and the data-handling that helps us to manage this efficiently is new, but the community-building approach is where this Party has almost always excelled."
Utter bollocks of course because the election wasn't timed for September/October 08
I guess retrospective analysis is the best form of prediction!
Brown of course could have chosen to call an election in September 2008. The fact that he didn't is neither here or there with respect to the accuracy of the model...
The fact that your model predicts a 0% chance of a Labour majority does shine a light on its accuracy though. Whether the election is now, in 3 months, in 2015, in 2025. The probability of a Labour majority is greater than zero
Your model is producing garbage. You should be ashamed to post this stuff.
What it means to be a political party and a member of a political party is changing.
They're not going to be mass-member organisations any more, not Labour, not the Tories, none of them. At least not like the past.
Carswell's right. Perhaps even charge them nothing at all to be members, save for proof of identity. Then at least they're there to call on. I expect we'll see much more ad-hoc donation campaigns.
ConHome has a good article on those lines today.
"A looser but better organised machine. An intelligent, dynamic understanding of a wider support base. And a whole-hearted integration with the community.
If you live in Welwyn Hatfield, every year you’ll be invited to the local Christmas Market at Hatfield House. Run by the Conservatives. You’re welcome to join in ‘Wel Hats’, a Wednesday knitting session to raise funds for Help for Heroes. Hosted by the Conservatives. You’ll be invited to a range of non-Conservative community events. Advertised by the Conservatives. You can attend the Summer Party of the Mixed Group, to fundraise for the Christmas Lunch of local elderly people in sheltered housing. Hosted by the Conservative MP. You can help your MP to solve real local issues by joining him knocking on doors every few weeks – no need to wear the rosette if you don’t want to and everyone’s welcome to pub lunch afterwards. Run by the Conservatives. You can attend a Q&A fish ‘n’ chips event twice a year to quiz your MP on anything and everything. Run by the Conservatives.
At these events, mirrored across the country, helpers are working shoulder-to-shoulder with Conservatives to serve the community. When it comes to election time, the same helpers will be motivated to help us out not because of some membership card but because of the shared community service. The technology and the data-handling that helps us to manage this efficiently is new, but the community-building approach is where this Party has almost always excelled."
The old way is not sleeping; it is not pining for the fjords. It is as dead as a parrot and it's just a case of who takes to the new reality quicker and most effectively.
The Lebo and Norpoth debate is pretty simple. Their model depends on a pendulum effect coupled with PM approval two months before the election. Taking this into account before the last election they forecast a Tory seat total of 311 (central forecast) with a lead over Labour of forty odd seats.
However they make it very clear in their papers that it is the proximity to the election of PM approval is key as it is a better guide than govt approval which falls away as a guide with the approach of an election whereas PM approval does not. That is a specific point they make regarding the specific timing of their model forecasts It is A CONDITION of their entire work that the PM approval, while being generally a better guide to VI than Govt approval throughout the parliament is specifically useful as a predictor two months before the election.
So the bastardisation of this model making a prediction using the 2008 July polling led Rod to find
Con lead vote share 17.7% Con lead in seats 187
For May 2010
Utter bollocks of course because the election wasn't timed for September/October 08
Then to run simulations on that model which result in 0% chances of Labour Majority for 2015 (or 100% chances of a Con Maj in 2008) is of course facile.
As said earlier, the model would work for an election 'in three months time', with the added condition that the polling data has not been generated by respondents who know the date of the election and may therefore not be as reliable as running the model using data three months before a known election date.
You have to argue that lack of awareness of an upcoming election date is likely to distort the findings to such an extent that they become completely invalid. I doubt you could make such a case persuasive. An argument that the findings should be treated with additional caution would probably prevail.
I am not saying that your view of a global credit crash is invalid or unarguable. It is just not, according to a general consensus of economic and political opinion, most likely. I certainly don't believe that a UK government should implement policies on the basis of a 'least likely' outcome of global economic catastrophe It should however carry out contingency planning for worst case outcomes, but not adopt policies which make such outcomes self-fulfilling.
All; of which makes this post rather boringly sensible. So please do carry on with your Cassandra predictions.
Avery, the general concensus is frequently wrong, look at late 2007 for example. When (nearly) everyone is bullish on something like property or stocks, I'll always take the opposite side of the trade. Sentiment is one of the best reverse indicators going. Many rulers, nowadays central banks, have tried to engineer soft landings in prices. Economic history clearly shows that financial bubbles just don't work that way. Name me an example where a bubble has ended in a soft landing? If I was in charge, I wouldn't be able to stop it, nor would you or anyone else.
Whenever someone has tried to corner the market and control the price of something, its typically ended disastrously for that particular entity. Attempt to control silver by the Hunt brothers ended with them bankrupt when the bubble burst in 1980. And right now, the Federal Reserve despite $85bn monthly purchases of US Treasuries, is starting to lose control as evidenced by higher interest rates / lower bond prices.
And consider just how distorted the market for land in the UK is. Over 70% of UK land is owned by less than 1% of the population. I have sympathy with Fred Harrison's argument over a land tax, whilst reducing taxes on labour and capital. But this of itself is no good, unless you have a financial system which prohibits the build up of credit not tied to production, such as the 19th century gold standard.
You don't join the Labour party unless you want something changed. There will always be people who want to see things done differently.
There's an argument that it was the centralisation of political power in Westminster/EU that killed participation in local politics, as you could no longer get things changed.
The fact that your model predicts a 0% chance of a Labour majority does shine a light on its accuracy though. Whether the election is now, in 3 months, in 2015, in 2025. The probability of a Labour majority is greater than zero
Your model is producing garbage. You should be ashamed to post this stuff.
0 in 10000 runs. Why should I be ashamed to post a fact?
The Lebo and Norpoth debate is pretty simple. Their model depends on a pendulum effect coupled with PM approval two months before the election. Taking this into account before the last election they forecast a Tory seat total of 311 (central forecast) with a lead over Labour of forty odd seats.
However they make it very clear in their papers that it is the proximity to the election of PM approval is key as it is a better guide than govt approval which falls away as a guide with the approach of an election whereas PM approval does not. That is a specific point they make regarding the specific timing of their model forecasts It is A CONDITION of their entire work that the PM approval, while being generally a better guide to VI than Govt approval throughout the parliament is specifically useful as a predictor two months before the election.
So the bastardisation of this model making a prediction using the 2008 July polling led Rod to find
Con lead vote share 17.7% Con lead in seats 187
For May 2010
Utter bollocks of course because the election wasn't timed for September/October 08
Then to run simulations on that model which result in 0% chances of Labour Majority for 2015 (or 100% chances of a Con Maj in 2008) is of course facile.
As said earlier, the model would work for an election 'in three months time', with the added condition that the polling data has not been generated by respondents who know the date of the election and may therefore not be as reliable as running the model using data three months before a known election date.
You have to argue that lack of awareness of an upcoming election date is likely to distort the findings to such an extent that they become completely invalid. I doubt you could make such a case persuasive. An argument that the findings should be treated with additional caution would probably prevail.
In other words, Rod's model is garbage. Because it's only got a cat in hell's chance of working if we are pretty much on the eve of an election, and even then it depends on what you choose to feed into it's grumbly guts.
In other words, pseudoscientific claptrap. RodCrosby, another sorry PB charlatan.
The fact that your model predicts a 0% chance of a Labour majority does shine a light on its accuracy though. Whether the election is now, in 3 months, in 2015, in 2025. The probability of a Labour majority is greater than zero
Your model is producing garbage. You should be ashamed to post this stuff.
0 in 10000 runs. Why should I be ashamed to post a fact?
Well, if you're trying to show us all that your model is utter garbage you shouldn't be ashamed at all, as you've demonstrated it well.
What happened to your prediction that Obama would never become President because you said he was not born in the US?
You went on endlessly
I never said he would never become president. I also won £5k on the back of my judgment that he would be re-elected president!
I also happen to think he's a pretty good 'president.' Streets ahead of his immediate two predecessors, at any rate.
However there remain severe doubts as to his eligibility to be president. But just like certain other subjects it's easier for cowards to close down debate and falsify the record.
As a dogged litigant (when right is on my side) I have to agree both with
HL Mencken "Judge (definition): a law student who marks his own papers..." and
Alfred Wintle "it was not until my case reached the House of Lords that I met my intellectual equals..."
In other words, pseudoscientific claptrap. RodCrosby, another sorry PB charlatan.
TBF the by-election swingback thing was sensible, elegant and as accurate as good a predictor as you can reasonably expect.
I thought that made a lot more sense than this, though. I don't really understand why Rod's using it the way he is.
Put your thinking cap on. It's no bloody different. Just as with swingback we await another datapoint (by-election), with L&N we await another PM approval poll...
The squeaking from Labourites is simply because they don't like the portents of the model's current output, which may get even worse as time passes...
We must wait and see. I trust tim et al will stick to (and be hoist by) their "only valid three months before an election" petard come February 2015...
In other words, Rod's model is garbage. Because it's only got a cat in hell's chance of working if we are pretty much on the eve of an election, and even then it depends on what you choose to feed into it's grumbly guts.
In other words, pseudoscientific claptrap. RodCrosby, another sorry PB charlatan.
0% probability, I ask you...
Carl
As I told you before, the Lebo and Norpeth model is kind to Labour.
My private model predicts Labour's chances of an overall majority to be considerably less than 0%.
Congratulations to Miss Cyclefree and young Mr Southern Observer on their exam results.
I feel bloody ancient.
Exactly what I said earlier tonight when I congratulated my oldest nephew on his 26th birthday, seems like only yesterday he was a little page boy in his first kilt at my wedding!
Run a thousand simulations on the July 2008 figures and you'll come up with a 99% plus chance of a Tory majority in 2010. But you may as well have spent your time feeding Seth O'Logue, fitalass and ScottP a hundred Angus Reid polls while they played a drinking game with Highland Malt and see what they came up with (a 99% plus chance of a Con Maj)
Sir Roderick will no doubt answer for himself but his swingback theory and the L&N model produce different predictions.
The L&N model predicts the result based on polling data (principally leadership approval) two to three months before the (known) date of election. So a run on the July 2008 figures would predict a GE held in October 2008.
Sir Roderick's swingback theory predicts a GE result on the basis of by-election results during the previous term. It is not a 'three month forward' forecast. I expect the GE can fall at any time but best results come if it comes at the end of a 4 or 5 year term.
If both models are valid then you would expect convergence of predictions provided both followed their correct methodologies.
Would be interesting to hear from Sir R on whether he expects convergence and, if so, when.
The Solheim Cup is this weekend. I got the chance to meet Karsten Solheim at The Masters in the late 80s. He looked not unlike Colonel Sanders, except he was Norwegian.
17 year old Charley Hull is on the European team, as is Catriona Matthew, from North Berwick, near where my wife is from.
My personal favorite is Stacy Lewis on the US team - her story and struggle against the odds is an inspiring one. She was on David Feherty's Golf Channel program a couple of weeks back.
To me this is like the Ryder Cup - I can root for Rory, Lee, Ian and the rest on an individual level, but rooting for 'Europe' leaves me utterly cold. It's one thing to root for your country, but your continent is much less visceral.
So I shall root for Stacy and Catriona and Charley.
Some of Sade's music from the late 80s and early 90s sounds ridiculously ahead of its time in my opinion. I'm not a huge fan of that style of music actually, but I say that all the same about it sounding new.
Looking at the Solheim Cup opening ceremony, the US team look good in 'little back dresses' and sensible shoes, whereas the European team look like so many Hillary Clintons, in drab pant suits.
Avery, the general concensus is frequently wrong, look at late 2007 for example. When (nearly) everyone is bullish on something like property or stocks, I'll always take the opposite side of the trade. Sentiment is one of the best reverse indicators going.
No argument here, hunchman. But the consensus is also more often right than wrong. The big news comes though when the consensus gets it badly wrong. As in 2007.
A contrarian is a economic terrorist. He only needs to get his prediction right once to succeed, The consensus establishment needs to get it right every time, which is impossible,
Many rulers, nowadays central banks, have tried to engineer soft landings in prices. Economic history clearly shows that financial bubbles just don't work that way. Name me an example where a bubble has ended in a soft landing? If I was in charge, I wouldn't be able to stop it, nor would you or anyone else.
Whenever someone has tried to corner the market and control the price of something, its typically ended disastrously for that particular entity. Attempt to control silver by the Hunt brothers ended with them bankrupt when the bubble burst in 1980. And right now, the Federal Reserve despite $85bn monthly purchases of US Treasuries, is starting to lose control as evidenced by higher interest rates / lower bond prices.
Again much of what you say is true. But again too is the fact that we only hear and talk about market interventions which go wrong rather than the vastly higher number that go right.
And there is a difference between a market participant trying to control a market (like the Hunts unsuccessfully or like Soros in the currency markets successfully) and the regulatory authorities like Central Banks and Treasuries.
Central Banks and Treasuries are much more bound to follow policy based on most likely outcome. There will always be misunderstandings and mistakes, and, external factors beyond control but these are part of the business of 'government'. Forecasts and policies are always changing to adapt to new environments and events.
And consider just how distorted the market for land in the UK is ....
The emcee announced the Solheim Cup tee times in Mountain Time - tee times are always expressed in Eastern Time, as Rory McIlroy can attest to his cost at the Ryder Cup in Medinah.
Rod - please can you remind us exactly what your model is actually now predicting.
I've read so many posts on here tonight about your model but none actually refer to the actual prediction!
Well it's the Lebo & Norporth model, not mine. It's mathematically complex, but I've got it boxed off in a spreadsheet. At every election since 1945 (and most before) it's correctly predicted the outcome based on a very simple input.
PM approval/two-party vote
which for the latest IPSOS/MORI gives 38/70 (or 54.3%, in other words Cameron is doing rather well)
Plugging this into the model chucks out a 6.4% vote lead (43 seat lead) for the Tories as the central forecast.
Monte Carlo methods (including uncertainty both about the poll and about the model) produce an 80% chance of a hung parliament, 20% chance of a Tory overall majority, 0% chance of a Labour majority.
Caveats include: there is no election scheduled in the immediate future and the model may not apply as previously to a coalition, etc.
Does the vote lead to seats calculation allow for incumbency etc? As you know I've previously posted that Peter Kellner reckons that Con have a realistic chance of a majority on a 5% vote lead - assuming LD does pretty badly.
Don't really want to debate that again now - but just wondering if it's assuming UNS for votes to seats?
Con went from level in the polls to an 8% vote lead in the last few DAYS in 1992.
2015 is going to be a carbon copy of 1992. The press are going to say Miliband = Kinnock and Cameron is going to go 100% on Labour will bankrupt the country, waste money and massively increase taxes - whereas Con will not put taxes up and reduce benefits.
It will be a campaign designed to frighten people and I expect it to produce a late swing. We also may see the return of "shy Tories" - ie people who won't admit voting Con but they'll do it in the ballot booth.
Does the vote lead to seats calculation allow for incumbency etc? As you know I've previously posted that Peter Kellner reckons that Con have a realistic chance of a majority on a 5% vote lead - assuming LD does pretty badly.
Don't really want to debate that again now - but just wondering if it's assuming UNS for votes to seats?
The model doesn't go down to a constituency level and doesn't involve UNS. It is a high level autoregressive model (contains 'memory' of the two previous overall general election results), forecasting simple seat leads and vote leads. I will have to check, but I understand the model has some overall 'incumbency' weighting, which decays the longer the incumbent government has been in power...
I think the Tories will win the popular vote in 2015 (and I thought and said so before I rediscovered the L&N model).
If the Tories do win a clear vote lead (perfectly possible) then Labour's chance of a majority is indeed zero (or infinitesimal, if you want to quibble), despite the squeaks of protest we've seen here today...
The model doesn't go down to a constituency level and doesn't involve UNS. It is a high level autoregressive model (contains 'memory' of the two previous overall general election results), forecasting simple seat leads and vote leads. I will have to check, but I understand the model has some overall 'incumbency' weighting, which decays the longer the incumbent government has been in power...
OK Rod, thanks a lot - fair enough.
All I would say is that a 3% vote lead gave Lab a majority of 66 in 2005 whereas Kellner reckons Lab needs a 7% vote lead for a majority of 1 in 2015.
So if the 2005 votes to seats conversion is reflected at all in the model that may be a distortion.
But the above doesn't really matter. I personally would be very confident that Cameron would remain PM with a 6.4% vote lead as it would almost certainly mean at least a few Con seat gains, even if no majority - ie Con shouldn't lose any seats to Lab due to incumbency and Con should pick up at least a few seats from LD - even if only say 5 to 10. So I think Con should get 312 at the very least and probably 315 to 317.
Well the LibDems are the big unknown. The L&N model doesn't consider them. They have to be estimated separately. For the purposes of the overall forecast I've pegged them, rightly or wrongly, at 40 seats. I can give other HP/majority forecasts for varying levels of LDs seats
LD seats
20: 43% chance of Tory majority 30: 31% chance of a Tory majority 40: 20% chance of a Tory majority 50: 12% chance of a Tory majority
Oh, and to correct another point I've just noticed.
I've never alleged that Obama was not born in the USA. My (and others) argument, backed by USSC case law, is that he is ineligible owing to the fact that his father was not at the time of his birth, or at any other time, a US citizen - a fact acknowledged by Obama.
Oh, and to correct another point I've just noticed.
I've never alleged that Obama was not born in the USA. My (and others) argument, backed by USSC case law, is that he is ineligible owing to the fact that his father was not at the time of his birth, or at any other time, a US citizen - a fact acknowledged by Obama.
If you (or whoever else) admits that Obama was born in the USA, then he is ipso facto eligible, regardless of his parentage.
Exactly what I said earlier tonight when I congratulated my oldest nephew on his 26th birthday, seems like only yesterday he was a little page boy in his first kilt at my wedding!
My nephew's 8th birthday was yesterday (or still today, if you allow for time zones). So, when your nephew was having his 18th birthday, mine was lying in his cot fast asleep, wriggling his fingers and making little squeaks, and then, when it was my turn to hold him, yelling his head off to let me know that he didn't like me and wanted to go back to his mummy.
Thanks, the first one is a bit boring, second one is interesting
Really? The first is a councillor who, in their day job apparently (a) didn't people the minimum wage (b) deducted tax and NICs without paying them to HMRC and (c) lied to the courts about it. The second is a councillor who resigned because another councillor said something rude to them.
Absolutely e-cigarettes should be regulated. There have been cases of e-cigarette companies using nicotine grown as an agricultural pesticide in their devices. Fundamentally, these devices involve puting significant quantities of a drug into the body. Isn't it a good idea to make sure that is safe?
The Lebo and Norpoth debate is pretty simple. Their model depends on a pendulum effect coupled with PM approval two months before the election. Taking this into account before the last election they forecast a Tory seat total of 311 (central forecast) with a lead over Labour of forty odd seats.
However they make it very clear in their papers that it is the proximity to the election of PM approval is key as it is a better guide than govt approval which falls away as a guide with the approach of an election whereas PM approval does not. That is a specific point they make regarding the specific timing of their model forecasts It is A CONDITION of their entire work that the PM approval, while being generally a better guide to VI than Govt approval throughout the parliament is specifically useful as a predictor two months before the election.
So the bastardisation of this model making a prediction using the 2008 July polling led Rod to find
Con lead vote share 17.7% Con lead in seats 187
For May 2010
Utter bollocks of course because the election wasn't timed for September/October 08
Then to run simulations on that model which result in 0% chances of Labour Majority for 2015 (or 100% chances of a Con Maj in 2008) is of course facile.
I suppose it does have *some* value. Not so much as a predictor of outcome as a clear indication that unless Miliband improves on the PM approval question then he's toast. (Does the model include Miliband as well i.e. is it relative approval or just Cameron's absolute approval?).
That's pretty much the consensus only - that Miliband is a drag on the ticket and that his weaknesses may be significant enough to offset Labour's structural advantages.
@JohnMoylanBBC: BBC BREAKING #Caudrilla suspends drilling at #Balcombe - company is "scaling back operations" on advice from Sussex Police.
Doesn't look like it's local folks causing the problem
Sussex Police believe more people will arrive for a six-day camp organised by the No Dash For Gas group. [ELSEWHERE THE ARTICLE PREDICTS 40 --> 1,000]
It warned it would engage in mass civil disobedience - last year members occupied at West Burton power station in Nottinghamshire.
No Dash for Gas said: "There are two stories that could emerge from Balcombe this summer.
"It could be the place that paved the way for a dirty and dangerous method of fuel extraction to tear up the country, or it could be the place where a group of ordinary people inspired the world by taking back the power.
Con 240 UKIP 217 Green 41 No Description (he's a LD. Possibly cocked up nomination papers) 10
Con hold
Pretty shocking collapse of the Lib Dem vote there. From 273 last time.
Could Mark Senior please clarify: was it a nomination papers cock up, or did the LDs make a decision not to put up an official candidate this time, despite winning a very respectable 37% of the vote last time? Most parties do not simply abandon wards where they hold nearly 40% of the vote.
Another halluginogenic article from Polly in the Guardian.
Labour people are kind and gentle and wise and when they cup their hands together heavenly white pigeons are born.
Tories have evil, blackened hearts and kneel at the altar of money. Roughly treading on the heads of innocent newborns as they do so.
And the debt-crisis is a figment on the imagination of people who dare read a newspaper other than the Guardian.
Surely Guardian readers are bright enough to identify nuance and grey areas, and don't see the world through the prism of prejudice that Polly sees it through. She's as pointless as Dan Hodges.
Another halluginogenic article from Polly in the Guardian.
Labour people are kind and gentle and wise and when they cup their hands together heavenly white pigeons are born.
Tories have evil, blackened hearts and kneel at the altar of money. Roughly treading on the heads of innocent newborns as they do so.
And the debt-crisis is a figment on the imagination of people who dare read a newspaper other than the Guardian.
Surely Guardian readers are bright enough to identify nuance and grey areas, and don't see the world through the prism of prejudice that Polly sees it through. She's as pointless as Dan Hodges.
Reading a Polly article for a Tory must be prett much like reading a Hodges article for a non-hater of Labour.
But let's be fair here: Tories are happy to state that Labour hates the UK and its history, and supports immigration and welfare only in order to increase its vote.
Both sides have widespread prejudices about the other which are oft-voiced in every form of media.
I hadn't realised people still pay money to buy the Guardian and read their Tuscany correspondent's crap. Isn't Polly Toynbee there to make the dwindling number of self-deluding lefties keep believing Bland the Younger is going to become PM one day? Presumably once he gets to keep a pair of his big brother's long trousers!
Polly Toynbee's article is not especially supportive of Ed Miliband. In order to keep her readers to the end, she has to indulge in some ritual Tory-bashing.
Get to the end and this is what her message is:
"The most alarming response to Miliband's egging this week was the people who asked, "But why?" – utterly bewildered that anyone should have a strong feeling about him one way or the other. If he needs friends, he needs enemies too, as he needs definition.
Allies know him as clever, decent and determined, but the public hardly knows him yet. His messages vanish into air when he makes a key speech as if it were a dissertation to be marked, with no team follow-up."
"Labour needs an autumn bounce, not just a brilliant leader's speech forgotten in a day, but the start of a warm engagement with voters' hearts and minds that has been lacking until now. And it needs to keep its nerve."
My point with Polly Toynbee is that it's lazy journalism. She's one of the UK premier opinion writers, but I can't remember the last time I gleaned anything from her articles.
I'm not up with who's who in opinion writing these days, but I read a Rafael Behr article the other day and was impressed. I came away feeling that I'd learned something. It was constructive and probing.
Three and a bit years in and the basic reality of where we are is that the economy hasn't gone as well as George Osborne hoped, Labour are not as far ahead in the polls as most people thought they would be, the coalition has been sturdier and less fraught than most thought it would be, the rise of Ukip is a enormous electoral threat to the Tories, Nick Clegg faces an extremely unenviable, arguably impossible task in winning back 2010 Lib Dem supporters and most interestingly of all, Ed Miliband has to find a formulation of policies that are bullet-proof and attractive to voters, against a backdrop of having no money to spend.
That all makes for a very interesting few years of politics - so there is plenty to write about. A less lazy writer would wrestle with those issues rather than resort to Tories are evil, Labour are good pieces. Any intelligent person knows the reality of the current finances (and we can argue till the cows come home over whose fault that is) mean that whoever is in power would be struggling not to displease millions of people.
"A German tourist injured his partner by hurling a pizza and a pot of noodles at her during a "disappointing" holiday in Scotland.
Banker Wolfgang Gruelich, 57, lashed out after finding his excursion to Scotland had not lived up to his expectations."
Indeed we are seeing a great many visitors this year from mainland Europe. All welcome, even those from Englandshire to visit and spend their ££££s here.
My point with Polly Toynbee is that it's lazy journalism. She's one of the UK premier opinion writers, but I can't remember the last time I gleaned anything from her articles.
I'm not up with who's who in opinion writing these days, but I read a Rafael Behr article the other day and was impressed. I came away feeling that I'd learned something. It was constructive and probing.
Three and a bit years in and the basic reality of where we are is that the economy hasn't gone as well as George Osborne hoped, Labour are not as far ahead in the polls as most people thought they would be, the coalition has been sturdier and less fraught than most thought it would be, the rise of Ukip is a enormous electoral threat to the Tories, Nick Clegg faces an extremely unenviable, arguably impossible task in winning back 2010 Lib Dem supporters and most interestingly of all, Ed Miliband has to find a formulation of policies that are bullet-proof and attractive to voters, in the midst of having to money to spend.
That all makes for a very interesting few years of politics - so there is plenty to write. A less lazy writer would wrestle with those issues rather than resort to Tories are evil, Labour are good pieces. Any intelligent person knows the reality of the current finances (and we can argue till the cows come home over whose fault that is) mean that whoever is in power would be struggling not to displease millions of people.
I read the piece as saying that there is less reason for Labour to panuc than most commentators are claiming.
Of course it is. Deeply held Tory prejudices about Labour are facts; Labour ones about the Tories are deluded.
You mean well known Tories like Peter "we were sending out search parties" Mandelson?
Labour adviser Andrew Neather who said that that they deliberately encouraged immigration in order to change the make-up of Britain and ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity’?
But it was all brushed under the carpet. As Blair said: ‘Because our position was sophisticated enough - a sort of “confess and avoid”, as the lawyers say - we won out.’
Good to see Avery on form tonight and welcome back AR - I too hope HL comes back so he can suggest some good talks at Gresham College.
He's on Twitter now instead as @HurstLlama - you can find Chrisg000 as well - he's @chrisg0000 and still has his fighting trousers on. I think I've seen Socrates too.
Good to see Avery on form tonight and welcome back AR - I too hope HL comes back so he can suggest some good talks at Gresham College.
He's on Twitter now instead as @HurstLlama - you can find Chrisg000 as well - he's @chrisg0000 and still has his fighting trousers on. I think I've seen Socrates too.
Congratulations to Miss Cyclefree and young Mr Southern Observer on their exam results.
And to the elder Ms Wheatley who got exactly what she wanted yesterday and out performed her supposedly brighter peers (not that I am competitive or anything, heaven for-fend). She benefits from the degree of specialization you get with A Level, not a fashionable view I appreciate
There is now a fair community of PBers and former regular contributors to PB on Twitter. We have swapped the writings of people like Tim for Owen Jones.
Comments
The number of full-time Conservative members registered with the electoral commission last year was 58,884 http://bit.ly/13iPaKn
Who were they, why has it seemingly fallen so dramatically, where have they gone, can the Tories get them back, is it mainly a Tory problem or will it happen across the board as a symptom of political decline, does it matter, what does it mean for the Tory Party's future and possibly for politics generally?
In fact, it's fascinating!
I don't "applaud high house prices based on debt based property speculation".
I support a gradual reduction in the ratio of house prices to income. A reasonable target might be to reduce the ratio from the upper quartile of OECD countries to around the median level over a decade.
This would require house prices to fall in real terms (but not nominal terms) over the course of the decade, preferably at a linear rate but practically with as little volatility as possible. The best way to achieve this would be to regulate supply of mortgage credit.
I would also like to see increases in private sector residential property construction, so that it meets demand and supports the goal of real terms pricing reduction as stated above, In this context,
I would also like to see private sector construction of low cost social housing to meet demand and construction supply profitability, but this will require a new business model to be established with implications for local council and housing benefits costs.
My approach to housing policy is pragmatic and managerial. Look at where we are today, decide where we want to be at a defined date in the future and define a policy to get there which is feasbile to implement, suitable to the UK economic environment, and acceptable to the target political constituency. This involves taking the most likely course of economic outcomes and environment as measured at regular stages through the project. This approach is of necessity gradualist and evolutionary.
I am not saying that your view of a global credit crash is invalid or unarguable. It is just not, according to a general consensus of economic and political opinion, most likely. I certainly don't believe that a UK government should implement policies on the basis of a 'least likely' outcome of global economic catastrophe It should however carry out contingency planning for worst case outcomes, but not adopt policies which make such outcomes self-fulfilling.
All; of which makes this post rather boringly sensible. So please do carry on with your Cassandra predictions.
I wish! That is the number register and not all registered. So there ends up being all this guess work as the Tories won't just publish the figures.
But the best guesses are that they are between 90 - 95k and they are losing around 40 members every day. Which may not sound a lot but if they don't stop that they will have only 70,000 members by the next election.
I am hoping Dave does something to really piss them off then by the time of the next leadership election they will have lost a full 200k under him.
Well done , Dave and Gideon.
Shapps was appointed to restore party membership. Why is it falling ? Are they leaving for UKIP in droves ? or, are they simply dying ?.
I would be shamed to declare that my treasured predictive "social science" model predicted 0% or 100% certainty of any outcome, I still wonder why Rod bothered.
They're not going to be mass-member organisations any more, not Labour, not the Tories, none of them. At least not like the past.
Carswell's right. Perhaps even charge them nothing at all to be members, save for proof of identity. Then at least they're there to call on. I expect we'll see much more ad-hoc donation campaigns.
Brown of course could have chosen to call an election in September 2008. The fact that he didn't is neither here or there with respect to the accuracy of the model...
It's a few things.
1) people are dieing
2) there are a lot of people who are leaving for political reasons and the coalition
3) they are losing councillors - and that means often they lose their membership and their families and friends etc
The wider problem the Tories have is that they have always existed as a cultural party and the culture of joining parties is declining.
Labour is and was always political. You don't join the Labour party unless you want something changed. There will always be people who want to see things done differently.
"A looser but better organised machine. An intelligent, dynamic understanding of a wider support base. And a whole-hearted integration with the community.
If you live in Welwyn Hatfield, every year you’ll be invited to the local Christmas Market at Hatfield House. Run by the Conservatives. You’re welcome to join in ‘Wel Hats’, a Wednesday knitting session to raise funds for Help for Heroes. Hosted by the Conservatives. You’ll be invited to a range of non-Conservative community events. Advertised by the Conservatives. You can attend the Summer Party of the Mixed Group, to fundraise for the Christmas Lunch of local elderly people in sheltered housing. Hosted by the Conservative MP. You can help your MP to solve real local issues by joining him knocking on doors every few weeks – no need to wear the rosette if you don’t want to and everyone’s welcome to pub lunch afterwards. Run by the Conservatives. You can attend a Q&A fish ‘n’ chips event twice a year to quiz your MP on anything and everything. Run by the Conservatives.
At these events, mirrored across the country, helpers are working shoulder-to-shoulder with Conservatives to serve the community. When it comes to election time, the same helpers will be motivated to help us out not because of some membership card but because of the shared community service. The technology and the data-handling that helps us to manage this efficiently is new, but the community-building approach is where this Party has almost always excelled."
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2013/08/from-benedict_mc.html
Your model is producing garbage. You should be ashamed to post this stuff.
One would think then that it is possibly sub 90,000 then?
How many members do you think they lost in 2011 & 2012.
What happened to your prediction that Obama would never become President because you said he was not born in the US?
You went on endlessly
You have to argue that lack of awareness of an upcoming election date is likely to distort the findings to such an extent that they become completely invalid. I doubt you could make such a case persuasive. An argument that the findings should be treated with additional caution would probably prevail.
Whenever someone has tried to corner the market and control the price of something, its typically ended disastrously for that particular entity. Attempt to control silver by the Hunt brothers ended with them bankrupt when the bubble burst in 1980. And right now, the Federal Reserve despite $85bn monthly purchases of US Treasuries, is starting to lose control as evidenced by higher interest rates / lower bond prices.
And consider just how distorted the market for land in the UK is. Over 70% of UK land is owned by less than 1% of the population. I have sympathy with Fred Harrison's argument over a land tax, whilst reducing taxes on labour and capital. But this of itself is no good, unless you have a financial system which prohibits the build up of credit not tied to production, such as the 19th century gold standard.
In other words, pseudoscientific claptrap. RodCrosby, another sorry PB charlatan.
0% probability, I ask you...
I also happen to think he's a pretty good 'president.' Streets ahead of his immediate two predecessors, at any rate.
However there remain severe doubts as to his eligibility to be president. But just like certain other subjects it's easier for cowards to close down debate and falsify the record.
As a dogged litigant (when right is on my side) I have to agree both with
HL Mencken "Judge (definition): a law student who marks his own papers..." and
Alfred Wintle "it was not until my case reached the House of Lords that I met my intellectual equals..."
I thought that made a lot more sense than this, though. I don't really understand why Rod's using it the way he is.
The squeaking from Labourites is simply because they don't like the portents of the model's current output, which may get even worse as time passes...
We must wait and see. I trust tim et al will stick to (and be hoist by) their "only valid three months before an election" petard come February 2015...
Con 1254
UKIP 615
Lab 470
LD 114
EngDem 72
Con Hold
Once he established it produced a contrarian prediction of a Tory most vote share and seats victory, he was in his element.
Sir Roderick likes nothing more than to argue against the majority, be right and annoy the doubters in the process.
In other words, Rod's model is garbage. Because it's only got a cat in hell's chance of working if we are pretty much on the eve of an election, and even then it depends on what you choose to feed into it's grumbly guts.
In other words, pseudoscientific claptrap. RodCrosby, another sorry PB charlatan.
0% probability, I ask you...
Carl
As I told you before, the Lebo and Norpeth model is kind to Labour.
My private model predicts Labour's chances of an overall majority to be considerably less than 0%.
I am sure you are right. No doubt it's part of the contract that your private models take contraception.
The L&N model predicts the result based on polling data (principally leadership approval) two to three months before the (known) date of election. So a run on the July 2008 figures would predict a GE held in October 2008.
Sir Roderick's swingback theory predicts a GE result on the basis of by-election results during the previous term. It is not a 'three month forward' forecast. I expect the GE can fall at any time but best results come if it comes at the end of a 4 or 5 year term.
If both models are valid then you would expect convergence of predictions provided both followed their correct methodologies.
Would be interesting to hear from Sir R on whether he expects convergence and, if so, when.
17 year old Charley Hull is on the European team, as is Catriona Matthew, from North Berwick, near where my wife is from.
My personal favorite is Stacy Lewis on the US team - her story and struggle against the odds is an inspiring one. She was on David Feherty's Golf Channel program a couple of weeks back.
To me this is like the Ryder Cup - I can root for Rory, Lee, Ian and the rest on an individual level, but rooting for 'Europe' leaves me utterly cold. It's one thing to root for your country, but your continent is much less visceral.
So I shall root for Stacy and Catriona and Charley.
The requirement is that they participate in the following trials.
http://bit.ly/16qgh6L
I've read so many posts on here tonight about your model but none actually refer to the actual prediction!
Looking at the Solheim Cup opening ceremony, the US team look good in 'little back dresses' and sensible shoes, whereas the European team look like so many Hillary Clintons, in drab pant suits.
At least you are aware of your own weaknesses
Avery, the general concensus is frequently wrong, look at late 2007 for example. When (nearly) everyone is bullish on something like property or stocks, I'll always take the opposite side of the trade. Sentiment is one of the best reverse indicators going.
No argument here, hunchman. But the consensus is also more often right than wrong. The big news comes though when the consensus gets it badly wrong. As in 2007.
A contrarian is a economic terrorist. He only needs to get his prediction right once to succeed, The consensus establishment needs to get it right every time, which is impossible,
Many rulers, nowadays central banks, have tried to engineer soft landings in prices. Economic history clearly shows that financial bubbles just don't work that way. Name me an example where a bubble has ended in a soft landing? If I was in charge, I wouldn't be able to stop it, nor would you or anyone else.
Whenever someone has tried to corner the market and control the price of something, its typically ended disastrously for that particular entity. Attempt to control silver by the Hunt brothers ended with them bankrupt when the bubble burst in 1980. And right now, the Federal Reserve despite $85bn monthly purchases of US Treasuries, is starting to lose control as evidenced by higher interest rates / lower bond prices.
Again much of what you say is true. But again too is the fact that we only hear and talk about market interventions which go wrong rather than the vastly higher number that go right.
And there is a difference between a market participant trying to control a market (like the Hunts unsuccessfully or like Soros in the currency markets successfully) and the regulatory authorities like Central Banks and Treasuries.
Central Banks and Treasuries are much more bound to follow policy based on most likely outcome. There will always be misunderstandings and mistakes, and, external factors beyond control but these are part of the business of 'government'. Forecasts and policies are always changing to adapt to new environments and events.
And consider just how distorted the market for land in the UK is ....
Too late a night for this one!
Stacy Lewis is out early.
PM approval/two-party vote
which for the latest IPSOS/MORI gives 38/70 (or 54.3%, in other words Cameron is doing rather well)
Plugging this into the model chucks out a 6.4% vote lead (43 seat lead) for the Tories as the central forecast.
Monte Carlo methods (including uncertainty both about the poll and about the model) produce an 80% chance of a hung parliament, 20% chance of a Tory overall majority, 0% chance of a Labour majority.
Caveats include: there is no election scheduled in the immediate future and the model may not apply as previously to a coalition, etc.
Interesting, nonetheless?
Does the vote lead to seats calculation allow for incumbency etc? As you know I've previously posted that Peter Kellner reckons that Con have a realistic chance of a majority on a 5% vote lead - assuming LD does pretty badly.
Don't really want to debate that again now - but just wondering if it's assuming UNS for votes to seats?
Lab is currently approx 6% to 7% ahead. Then factor in:
- Swingback
- Improving economy
- Pre-election mini-boom
- Some pre-election giveaways
- The press absolutely hammering Miliband
- Conservative tax bombshell campaign
...... and I think it's perfectly plausible to think Con could get a vote lead of 6.4%.
Con went from level in the polls to an 8% vote lead in the last few DAYS in 1992.
2015 is going to be a carbon copy of 1992. The press are going to say Miliband = Kinnock and Cameron is going to go 100% on Labour will bankrupt the country, waste money and massively increase taxes - whereas Con will not put taxes up and reduce benefits.
It will be a campaign designed to frighten people and I expect it to produce a late swing. We also may see the return of "shy Tories" - ie people who won't admit voting Con but they'll do it in the ballot booth.
If the Tories do win a clear vote lead (perfectly possible) then Labour's chance of a majority is indeed zero (or infinitesimal, if you want to quibble), despite the squeaks of protest we've seen here today...
All I would say is that a 3% vote lead gave Lab a majority of 66 in 2005 whereas Kellner reckons Lab needs a 7% vote lead for a majority of 1 in 2015.
So if the 2005 votes to seats conversion is reflected at all in the model that may be a distortion.
But the above doesn't really matter. I personally would be very confident that Cameron would remain PM with a 6.4% vote lead as it would almost certainly mean at least a few Con seat gains, even if no majority - ie Con shouldn't lose any seats to Lab due to incumbency and Con should pick up at least a few seats from LD - even if only say 5 to 10. So I think Con should get 312 at the very least and probably 315 to 317.
Well the LibDems are the big unknown. The L&N model doesn't consider them. They have to be estimated separately. For the purposes of the overall forecast I've pegged them, rightly or wrongly, at 40 seats. I can give other HP/majority forecasts for varying levels of LDs seats
LD seats
20: 43% chance of Tory majority
30: 31% chance of a Tory majority
40: 20% chance of a Tory majority
50: 12% chance of a Tory majority
I've never alleged that Obama was not born in the USA. My (and others) argument, backed by USSC case law, is that he is ineligible owing to the fact that his father was not at the time of his birth, or at any other time, a US citizen - a fact acknowledged by Obama.
(* my family has an interest in the sector)
That's pretty much the consensus only - that Miliband is a drag on the ticket and that his weaknesses may be significant enough to offset Labour's structural advantages.
So, helpful but not very insightful
Doesn't look like it's local folks causing the problem
Sussex Police believe more people will arrive for a six-day camp organised by the No Dash For Gas group. [ELSEWHERE THE ARTICLE PREDICTS 40 --> 1,000]
It warned it would engage in mass civil disobedience - last year members occupied at West Burton power station in Nottinghamshire.
No Dash for Gas said: "There are two stories that could emerge from Balcombe this summer.
"It could be the place that paved the way for a dirty and dangerous method of fuel extraction to tear up the country, or it could be the place where a group of ordinary people inspired the world by taking back the power.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-23721713
Could Mark Senior please clarify: was it a nomination papers cock up, or did the LDs make a decision not to put up an official candidate this time, despite winning a very respectable 37% of the vote last time? Most parties do not simply abandon wards where they hold nearly 40% of the vote.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2395204/Sale-listings-firm-hand-Jeremy-Hunt-15m-propel-Cabinet-rich-list.html
Labour people are kind and gentle and wise and when they cup their hands together heavenly white pigeons are born.
Tories have evil, blackened hearts and kneel at the altar of money. Roughly treading on the heads of innocent newborns as they do so.
And the debt-crisis is a figment on the imagination of people who dare read a newspaper other than the Guardian.
Surely Guardian readers are bright enough to identify nuance and grey areas, and don't see the world through the prism of prejudice that Polly sees it through. She's as pointless as Dan Hodges.
But let's be fair here: Tories are happy to state that Labour hates the UK and its history, and supports immigration and welfare only in order to increase its vote.
Both sides have widespread prejudices about the other which are oft-voiced in every form of media.
Get to the end and this is what her message is:
"The most alarming response to Miliband's egging this week was the people who asked, "But why?" – utterly bewildered that anyone should have a strong feeling about him one way or the other. If he needs friends, he needs enemies too, as he needs definition.
Allies know him as clever, decent and determined, but the public hardly knows him yet. His messages vanish into air when he makes a key speech as if it were a dissertation to be marked, with no team follow-up."
"Labour needs an autumn bounce, not just a brilliant leader's speech forgotten in a day, but the start of a warm engagement with voters' hearts and minds that has been lacking until now. And it needs to keep its nerve."
I'm not up with who's who in opinion writing these days, but I read a Rafael Behr article the other day and was impressed. I came away feeling that I'd learned something. It was constructive and probing.
Three and a bit years in and the basic reality of where we are is that the economy hasn't gone as well as George Osborne hoped, Labour are not as far ahead in the polls as most people thought they would be, the coalition has been sturdier and less fraught than most thought it would be, the rise of Ukip is a enormous electoral threat to the Tories, Nick Clegg faces an extremely unenviable, arguably impossible task in winning back 2010 Lib Dem supporters and most interestingly of all, Ed Miliband has to find a formulation of policies that are bullet-proof and attractive to voters, against a backdrop of having no money to spend.
That all makes for a very interesting few years of politics - so there is plenty to write about. A less lazy writer would wrestle with those issues rather than resort to Tories are evil, Labour are good pieces. Any intelligent person knows the reality of the current finances (and we can argue till the cows come home over whose fault that is) mean that whoever is in power would be struggling not to displease millions of people.
Labour adviser Andrew Neather who said that that they deliberately encouraged immigration in order to change the make-up of Britain and ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity’?
But it was all brushed under the carpet. As Blair said: ‘Because our position was sophisticated enough - a sort of “confess and avoid”, as the lawyers say - we won out.’