Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB moves to an 11 percent lead with YouGov equalling it’s
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB moves to an 11 percent lead with YouGov equalling it’s best position since early April
The big thing is not the lead but the movement by 5% in the Labour share. This is a big conference bounce – the question is whether it can be sustained.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
IDS thinks Ant and Dec are running the country-He`s got that one right!
Could help burst the Ed Is Crap bubble though.
Otherwise you risk getting blown around by every ephemeral breeze.
Ed will then be very, very crap - despite it all being temporary conference inspired shifts in opinion.
I think you'll need the following:
http://www.ehow.com/how_2049858_make-tinfoil-hat.html
It is an analysis I happen to agree with. It's not as if I'm a sudden convert to this: I've been concerned about the possibility of brown- or black-outs since I've been on here, so I'm being entirely consistent.
Note that no-one on here has been able to say what Miliband did to enhance energy security whilst he was at DECC; indeed, he worsened it. It's no wonder the Labour supporters are so unable or unwilling to comprehend the new risks Miliband is creating.
I am alluding to the fact that the risk of blackouts as exaggerated by every right-wing rag in this country and the BBC in addition has not dampened down Labour`s poll bounce and rise in Miliband`s personal ratings.For they have cried `Wolf`long enough and noone believes the media except Tory supporters worried about Labour resurgence.
Miliband has backed price guarantees till 2030 so that actually backs long-term investment in this sector(this government has done so only till 2020).
Come back. The site needs you!
http://www.sterlingtimes.org/kitchener.jpg
As I say in previous posts, I'm not sure the risks are being exaggerated. My position before this announcement was that there was too much risk, and it was regularly discussed in the media based on OFGEM reports and other information. Others (notably RCS) take a different outlook to me. Do you really think Miliiband's announcement has helped matters?
Price guarantees are worthless when the same person backing them, also wants to introduce price capping. Try to put yourself into the energy companies place, and ask yourself about uncertainty and risk in the markets. I'll guarantee one thing: it'll be a lot higher than it was before the announcement. And uncertainty and risk effects investment.
Have you really looked into and pondered this, beyond the headlines?
Miliband was worse than hopeless whilst in charge at DECC - yet again, no-one defends him in that role. Do you really think he's learnt anything since then?
More in YouGov; Ed, and Labour are seen as having moved to the left, while Cameron, Clegg and their parties are broadly unmoved:
Some people talk about 'left', 'right' and 'centre' to describe parties and politicians. With this in mind, where would you place each of the following...?
Net 'left' (vs July 2012)
Labour: +31 (+7)
Conservative: -36 (0)
LibDem: +4 (-1)
Miliband: +33 (+6)
Cameron: -34 (-2)
Clegg: +2 (+1)
Yourself: +2 (+1)
As for the risks before this announcement, see:
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/jun/27/risk-power-blackouts-ofgem
From that well-known right-wing rag, the Guardian.
Reading that article, do you really think Miliband's announcement is going to *encourage* the industry to invest when it's needed, i.e. now? Or has he just increased the uncertainty and risk?
I hope it fades and goes into reverse before too long, as I am not an Ed fan.
I wonder what percentage of respondents were influenced by TV, papers, web sites or their peers in conversations. I raise the point, as we have had threads about the declining influence of papers, but this is a big shift, and the motivation to change was delivered by some means.
"Thinking about their policies and proposals, do you think the [PARTY] are or are not making promises that the country cannot afford? (net cannot)
Conservative: -1
Labour: +29
LibDem: +20
But Labour voters happy with REd:
Some people say that Labour has moved to the Left since electing Ed Miliband as its leader. Do you think this is...
OA (Labour VI)
True & good for Labour: 23 (43)
True & bad for Labour: 27 (9)
Untrue: 15 (24)
FWIW, uncertainty is the absolute worst thing in our sector. If you know what prices are going to be - with a reasonable degree of certainty or through a market which allows hedging - then you can plan investments. If pricing is the subject of government intervention almost on a whim then it is impossible to plan: billions of shareholder value could potentially be destroyed if a minister gets out of bed on the wrong side one morning.
Sounds great !
In a question and answer session at the Labour conference Ed Miliband said he would "bring back socialism" to Britain. Does this make you more or less likely to vote Labour, or does it make no difference?
More: 19
Less: 16
No diff - vote Lab anyway: 16
No diff - not vote Lab anyway: 34
The only demographic to split net 'less' is the 18-24 on net -4, all other ages split net +4.
Ed has played very well in the space that people are focused (rightly or not) on the cost of energy. He has positioned himself favorably on a the "something must be done; this is something; therefore this must be done" spectrum and grabbed a significant first mover advantage.
The issue is that his proposed "solution" is actively bad for the government, because it intervenes in the price setting mechanism (and is entirely disingenous given his personal responsibility for the climate change fee loading).
Other people have tried to equate this to a windfall tax - which it is not. Windfall taxes are objectionable because they are post-event confiscation (although this is offset by them being trailed in advance) but they don't actually damage planning: they just top-slice the returns available to investors.
My deep concern - as with Syria - is that EdM is so focused on power that he is actively damaging the country (and his ability to govern effectively) in his search for it.
Aren't a lot of union members Tory supporters?
If the Tory conference goes down the attack road they may not grab the poll reins back.
Signed pledge on tuition fees
No NHS top down reorg
No change to universal child benefit.
Preferred PM DC 30 EM 25 NC 5 Farage 9 DK 34 (which to me basically means people aren't seeing this question as giving anyone a decisive edge)
Only 5% would like to see the current coalition continue after 2015 - quite a remarkable figure IMO
Current Libdems would prefer a coalition with Labour than Cons by 60-32 (2010 LDs by 60-22)
"EdM bringing back socialism" has almost no effect on VI (net +3 to Labour in "more likely to support" but most don't care either way)
Support for developer penalties if they don't build despite extreme wording ("seize land") 53-30
Opposition to votes at 16 (61-30)
Overwhelming support (71-16) for shifting business rates from small to large businesses - perhaps Labour should be highlighting this more
Split votes on academies and free schools, but opposition to profit-making private schools; split votes on "more traditional" teaching methods (but UKIP voters like it by 59-20)
A lot of questions on left-right positions, generally not giving much traction to the idea that EdM has pulled Labour far left. People on average locate themselves precisely in the middle, where they also see the Libdems, and they are therefore all going to vote LibDem (oh wait...). But, awkwardly, Tories see them as leaning left, while Labour voters see them as leaning right.
Two cautions on all this: the figures reflect a good Labour conference, and they don't indicate salience - people might e.g. agree with the rates policy without really caring. However, it does bear out Mike's argument that the print media are a bit of a busted flush - the Mail, Sun etc. could hardly have been more hostile to the Labour conference (McBride, blackouts, back to the 70s etc.) with apparently zero effect.
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/zxldrzv2x9/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-270913.pdf
Get better value: -5
Investment in renewables would fall: +23
Power cuts caused by fall in investment: -29
Power company profits fall: +16
As regards,longer-term uncertainty perhaps you should impress this on the Tory party.For they plan to organise a EU referendum not now but in 2017 leading to years of uncertainty.
'Loads of other interesting questions in the YouGov:
Support for developer penalties if they don't build despite extreme wording ("seize land") 53-30
Opposition to votes at 16 (61-30)
Overwhelming support (71-16) for shifting business rates from small to large businesses - perhaps Labour should be highlighting this more'
And only 48 hours ago the YouGov poll showed the majority of voters not believing any of the policies would happen!
'Only a minority of voters – including a minority of Labour voters in some cases – think the Labour party will achieve the goals outlined in Ed Miliband's conference speech
Labour leader Ed Miliband’s speech on Tuesday at the 2013 Labour Party Conference reportedly delighted supporters in the crowd, but a new Yougov poll for The Sun reveals that voters are highly sceptical of the Labour Party’s ability to achieve some of the key policies raised in the speech.
The pledge voters are most likely to think a hypothetical Labour Government could achieve is lowering the voting age to 16, which 37% of voters think Labour would achieve and 36% think it would not achieve. Fewer than a third of voters have confidence Labour could improve the NHS (31%), freeze gas and electricity prices for two years (30%) or build 200,000 new houses a year by 2020 (25%), while about half of the public (49%, 50% and 50%, respectively) is openly doubtful that Labour could keep these three promises.'
This talk of conference bounce is just a demonstration of how superficial and fickle a substantial part of the electorate is. Is Ed M really a different person to last week?
We can expect some crude populism shortly from the Tories, probably on Laura Norder, then get back to much the same.
Nick P thinks the sands of time are running out, and that the absence of major black swan events will hand Ed Miliband the keys to number 10.
I would not mind a Milliband govt, which would probably be good for me personally, but all these poll bounces do is demonstrate to me that the electorate is volatile, and that it would not take much of a shift to leave the LibDems holding the balance of power. I would see that as a good thing.
& No more boom and bust
" When people cease participating in wealth creation and become dependent on others creating wealth for them then the premiums paid to those responsible for creating and distributing that wealth will rise.
A pension fund manager (whose shareholder power is greatest) is far more interested in the returns on his investments than in the fairness of rewards paid to those who deliver his returns. Executive pay is insignificant when measured against the value to his fund and its pensioners of increases in returns. "
Except that returns on investments have been mediocre over the last decade as anyone with a personal pension, endowment mortgage or life assurance policy will confirm.
While at the same time executive earnings have far oupaced not only returns on investment but employee earnings as well. In effect the shareholders have had the fruits of their investment stolen and the workers have had the fruits of their labour stolen.
By a self-rewarding and self-perpetuating executive class who have safeguarded themselves from the effects of failure. Who then stand as monuments to corporate catastrophe from Marconi to the banks. Aside from the immediate damage these disasters did to the shareholders and employees, and in the case of the banks to the wider economy, they also severely tarnished the image of free-market capitalism. Even in the years when returns are good how much is that because of the abilities of the executives - very little I suspect.
And who among the pension funds etc ultimately decides on their support for the executive class? More executives, people with a vested interest in the present corrupted form of capitalism continuing.
It's more important in changing people's world view by influencing the way they think over a longer period of time than in changing VI as the result of an overnight switch.
A good (?) example of this is the Mail's focus on welfare benefit cheats. Given that there seems to be a long story about this every week or so, is it any wonder that Mail readers assume that there is a higher incidence of fraud than actually occurs? To the extent that this subsequently influences VI that can be important.
So, if they maintain their hostility to EdM over the next 18 months that could be important: I don't think an anti-Cameron 15 months plus a volte-face (or a reluctant 'best of a bad lot' endorsement) would have been that powerful. 18 months of support may be more influential.
With 20 months to go, the Tories should be able to destroy left wing labour. If Labour do get in, its definitely time to leave the country.
couldn't run a whelk stall, etc.
tim, tim, come out tim, tim, tim, stop hiding tim, tim, come on stop playing around tim, tim, tim, tim................................
Miliband shares Brown's lack of restraint his willingness to play outside the normal rules when it comes to getting what he wants. It will kill him politically eventually but it could propel him dangerously far to start with, as it did Brown.
* Note - this applies to all parties and their publicity-grabbing policies; I'm distinctly uneasy about the HTB scheme as well.
If an energy company doesn't want to produce energy at below marginal cost how do they know the government might not say 'use it or lose it' over their assets.
So why would they invest in new assets which firstly might be loss making and secondly might be seized by the government.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/health/419562/A-E-at-crisis-point-Untrained-NHS-111-staff-send-ambulances-to-250-000-more-emergencies
http://www.express.co.uk/news/health/419550/NHS-debt-crisis-may-close-a-string-of-hospitals
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/432001/NHS-complaints-rise-amid-crisis-of-too-few-beds-and-nurses
More generally, the most marked media bias is to negativism - they're all crap, only your newspaper reveals how crap they are. That corrodes trust in all mainstream parties and nourishes UKIP and the like.
An interesting poll would be "When you see political news, which do you tend to think first:
1. "I wonder whether this news will benefit my favoured party or not?"
2. "Does this news affect my party preference?"
On pb, I suspect that answer 1 would be the predominant one if we all answered honestly, since we're mostly dug into our beliefs that party X is better. I wonder about the electorate (apart from those who say "3. I turn the page and hope to see a topless model"). The football team analogy (which is basically option 1) is pretty strong.
The fundamental point is that the patient needs to be first and they need a champion to help them navigate the system. The primary care provider is the obvious nominee for this role. Lansley's plans are over complex (in part due to the LibDems interference) but if they can achieve this core goal it will be a significant improvement.
How long is it until the toxicity of the Lib-Con coalition taints Darling's Bitter Together outfit?
http://youtu.be/Ys3RIax_AAo
So I'm not surprised it appears to get blown away rapidly.
Things that impact the real world are much more potent. I suspect the media will struggle with the 'risk of brownout' story because it is a very complex multi-step process to get from A (price controls) to B (brownouts), but it has more potential than 'Ed is crap'.
edit: he was a lawyer, a busybody and then a Labour minister.
Site layout's gone funny.
Assuming not related.
When even the Labour party has come to the conclusion that the countries' credit card is maxed out and we cannot afford to bribe people with their own (or their childrens' money) any more they come up with a wheeze by which they are to be bribed with someone elses'. And the people cry for more.
Not as sad as Moyes but sad enough. Bah!
1. Weak, weak Ed.
2. Ed is rEd.
3. Of course, the latest Dan Hodges article why an Ed bounce is bad for Ed and good for the Tories.
Also:
Ed Miliband has said that a Labour government
after the next election would force energy
companies to freeze their prices for twenty
months.
If this happened how likely do you think it is
that...
Ordinary people would get better value energy
and not face big price rises
Likely/Unlikely: 42/47
The amount of money that energy companies
invested in renewable and green energy would
fall
Likely/Unlikely: 58/25
There would be power cuts and power
shortages from a lack of investment?
Likely/Unlikely:27/56
Energy companies would see their profits fall?
Likely/Unlikely: 53/37
Thinking about their policies and proposals, do
you think the Labour party are or are not making
promises that the country cannot afford?
Are making policies country cannot afford:52
Are not making policies country cannot afford: 23
Making GCSEs and A-Levels harder?
Support:54
Oppose: 21
Even if he was the token Tory minister I stand by my view that he is a waste of space. In fact I would go further: he is symbolic of the kind of business man who lives from lobbying and manipulating regulation to try and game the system in their favour. That's ultimately a destructive way to do business.
Methinks there's a lot of hypocrisy about.
I did approve of the school meals policy. It seemed to me that there was a clear universal benefit from that that made it worth the cost.
The point is that any government spending or tax cuts have to take place in a very small envelope and amount to not much more than gestures until the deficit is eliminated. Using someone else's money was quite inspired. Dishonest and economically damaging of course, but inspired none the less.
Fixing prices destroys the key information flow which allows supply and demand to find its natural levels. If the government was to pass a rule saying that banks must charge x% for mortgages I would be as opposed to that as I am to energy price fixing. Offering to underwrite a portion of the risk in such a way that prices should come down is very different - you can certainly argue whether it is a good thing or not - but you can't equate the two.
You like to use the word hypocrisy a lot, but I wonder if you really understand what it means. Here is a helpful definition for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy
2010: 65%
2005: 67%
2001: 72%
1997: 74%
Or should Miliband propose a freeze on house prices too?
How long is it until the toxicity of the Lib-Con coalition taints Darling's Bitter Together outfit?
hand out the bits they have poisoned , just what you would expect from these dullards. Hopefully Salmond will debate with Darling and when wiping the floor with him will ask how a failed , millionaire flipping back bench LABOUR MP is representing the UK government on what it can and will do on Independence. Meanwhile big cowardy custard will be hiding behind the couch. The fact that cowardly Cameron chose a Labour MP to represent the UK government rather than the hapless Scottish Secretary says it all about the unionists.
I dislike both of them but your sort of partisan response is just rubbish. Just like you trying to compare numbers from one polling company with another and then claiming a trend.
Careful interventions in the market can make sense, provided they are proportional and time limited. But Miliband is not "intervening in the market" to try and influence the behaviour of independent actors. He is fixing the market. There is a difference
Bit like the Man U defence these days. Pointless discussions until post all conferences on polls.
Two consecutive conference speeches od Ed have now received favourable response. It will have a cumulative effect. In addition, coming just after the Syrian debate that would be enhanced.
The public views the Syrian situation [ intervention ] completely differently from PBTories or Tory media types.
One is changing the inputs to a market and then letting it find an equilibrium. It's a crap idea, but it's fully using markets to give a decent end result.
The other is just saying,**** this, the price is X.
Utilities were privatised because it was supposed to be the best way to deliver services to consumers at the best possible price. Shareholders benefited from the monopoly. But if it's not working out a government has every right to look again at the arrangements. In the same way, private ownership of the land in the country we all live in is based on consent. If the way in which that ownership is exercised does not benefit the country then it is perfectly reasonable to look again at current arrangements.
Far from being opportunistic, Ed's announcements strike me is very significant breaks with what has been a 30-year market-driven political consensus in which the priorities of institutional investors, big companies and big finance have been seen as mirroring the best interests of all of us. Ed is challenging that consensus. I am not sure I fully agree with him, but he is spot on in saying what we have had under both Tory and Labour administrations since the 80s is not a model that works anymore. We need a new one.
Can you fix your graph please. Surely "OTH" should be minus-three. *
If I am correct then it is pure-noise being measured or the death of Welsh and Scots nationalism, no? Somehow I doubt it is the latter....
* 5/8 ~= a fall of forty-percent support. UKIP and other minor-parties like - ahm, that Dutch-led Euro-Party; Losing-Demagogues [?] - are not included in the afore-mentioned analysis.
Genius.
@David_Cameron: Great to meet @HAIMtheband on Marr - looking forward to listening to the album they gave me. http://t.co/kihm9ABU02
@AmberSkyNews: And the beer in 'Red Ed Lion pub'. Like 'Miliband Ale: Weaker than Brown', altho a little early for all this #cpc13 http://t.co/6lNxfA3nSa
It is as trying tp explaining the mean of "truth" to a three-year old. Erikkson would probably place him ["REd"] in his third-stage of personality dvelopment.
'What a load of Tory tosh. Ed Miliband has done the morally right thing to promise to repeal the evil bedroom tax '
If Ed Miliband is so morally right,why has he not promised to repeal the evil bedroom tax Labour imposed on the private sector rental market?