Mr. Away, we could always discuss my 70/1 winning tip on Button to win the 2009 title instead
I hope they bring back refuelling. Without it, such a tip is very unlikely to occur again.
For those wondering why: the lack of refuelling now means the fuel tank is big enough for a whole race worth's of fuel. This increases enormously the variation in time due to fuel load (something daft like 8s, give or take). At the same time, no refuelling has led to mandatory tyre changes, and therefore to tyres made of crumbly (and occasionally explosive) cheese. This means that tyres add even more variation to lap times.
In short, the times from testing are almost worthless (the mood music is a better guide nowadays). In 2009 and earlier, testing times were a better guide. I didn't pay attention before 2009, but in that year they clearly, and correctly, pointed to a Brawn victory.
Ooo this is turning into an ugly 'pile on tim' session. I know I've made some negative points about tim in the recent past. (Which I regret. A bit.)
This all seems a bit much though.
The site has become much more factional, tetchy and downright bitchy over the last two weeks. Don't know why but it can't be just down to one individual, not matter how prolific or confrontational they are. Ricardohos is at least (if not more) to blame over the recent flare-up.
Personally I am sick of reading about this bet between tim and Richardohos. This site is good at times (was very good once) but can become ridiculous and petty with even the owner joining in mocking stakes and being incredulous at the terms of a bet. I don't know why you support Tim the way you do Mike (it was a lot better reading this site during the time Tim made his 9999th comment and his 10,000th. ). I understand its not a commercial operation you run Mike because if it were I doubt Tim woudl exist on here by now . I am surprised nobody Tim sneers at on here (I mean politicians rather than fellow punters ) has complained personally.
Please spare us the overdone fake righteous indignation.
We often hear laments on PB about the lack of betting, and about how topics stray away from betting implications.
There are many reasons for this: off-site betting and the electoral cycle being two biggies.
It's therefore a shame that when there's a small bet between two of our contributors, one of the participants takes the piss. It's hardly likely to encourage others to place bets ...
A lot of betting between posters on here ends in tears with those who made the wagers clearing off when they found that they had lost.
I'm personally down £500 after one such instance and most of the regular gamblers have all been hit.
So you have to be very careful about the terms of the bet and who the wager is with.
That's fair comment and a good point, and I'm sorry for your £500 loss which is a heck of a lot.
I find all the repetitive posts from the same old suspects about "Tim this, Tim that" the most tedious and unappealing aspect of this site. It is extraordinary that people can be so obsessed by one poster. Oh, and the whines about PB's bias. Note to whiners: not reporting something in exactly the way you would like it to be reported is not bias; the bias is entirely yours.
It's not obsession, it's observation:
"tim Posts: 11,486"
tim's comments probably constitute about 30% of the site. He is by far the most prolific commenter; his assiduousness is borderline pathological.
When one commenter takes up so much time and makes such an inhuman effort - and is so vitriolic to boot - they rather set the tone, and will therefore be the subject of internal debate.
So your point is illogical and your thinking banal. No change there then.
Internet forums die of underposting, not overposting. Anyone who thinks tim posts too much should post more to dilute him.
And as for his stalkers, whether you think their hearts are in the right place or not, they are just embarrassingly bad at it.
I find all the repetitive posts from the same old suspects about "Tim this, Tim that" the most tedious and unappealing aspect of this site. It is extraordinary that people can be so obsessed by one poster. Oh, and the whines about PB's bias. Note to whiners: not reporting something in exactly the way you would like it to be reported is not bias; the bias is entirely yours.
Tim has over 11,400 posts since the site was rebooted, many thousands more than the nearest contributor (double? triple?). Perhaps he gets more comments said about him because he is so much more visible, and also exceptionally forthright (if not actually right).
Tim's contributions often dominate this site. You tend to agree with them, so perhaps you don't notice them as much.
No one would be happier than me if there were more intelligent Tories who know about betting posting on here, but there aren't. Hopefully in the election run up that will change.
You're at it again. You just can't help yourself.
Everyone knows 'intelligent Tories' is an oxymoron .
When one commenter takes up so much time and makes such an inhuman effort - and is so vitriolic to boot - they rather set the tone, and will therefore be the subject of internal debate.
SeanT deplores vitriolic comments? In other news, the Pope endorses Allah and bears demand indoor plumbing.
I try not to comment on other posters at all, and usually regret it when I do. But it's fair to note that although tim is the most prolific poster he's also one of the briefest, condensing a thought into a single succinct jab. Those of us who rattle on at length (yes, me included) could learn from it.
That's the best economic optimism figure since 1997, other than the peak reached when the 2008 crisis was receding in early 2009.
What should hearten the PB Tory faithful is that optimism levels are starting from a very low point and rising fast.
Which means there is much ground to be made up and plenty of time to get there.
ONS @statisticsONS #Retail sales quarter on quarter growth of 1.5% highest since March 2008 bit.ly/GQZ8bB
If I were a
Cold noreasterly off the North Sea again, ar?
You need to square your analysis with the fact that the household savings ratio has risen and been higher than trend under the coalition government, households and individuals have reduced their net borrowings and household consumption has been flat over the past three years.
In addition, Government consumption as a share of UK Gross Final Expenditure has fallen from 17.1% (Q2 2010) to 15.6% (Q2 2013) and exports have risen from 23% to 24% over the same period.
Almost all the trends are in the right direction although you will no doubt be dissatisfied with the distance travelled.
Nonetheless my half-time pep talk to the PB Tory team is to be patient: "slowly, slowly catchee monkey".
I better be one effing huge monkey Mr Pole, this is the slowest recovery in living memory.
Surely double first, widely travelled, best-selling author Mr Hos is better off than most of us (perhaps not you, admittedly). Even little-old-impoverished me thinks the gap between his braggadocio and his miserly staking is pretty hilarious.
Given that Wonga's lending model is criticised due to high rates of interest, it does appear that the firm has been operating since 2006. Why has Labour taken so long to go after it?
When one commenter takes up so much time and makes such an inhuman effort - and is so vitriolic to boot - they rather set the tone, and will therefore be the subject of internal debate.
SeanT deplores vitriolic comments? In other news, the Pope endorses Allah and bears demand indoor plumbing.
I try not to comment on other posters at all, and usually regret it when I do. But it's fair to note that although tim is the most prolific poster he's also one of the briefest, condensing a thought into a single succinct jab. Those of us who rattle on at length (yes, me included) could learn from it.
In other words, his contributions would be ideal for Twitter. And we all know what too many tweets make ...
I find all the repetitive posts from the same old suspects about "Tim this, Tim that" the most tedious and unappealing aspect of this site. It is extraordinary that people can be so obsessed by one poster. Oh, and the whines about PB's bias. Note to whiners: not reporting something in exactly the way you would like it to be reported is not bias; the bias is entirely yours.
It's not obsession, it's observation:
"tim Posts: 11,486"
tim's comments probably constitute about 30% of the site. He is by far the most prolific commenter; his assiduousness is borderline pathological.
When one commenter takes up so much time and makes such an inhuman effort - and is so vitriolic to boot - they rather set the tone, and will therefore be the subject of internal debate.
So your point is illogical and your thinking banal. No change there then.
For every post that tim makes there are normally two other posts rising to his bait. There's a reason that the web has the common refrain of "Do not feed the trolls".
In times gone past, when jails were not affordable, one form of community punishment was to ostracise a member of the community who had erred. If no-one rose to tim's baiting, and simply ignored him, then he'd pretty soon give up.
Mr. Crosby, whilst I'd very much be relieved at a 0% prospect of Comrade Miliband inflicting his socialist vision upon Britain I must admit I can't see that being the case.
That said, you were entirely right about swingback during the last term of Parliament, and the vast majority were wrong about how that turned out.
For those who haven’t yet read the Atul Hatwal article on Labour Uncut, here’s a précis:
Second Series: The story so far
Geeky Ed has been hated by Bruiser Ed every since Geeky Ed stabbed Brother David in the back and leapfrogged Andy and Bruiser Ed to steal the leadership after Gordon copped it. The rivalries go back much further – some say as far back as their student days when the two Eds both fancied Stephanie (she’s now sold out and become a banker), but certainly to the time when they were both working for Gordon and there was a big row when Geeky Ed and Wee Dougie were shafted by Damian over Gordon’s cock-up (First Series, Programme 2). Anyway Bruiser Ed is seething and he makes little effort to conceal his contempt for Geeky Ed, but he is biding his time, hoping his wife Yvette will be able to steal back the leadership when Geeky Ed slips up. But Geeky Ed has seen this coming and to spike Yvette’s guns he’s taken the Mumsnet portfolio away from her and given it to sexy Gloria who’s trying to prevent topless photos of her being published. Geeky Ed also showed his ruthless side by demoting Liam, Wee Dougie and Jim, so they are seething too along with Stephen who was also demoted but who gets no sympathy because everyone agrees he is useless. Meanwhile Andy, who’s also plotting against Geeky Ed, pulled a fast one by being so strident and ineffective that he got Dave to challenge Geeky Ed to sack Andy, which meant Geeky Ed couldn’t sack him because it would look like Geeky Ed was being bossed about by Dave. In a sub-plot, Chuka (who likes to be called Barack) has been getting too big for his boots so Geeky Ed has taken him down a peg or two by being nice to Tristram instead.
Principal Characters:
Geeky Ed (Oxford, PPE) Bruiser Ed (Oxford, PPE) Brother David (Oxford, PPE) Yvette (Oxford, PPE) Dave (Oxford, PPE) and, providing diversity, Andy (Cambridge, English)
When one commenter takes up so much time and makes such an inhuman effort - and is so vitriolic to boot - they rather set the tone, and will therefore be the subject of internal debate.
SeanT deplores vitriolic comments? In other news, the Pope endorses Allah and bears demand indoor plumbing.
I try not to comment on other posters at all, and usually regret it when I do. But it's fair to note that although tim is the most prolific poster he's also one of the briefest, condensing a thought into a single succinct jab. Those of us who rattle on at length (yes, me included) could learn from it.
A cogent and well placed point NPxMP as ever when on the whole 'him' debate that breaks out every so often here.
Strangely you failed to provide any support to yesterday's hobby horse which we enjoyed 103 posts on - namely the central role that Cameron played in the Plebgate saga and his 3-month cover up to help the plod?
I took your total silence as disagreement on that matter - unless I missed a post from you which I apologise if I did?
For those who haven’t yet read the Atul Hatwal article on Labour Uncut, here’s a précis:
snip
Principal Characters:
Geeky Ed (Oxford, PPE) Bruiser Ed (Oxford, PPE) Brother David (Oxford, PPE) Yvette (Oxford, PPE) Dave (Oxford, PPE) and, providing diversity, Andy (Cambridge, English)
About time the energy companies engaged in a fight to the death.
Eh? So there are fewer to compete with each than now? Sometimes I really do wonder...
There's no chance of new entrants entering the market then? That would suggest the market is not working properly. I thought right-wingers LIKED the Darwinian nature of competitive capitalism. Seems to be a lack of concern about the cosy world of the energy industry. Does the right believe in capitalism tooth and claw or just buttering up fat cats?
When one commenter takes up so much time and makes such an inhuman effort - and is so vitriolic to boot - they rather set the tone, and will therefore be the subject of internal debate.
SeanT deplores vitriolic comments? In other news, the Pope endorses Allah and bears demand indoor plumbing.
I try not to comment on other posters at all, and usually regret it when I do. But it's fair to note that although tim is the most prolific poster he's also one of the briefest, condensing a thought into a single succinct jab. Those of us who rattle on at length (yes, me included) could learn from it.
I must disagree with you . Your posts are always thought out and interesting to read. I am not sure many come on here to read sneering one or two liners (tim's forte) , its not or wasn't that kind of site. Horese for courses I suppose but ,as somebody said, Tim is better suited to Twitter (he would have competition from Alistair Campbell of course).
No point running through your faulty logic on L&N yet again, but as a matter of interest what is your swingback theory showing at the moment?
There's no faulty logic, no more than there is in an opinion poll which asks "If there was an election tomorrow".
Swingback is currently forecasting a Labour lead of 1.6% but it would only take one crap by-election performance between now and 2015 for it to nudge over into a forecast Tory lead.
In any event, I expect the various forecasts to converge...
No point running through your faulty logic on L&N yet again, but as a matter of interest what is your swingback theory showing at the moment?
There's no faulty logic, no more than there is in an opinion poll which asks "If there was an election tomorrow".
Swingback is currently forecasting a Labour lead of 1.6% but it would only take one crap by-election performance between now and 2015 for it to nudge over into a forecast Tory lead.
In any event, I expect the various forecasts to converge...
Are you not concerned about the nature of the swing being different in this mid-term? Very few Tory 2010 voters have gone Labour, instead swingback is relying on Lab>LibD and UKIP>Con. We're in different territory.
When one commenter takes up so much time and makes such an inhuman effort - and is so vitriolic to boot - they rather set the tone, and will therefore be the subject of internal debate.
...It's fair to note that although tim is the most prolific poster he's also one of the briefest, condensing a thought into a single succinct jab....
Nick
tim's posts are full of the milk of human kindness.
But I fear the milk is more "evaporated" than "condensed".
For those who haven’t yet read the Atul Hatwal article on Labour Uncut, here’s a précis:
Second Series: The story so far
Geeky Ed has been hated by Bruiser Ed every since Geeky Ed stabbed Brother David in the back and leapfrogged Andy and Bruiser Ed to steal the leadership after Gordon copped it. The rivalries go back much further – some say as far back as their student days when the two Eds both fancied Stephanie (she’s now sold out and become a banker), but certainly to the time when they were both working for Gordon and there was a big row when Geeky Ed and Wee Dougie were shafted by Damian over Gordon’s cock-up (First Series, Programme 2). Anyway Bruiser Ed is seething and he makes little effort to conceal his contempt for Geeky Ed, but he is biding his time, hoping his wife Yvette will be able to steal back the leadership when Geeky Ed slips up. But Geeky Ed has seen this coming and to spike Yvette’s guns he’s taken the Mumsnet portfolio away from her and given it to sexy Gloria who’s trying to prevent topless photos of her being published. Geeky Ed also showed his ruthless side by demoting Liam, Wee Dougie and Jim, so they are seething too along with Stephen who was also demoted but who gets no sympathy because everyone agrees he is useless. Meanwhile Andy, who’s also plotting against Geeky Ed, pulled a fast one by being so strident and ineffective that he got Dave to challenge Geeky Ed to sack Andy, which meant Geeky Ed couldn’t sack him because it would look like Geeky Ed was being bossed about by Dave. In a sub-plot, Chuka (who likes to be called Barack) has been getting too big for his boots so Geeky Ed has taken him down a peg or two by being nice to Tristram instead.
Principal Characters:
Geeky Ed (Oxford, PPE) Bruiser Ed (Oxford, PPE) Brother David (Oxford, PPE) Yvette (Oxford, PPE) Dave (Oxford, PPE) and, providing diversity, Andy (Cambridge, English)
Bravo, Richard.
Have you been eyeing Sean's US bids for publishing rights?
What I find slightly surprising is that Ed has had a very good month (whatever your take on the battles with Dacre and price caps the polls back this up) and Labour's policy announcements have been well received (again backed up by polling) but the Tories have narrowed the gap a bit. Presumably in response to better economic data? One would expect economic data to continue to improve for the next while.
No point running through your faulty logic on L&N yet again, but as a matter of interest what is your swingback theory showing at the moment?
There's no faulty logic, no more than there is in an opinion poll which asks "If there was an election tomorrow".
Swingback is currently forecasting a Labour lead of 1.6% but it would only take one crap by-election performance between now and 2015 for it to nudge over into a forecast Tory lead.
In any event, I expect the various forecasts to converge...
Are you not concerned about the nature of the swing being different in this mid-term? Very few Tory 2010 voters have gone Labour, instead swingback is relying on Lab>LibD and UKIP>Con. We're in different territory.
Presumably a fair bit of the swing in previous parliaments will have been Government -> Lib or Government -> Stay-At-Home, which is exactly equivalent in swingback terms to Government -> UKIP.
Interesting comments regarding the Thurrock by election
"There were a number of by-elections across the country on Thursday 26th September.
There are the UKIP percentage of the votes:-
Barnsley, Wombwell – 24.6% from nowhere Blackpool, Highfield – 22.8% from nowhere Cherwell, Banbury Ruscote – 16% Forest of Dean, Coleford East – 29.3% from nowhere Forest of Dean, Redmarley – 23.5% from nowhere Mid Devon – Way – 15.2% from nowhere Mole Valley, Mickleham, West Humble & Pixham – 13.3% from nowhere Sevenoaks, Crokenhill & Well Hill – 35.7% UKIP gain seat from Labour. Tendring, St James – 21.9% from nowhere West Sussex, Storrington – 32.2% from nowhere
These are the previous results for Stifford Clays
THURROCK – Stifford Clays
2011 – Lab 877, Con 523, UKIP 475, LD 68 2010 – Lab 1184, Con 1108, UKIP 642, BNP 249 2007 – Lab 762, Con 632, BNP 435 2006 – Con 829, Lab 795, LD 296 "
When one commenter takes up so much time and makes such an inhuman effort - and is so vitriolic to boot - they rather set the tone, and will therefore be the subject of internal debate.
...It's fair to note that although tim is the most prolific poster he's also one of the briefest, condensing a thought into a single succinct jab....
Nick
tim's posts are full of the milk of human kindness.
But I fear the milk is more "evaporated" than "condensed".
Stewart Jackson had a glass poured over his head.
That must be why so many MPs are happy to post here in the open.
A possible explanation of why the tories are doing better in the polls during a time of favourable Labour announcments about energy prices may be that the time to physicaly pay these energy bills has not yet arrived (big bill shocks come usually around February time). Another is that people may take the view that if all Labour will do is have an artificial price freeze for 20 months and think that is it then they don't deserve their vote.
Are you not concerned about the nature of the swing being different in this mid-term? Very few Tory 2010 voters have gone Labour, instead swingback is relying on Lab>LibD and UKIP>Con. We're in different territory.
While 'swing' is certainly a simplification, it remains the standard way of forecasting elections under FPTP.
No forecast based on swing should be taken as gospel, although it is an excellent guide to the likely 'shape' of the result.
The variations you mention may knock the outcome off the central forecast one way or another, but not by much.
What I find slightly surprising is that Ed has had a very good month (whatever your take on the battles with Dacre and price caps the polls back this up) and Labour's policy announcements have been well received (again backed up by polling) but the Tories have narrowed the gap a bit. Presumably in response to better economic data? One would expect economic data to continue to improve for the next while.
It's consistent with what we were seeing before, which is that Labour voters and lefty 2010 LibDems thought Ed Miliband was a bit rubbish, but were going to vote for him anyway. When his ratings dropped it didn't seem to affect the Labour totals, which stayed on whatever trend they were on. They now think he's OK, and they're still going to vote for him.
No point running through your faulty logic on L&N yet again, but as a matter of interest what is your swingback theory showing at the moment?
There's no faulty logic, no more than there is in an opinion poll which asks "If there was an election tomorrow".
Swingback is currently forecasting a Labour lead of 1.6% but it would only take one crap by-election performance between now and 2015 for it to nudge over into a forecast Tory lead.
In any event, I expect the various forecasts to converge...
For the swingback on the basis of by-election swings to converge with your current L&N forecast there would need to be 14 by-elections where the average Labour-Tory swing was zero. That would be monumentally crap indeed.
To nudge the by-election swing average by 1.7%, to give a 0.1% Tory lead with swingback, in a single by-election would require a swing from Labour to Conservative of 17%. Roughly of Crewe & Nantwich proportions. I'm sure tim would offer you a bet on it...
In a sub-plot, Chuka (who likes to be called Barack) has been getting too big for his boots so Geeky Ed has taken him down a peg or two by being nice to Tristram instead.
That's 'The Honourable Tristram "I've gor a PhD from Cambridge you know" Hunt, to you, moosh.
Otherwise, top drawer.....or in the case of 'tits out Gloria' top shelf....
Surely double first, widely travelled, best-selling author Mr Hos is better off than most of us (perhaps not you, admittedly). Even little-old-impoverished me thinks the gap between his braggadocio and his miserly staking is pretty hilarious.
Possibly (although I'm just a wage slave, albeit with some well off cousins)
You can't read anything into stakes though - I rarely bet more than a tenner because I do it for fun rather than to make or lose money
In a sub-plot, Chuka (who likes to be called Barack) has been getting too big for his boots so Geeky Ed has taken him down a peg or two by being nice to Tristram instead.
That's 'The Honourable Tristram "I've gor a PhD from Cambridge you know" Hunt, to you, moosh.
Otherwise, top drawer.....or in the case of 'tits out Gloria' top shelf....
I've just seen the Gloria story and am a trifle gobsmacked - she posed topless when 15yrs old to for money so she could buy clothes?
What I find slightly surprising is that Ed has had a very good month (whatever your take on the battles with Dacre and price caps the polls back this up) and Labour's policy announcements have been well received (again backed up by polling) but the Tories have narrowed the gap a bit. Presumably in response to better economic data? One would expect economic data to continue to improve for the next while.
It's consistent with what we were seeing before, which is that Labour voters and lefty 2010 LibDems thought Ed Miliband was a bit rubbish, but were going to vote for him anyway. When his ratings dropped it didn't seem to affect the Labour totals, which stayed on whatever trend they were on. They now think he's OK, and they're still going to vote for him.
The main movement in recent months appears to have been from UKIP to Conservative. Right-wing opinion writers will tell you that Ed's coming out as a Marxist will encourage this, because it will give potential UKIP voters more of a reason to vote Conservative to stop Miliband, but it seems to have been a gradual decline due to less UKIP media prominence with no Westminster by-elections to give them publicity.
The question then is whether the general election campaign will be more like the party conference season, or more like recent by-election campaigns, in terms of the media exposure for Farage et al.
About time the energy companies engaged in a fight to the death.
Eh? So there are fewer to compete with each than now? Sometimes I really do wonder...
There's no chance of new entrants entering the market then? That would suggest the market is not working properly. I thought right-wingers LIKED the Darwinian nature of competitive capitalism. Seems to be a lack of concern about the cosy world of the energy industry. Does the right believe in capitalism tooth and claw or just buttering up fat cats?
We don't have a free market in electricity, or banks or many other sector.
We have a corporatist structure, where big companies cosy up to government to try and get regulations put in place to squeeze out competition.
Afternoon all, so after the outlier from ICM with the Tories and Labour on 36/36 and another outlier from YouGov showing the Tories and Labour on 36/36 we now have an outlier from IpsosMori showing those certain to vote with Tories and Labour on 35/35.
Seem to be a growing number of outliers from different polling companies. Goodness knows the reaction of some when we get the next outlier with Tories 37 and Labour 36
In a sub-plot, Chuka (who likes to be called Barack) has been getting too big for his boots so Geeky Ed has taken him down a peg or two by being nice to Tristram instead.
That's 'The Honourable Tristram "I've gor a PhD from Cambridge you know" Hunt, to you, moosh.
Otherwise, top drawer.....or in the case of 'tits out Gloria' top shelf....
I've just seen the Gloria story and am a trifle gobsmacked - she posed topless when 15yrs old to for money so she could buy clothes?
Isn't that illegal as she was a minor?
Possibly there was parental consent - this is one case where I think a dignified silence might serve Gloria better - they'll come out sooner or later, sooner better. "Yes I was a looker. It's over 20 years ago. Move on."
Surely double first, widely travelled, best-selling author Mr Hos is better off than most of us (perhaps not you, admittedly). Even little-old-impoverished me thinks the gap between his braggadocio and his miserly staking is pretty hilarious.
Possibly (although I'm just a wage slave, albeit with some well off cousins)
You can't read anything into stakes though - I rarely bet more than a tenner because I do it for fun rather than to make or lose money
Indeed. Some of the wealthiest people I know are also the tightest, especially if they don't like the odds.
So, back to the poll or rather, as Easterross puts it, polls plural. With 19 months to go and the economic recovery under way, and rising house prices, how many people on here seriously rate Ed M's chances of winning outright for Labour? I'm not talking about what you'd like to happen, but a realistic assessment of how well you rate their position?
I ask because I can't think of a single other election in 30 years where a comparable opposition position would be considered to stand a chance. Even 1977 doesn't count unless you think we're heading for a winter of discontent in 15 months.
As I'm sure will be clear by now I think Labour's screwed.
This IpsosMORI is yet another great poll for the Scottish Tories. They are on 25%, up 8 points on 2010, and just 2 points behind Scottish Labour.
The poor old SLDs are behind UKIP. Never seen that before.
SNP 41%, Lab 27%, Con 25%, UKIP 4%, LD 3%
And you think the 52 respondents in Scotland in this poll are more representative than the larger Scottish sample in yesterday's Yougov which had Conservatives at 15% in Scotland or those in the ICM which had them at 13% or those in Monday's Populus which had them at 13%
So, back to the poll or rather, as Easterross puts it, polls plural. With 19 months to go and the economic recovery under way, and rising house prices, how many people on here seriously rate Ed M's chances of winning outright for Labour? I'm not talking about what you'd like to happen, but a realistic assessment of how well you rate their position?
I ask because I can't think of a single other election in 30 years where a comparable opposition position would be considered to stand a chance. Even 1977 doesn't count unless you think we're heading for a winter of discontent in 15 months.
As I'm sure will be clear by now I think Labour's screwed.
I'm happy to stick with the swingback from by-election swing forecast: Labour largest party in a hung Parliament. Essentially a mirror image of the 2010 result, with only a Labour-Lib Dem coalition capable of forming a government with a working majority.
If Labour do surprisingly well, they could scrape a narrow majority, and if they do surprisingly badly they could fall behind in vote share, but I think the first 25 Conservative-Labour marginals in this list are pretty much doomed. Labour already hold one of them now, after all [Corby]. So it is hard to see how Labour can fail to get ahead in seats.
I've stood up for the possibility of Cameron winning some 2010 Brown voters to his banner, though, so I wouldn't rule out anything. There's still a long way to go.
If UKIP wants to win a Westminster seat they need to get Farage to pick a seat (in Kent - why not South Thanet?) and start working it. The longer they leave it the harder a breakthrough will be.
A cogent and well placed point NPxMP as ever when on the whole 'him' debate that breaks out every so often here.
Strangely you failed to provide any support to yesterday's hobby horse which we enjoyed 103 posts on - namely the central role that Cameron played in the Plebgate saga and his 3-month cover up to help the plod?
I took your total silence as disagreement on that matter - unless I missed a post from you which I apologise if I did?
I posted just once, to say (paraphrasing as I don't have time to hunt it out) that I thought Mitchell had been grossly wronged but that neither Cameron nor Miliband should be particularly blamed for reacting to the reports at the time.
Time is the enemy so I don't post as often as I used to.
If she's under 16, anyone who looks at those photos is liable for arrest, for downloading child porn, and would go on the sexual offenders register. In fact I think this is true even if she is under 18.
The test is whether the photographs (or pseudo-photographs) are indecent for the purposes of s. 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978. If they are not indecent, then no criminal liability arises. Edit: Per Rose LJ in R v Oliver [2002] EWCA Crim 2766, at [10]: 'neither nakedness in a legitimate setting, nor the surreptitious procuring of an image, gives rise, of itself, to a pornographic image'.
@RichardNabavi@AveryLP I commented on the YouGov optimism figure steadily improving a couple of days ago, it is the visible economic recovery we saw over the summer that is feeding it. A steady but lacklustre economic recovery would have been the worst scenario for the Conservatives heading into the next GE. But a very robust, turbo charged, blow the doors off all economic predictions recovery is now under way. And this has to be about as good as it gets for the Tories if they want to visibly increase confidence in their management of the economy, and of course shift those all important polling numbers in their favour in the run up to the GE.
And with Ed Miliband and Ed Balls finally conceding the economic battle to the Conservatives this Autumn, they are now left claiming its the wrong type of growth in the economy, jobs, house building and cost of living etc. In other words, a robust, turbo charged, blow the doors off all economic predictions recovery has to be about the worst scenario for the Labour party as we start the count down to the GE. Ed Miliband is now left portraying himself as a consumer watch dog instead of a future PM, the perfect position for a leader of the Labour party best suited to Opposition rather than a Government trying to run a successfully growing economy.
If UKIP wants to win a Westminster seat they need to get Farage to pick a seat (in Kent - why not South Thanet?) and start working it. The longer they leave it the harder a breakthrough will be.
Farage is campaigning to make the Dartford Tunnel/Bridge toll free (Thurrock being the town on the Essex side/Dartford on the Kent side) A lot going for that bet I think although long while to tie money up
This IpsosMORI is yet another great poll for the Scottish Tories. They are on 25%, up 8 points on 2010, and just 2 points behind Scottish Labour.
The poor old SLDs are behind UKIP. Never seen that before.
SNP 41%, Lab 27%, Con 25%, UKIP 4%, LD 3%
And you think the 52 respondents in Scotland in this poll are more representative than the larger Scottish sample in yesterday's Yougov which had Conservatives at 15% in Scotland or those in the ICM which had them at 13% or those in Monday's Populus which had them at 13%
Two factual errors in there.
I wonder why Mark is so keen to shoot the messenger?
I went and checked my electricity bills for my apartment in the states, and I am paying exactly the same amount per kWh as I was 20 months ago -- 6 pence. What exactly is going on in the UK which makes it necessary to ramp the prices so much?
Labour have already picked a candidate in Thurrock, and she's on the ground campaigning for 2015 now. If UKIP want to mount a challenge there they need to get a move on, but Farage talks about revealing plans in the summer of 2014.
I don't know how strong the local Labour organisation is, and the demographics of the seat seem to be trending away from them over time, but on the face of it they look well organised to take the seat in 2015. It's only second on their target list.
On the other hand, if Farage were to choose to stand there one would expect that the UKIP price would come in a lot shorter than 16-1, so in those circumstances it could work well as a trading bet.
If UKIP wants to win a Westminster seat they need to get Farage to pick a seat (in Kent - why not South Thanet?) and start working it. The longer they leave it the harder a breakthrough will be.
They need a seat weighted right in the middle of the socio-economic spectrum that is split evenly 3 or 4 ways. That's where any upsets will be.
This IpsosMORI is yet another great poll for the Scottish Tories. They are on 25%, up 8 points on 2010, and just 2 points behind Scottish Labour.
The poor old SLDs are behind UKIP. Never seen that before.
SNP 41%, Lab 27%, Con 25%, UKIP 4%, LD 3%
And you think the 52 respondents in Scotland in this poll are more representative than the larger Scottish sample in yesterday's Yougov which had Conservatives at 15% in Scotland or those in the ICM which had them at 13% or those in Monday's Populus which had them at 13%
Two factual errors in there.
I wonder why Mark is so keen to shoot the messenger?
No factual errors . Will you ever stop this trolling of miniscule sub samples as being meaningful ?
If UKIP wants to win a Westminster seat they need to get Farage to pick a seat (in Kent - why not South Thanet?) and start working it. The longer they leave it the harder a breakthrough will be.
They need a seat weighted right in the middle of the socio-economic spectrum that is split evenly 3 or 4 ways. That's where any upsets will be.
Why wont it be in one of the seats where they won a plurality of the votes in the local elections earlier this year?
If UKIP wants to win a Westminster seat they need to get Farage to pick a seat (in Kent - why not South Thanet?) and start working it. The longer they leave it the harder a breakthrough will be.
They need a seat weighted right in the middle of the socio-economic spectrum that is split evenly 3 or 4 ways. That's where any upsets will be.
This IpsosMORI is yet another great poll for the Scottish Tories. They are on 25%, up 8 points on 2010, and just 2 points behind Scottish Labour.
The poor old SLDs are behind UKIP. Never seen that before.
SNP 41%, Lab 27%, Con 25%, UKIP 4%, LD 3%
And you think the 52 respondents in Scotland in this poll are more representative than the larger Scottish sample in yesterday's Yougov which had Conservatives at 15% in Scotland or those in the ICM which had them at 13% or those in Monday's Populus which had them at 13%
Two factual errors in there.
I wonder why Mark is so keen to shoot the messenger?
No factual errors . Will you ever stop this trolling of miniscule sub samples as being meaningful ?
Look at your figures very carefully. They are incorrect.
And are you calling Martin Baxter a troll? What a rude man you are. Martin is one of the most respected figures in electoral prediction. He uses subsamples. They are a great tool for punters. Saved me a fortune at the Glenrothes by-election.
If UKIP wants to win a Westminster seat they need to get Farage to pick a seat (in Kent - why not South Thanet?) and start working it. The longer they leave it the harder a breakthrough will be.
They need a seat weighted right in the middle of the socio-economic spectrum that is split evenly 3 or 4 ways. That's where any upsets will be.
Why wont it be in one of the seats where they won a plurality of the votes in the local elections earlier this year?
My view is UKIP's potential core vote are people either side of the socio-economic middle. The further away from the middle people get (in either direction) then the easier it will be for Lab or Con to scare them with the idea of a Con or Lab victory.
edit: some of the seats you mentioned will fit that bill.
In any case, immediately after the last election I did a post-mortem on swingback's performance, which wasn't so good. I identified the likely culprit as the innovation of the TV debates. Polls (Kalman-filtered) showed a reversal of trend immediately after the first debate, and the Tories consistently extended their lead all the way to polling day. I stated that swingback might no prove so accurate in the future if the TV debates became a fixture of future campaigns. The debates seemed to have produced about an extra 1% swing to the Tories, resulting in a lead on polling day of 7% instead of 5% (which would have validated the swingback model). The Tories ended up about 50 seats ahead instead of 20.
So I looked around for other models. L&N performed spectacularly well in 2010, and the model has 'predicted' every election since 1945 with remarkable accuracy.
So I just think PBers might like to know what these models are saying at the moment.
The L&N model may be the best long-range model we have and PM approval may be the best proxy variable available representing 'true' VI. Some evidence in favour of this is that while the PM approval has remained broadly steady since May 2013, the VI (opinion polls) seem to be catching up. Labour lead is now zero (MORI).
The swingback theory is currently being a bit artificially hampered by the desperate avoidance of by-elections to try and starve UKIP.
What are they doing, propping them up on their chairs and hoping nobody notices?
I think under other circumstances there would have been a lot more - possibly resignation level - fuss over Yeo, Mercer and Hancock (plus any i've missed).
This IpsosMORI is yet another great poll for the Scottish Tories. They are on 25%, up 8 points on 2010, and just 2 points behind Scottish Labour.
The poor old SLDs are behind UKIP. Never seen that before.
SNP 41%, Lab 27%, Con 25%, UKIP 4%, LD 3%
And you think the 52 respondents in Scotland in this poll are more representative than the larger Scottish sample in yesterday's Yougov which had Conservatives at 15% in Scotland or those in the ICM which had them at 13% or those in Monday's Populus which had them at 13%
Two factual errors in there.
I wonder why Mark is so keen to shoot the messenger?
No factual errors . Will you ever stop this trolling of miniscule sub samples as being meaningful ?
Look at your figures very carefully. They are incorrect.
And are you calling Martin Baxter a troll? What a rude man you are. Martin is one of the most respected figures in electoral prediction. He uses subsamples. They are a great tool for punters. Saved me a fortune at the Glenrothes by-election.
For the swingback on the basis of by-election swings to converge with your current L&N forecast there would need to be 14 by-elections where the average Labour-Tory swing was zero. That would be monumentally crap indeed.
To nudge the by-election swing average by 1.7%, to give a 0.1% Tory lead with swingback, in a single by-election would require a swing from Labour to Conservative of 17%. Roughly of Crewe & Nantwich proportions. I'm sure tim would offer you a bet on it...
Sorry, but your numbers are wrong.
To calculate the average by-election swing required for the forecast to tip into a Tory lead, you must solve the equation for x (average by-election swing)
3.65 (the max swing to Labour which would retain a Tory vote lead) = 0.9916x-3.6458
which gives an x = 7.357
x is currently 8.18 after 14 by-elections
So for the fifteenth by-election to bring the average below 7.357 it would need a swing to Labour of (7.357*15)-(8.18*14) = -4.165 (negative meaning a swing to the Tories)
If UKIP wants to win a Westminster seat they need to get Farage to pick a seat (in Kent - why not South Thanet?) and start working it. The longer they leave it the harder a breakthrough will be.
They need a seat weighted right in the middle of the socio-economic spectrum that is split evenly 3 or 4 ways. That's where any upsets will be.
Dunno. If i'm in an area i'd mostly go by gut feel. There is probably a metric for it but not sure what it would be. I'd guess there'd be a majority of C2/C1 people and fairly evenly split. Maybe?
If UKIP wants to win a Westminster seat they need to get Farage to pick a seat (in Kent - why not South Thanet?) and start working it. The longer they leave it the harder a breakthrough will be.
They need a seat weighted right in the middle of the socio-economic spectrum that is split evenly 3 or 4 ways. That's where any upsets will be.
Dunno. If i'm in an area i'd mostly go by gut feel. There is probably a metric for it but not sure what it would be. I'd guess there'd be a majority of C2/C1 people and fairly evenly split. Maybe?
I don't even know what C1 etc means!*
I live near Thurrock and it feels UKIPish to me!
The ward In Harold Hill that UKIP won recently is similar to Thurrock
*As in I know they are categories of wealth/job type etc but wouldn't know which was which
I am pretty sure that topless photos of a pubescent girl under 16 would be regarded as indecent, no? They are designed to arouse - presumably.
That doesn't necessarily follow. If the photographs formed part of a legitimate work of art, for example, or had been taken in another setting where a reasonable person considered that the nudity was not erotic, then it is dubious whether the photographs would be indecent as a matter of law. The point to be taken from Lord Justice Rose's judgment is that there are no hard and fast rules provided that sexual activity is not depicted. Edit: Incidentally, the Court of Appeal (Hallett LJ, Singh J & HHJ Moss QC) recently considered this issue in R v Dodd[2013] EWCA Crim 660. I attach the judgment of the court if you are interested.
For the swingback on the basis of by-election swings to converge with your current L&N forecast there would need to be 14 by-elections where the average Labour-Tory swing was zero. That would be monumentally crap indeed.
To nudge the by-election swing average by 1.7%, to give a 0.1% Tory lead with swingback, in a single by-election would require a swing from Labour to Conservative of 17%. Roughly of Crewe & Nantwich proportions. I'm sure tim would offer you a bet on it...
Sorry, but your numbers are wrong. ... So a 4.165% swing to the Tories would do it.
Yes, they are, I was using a somewhat simpler equation. Still, I don't see a 4% swing to the Tories in a by-election this side of the general election.
Well, maybe, perhaps. If there were a Scottish by-election in the run-up to the independence referendum it's possible that would queer things, with prominent Labour figures campaigning side by side with the Tories, the SNP could pull something off.
If UKIP wants to win a Westminster seat they need to get Farage to pick a seat (in Kent - why not South Thanet?) and start working it. The longer they leave it the harder a breakthrough will be.
They need a seat weighted right in the middle of the socio-economic spectrum that is split evenly 3 or 4 ways. That's where any upsets will be.
Dunno. If i'm in an area i'd mostly go by gut feel. There is probably a metric for it but not sure what it would be. I'd guess there'd be a majority of C2/C1 people and fairly evenly split. Maybe?
I don't even know what C1 etc means!
I live near Thurrock and it feels UKIPish to me!
The ward In Harold Hill that UKIP won recently is similar to Thurrock
The division i gave was based on me thinking there's a fairly even four-way split in numbers between DE, C2, C1 and AB (which i read somewhere but may be wrong).
Comments
I hope they bring back refuelling. Without it, such a tip is very unlikely to occur again.
For those wondering why: the lack of refuelling now means the fuel tank is big enough for a whole race worth's of fuel. This increases enormously the variation in time due to fuel load (something daft like 8s, give or take). At the same time, no refuelling has led to mandatory tyre changes, and therefore to tyres made of crumbly (and occasionally explosive) cheese. This means that tyres add even more variation to lap times.
In short, the times from testing are almost worthless (the mood music is a better guide nowadays). In 2009 and earlier, testing times were a better guide. I didn't pay attention before 2009, but in that year they clearly, and correctly, pointed to a Brawn victory.
This all seems a bit much though.
The site has become much more factional, tetchy and downright bitchy over the last two weeks. Don't know why but it can't be just down to one individual, not matter how prolific or confrontational they are. Ricardohos is at least (if not more) to blame over the recent flare-up.
Quite disappointed at your failure to comment "No it isn't"
And as for his stalkers, whether you think their hearts are in the right place or not, they are just embarrassingly bad at it.
The lack of self awareness on the part of some here is breathtaking.
Everyone knows 'intelligent Tories' is an oxymoron .
;-)
I try not to comment on other posters at all, and usually regret it when I do. But it's fair to note that although tim is the most prolific poster he's also one of the briefest, condensing a thought into a single succinct jab. Those of us who rattle on at length (yes, me included) could learn from it.
It cuts down reading PB to about 10% of the posts - and they're usually pretty interesting.
(Central forecast)
Con vote lead 7.3%
Con seat lead 57 seats
(10000 Monte Carlo simulations)
Chance of Tory vote lead: 99.9%
Chance of a Tory seat lead: 97.4%
Chance of a Hung Parliament: 63.5%
Chance of a Tory majority: 36.5%
Chance of a Labour majority: 0.0%
A recovery in Tory fortunes, after a slight weakening last month, back to more or less where it's been since May 2013.
In times gone past, when jails were not affordable, one form of community punishment was to ostracise a member of the community who had erred. If no-one rose to tim's baiting, and simply ignored him, then he'd pretty soon give up.
That said, you were entirely right about swingback during the last term of Parliament, and the vast majority were wrong about how that turned out.
Second Series: The story so far
Geeky Ed has been hated by Bruiser Ed every since Geeky Ed stabbed Brother David in the back and leapfrogged Andy and Bruiser Ed to steal the leadership after Gordon copped it. The rivalries go back much further – some say as far back as their student days when the two Eds both fancied Stephanie (she’s now sold out and become a banker), but certainly to the time when they were both working for Gordon and there was a big row when Geeky Ed and Wee Dougie were shafted by Damian over Gordon’s cock-up (First Series, Programme 2). Anyway Bruiser Ed is seething and he makes little effort to conceal his contempt for Geeky Ed, but he is biding his time, hoping his wife Yvette will be able to steal back the leadership when Geeky Ed slips up. But Geeky Ed has seen this coming and to spike Yvette’s guns he’s taken the Mumsnet portfolio away from her and given it to sexy Gloria who’s trying to prevent topless photos of her being published. Geeky Ed also showed his ruthless side by demoting Liam, Wee Dougie and Jim, so they are seething too along with Stephen who was also demoted but who gets no sympathy because everyone agrees he is useless. Meanwhile Andy, who’s also plotting against Geeky Ed, pulled a fast one by being so strident and ineffective that he got Dave to challenge Geeky Ed to sack Andy, which meant Geeky Ed couldn’t sack him because it would look like Geeky Ed was being bossed about by Dave. In a sub-plot, Chuka (who likes to be called Barack) has been getting too big for his boots so Geeky Ed has taken him down a peg or two by being nice to Tristram instead.
Principal Characters:
Geeky Ed (Oxford, PPE)
Bruiser Ed (Oxford, PPE)
Brother David (Oxford, PPE)
Yvette (Oxford, PPE)
Dave (Oxford, PPE)
and, providing diversity,
Andy (Cambridge, English)
Strangely you failed to provide any support to yesterday's hobby horse which we enjoyed 103 posts on - namely the central role that Cameron played in the Plebgate saga and his 3-month cover up to help the plod?
I took your total silence as disagreement on that matter - unless I missed a post from you which I apologise if I did?
Swingback is currently forecasting a Labour lead of 1.6% but it would only take one crap by-election performance between now and 2015 for it to nudge over into a forecast Tory lead.
In any event, I expect the various forecasts to converge...
tim's posts are full of the milk of human kindness.
But I fear the milk is more "evaporated" than "condensed".
The EdM bounce in long-term context: Ipsos MORI http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3282/Public-sees-both-Miliband-and-Cameron-drifting-further-to-the-left-and-right.aspx … pic.twitter.com/1n9QNsVpjf
Have you been eyeing Sean's US bids for publishing rights?
matt prodger @MattProdger
West Mids PCC now accusing IPCC of "gross distortion" over #plebgate.
Interesting comments regarding the Thurrock by election
"There were a number of by-elections across the country on Thursday 26th September.
There are the UKIP percentage of the votes:-
Barnsley, Wombwell – 24.6% from nowhere
Blackpool, Highfield – 22.8% from nowhere
Cherwell, Banbury Ruscote – 16%
Forest of Dean, Coleford East – 29.3% from nowhere
Forest of Dean, Redmarley – 23.5% from nowhere
Mid Devon – Way – 15.2% from nowhere
Mole Valley, Mickleham, West Humble & Pixham – 13.3% from nowhere
Sevenoaks, Crokenhill & Well Hill – 35.7% UKIP gain seat from Labour.
Tendring, St James – 21.9% from nowhere
West Sussex, Storrington – 32.2% from nowhere
These are the previous results for Stifford Clays
THURROCK – Stifford Clays
2011 – Lab 877, Con 523, UKIP 475, LD 68
2010 – Lab 1184, Con 1108, UKIP 642, BNP 249
2007 – Lab 762, Con 632, BNP 435
2006 – Con 829, Lab 795, LD 296
"
http://www.yourthurrock.com/2013/09/23/candidates-declared-for-stifford-clays-by-election/
That must be why so many MPs are happy to post here in the open.
Back on form!
Another is that people may take the view that if all Labour will do is have an artificial price freeze for 20 months and think that is it then they don't deserve their vote.
No forecast based on swing should be taken as gospel, although it is an excellent guide to the likely 'shape' of the result.
The variations you mention may knock the outcome off the central forecast one way or another, but not by much.
Neither am in favour of banning repeats of Dad's Army.
To nudge the by-election swing average by 1.7%, to give a 0.1% Tory lead with swingback, in a single by-election would require a swing from Labour to Conservative of 17%. Roughly of Crewe & Nantwich proportions. I'm sure tim would offer you a bet on it...
Otherwise, top drawer.....or in the case of 'tits out Gloria' top shelf....
You can't read anything into stakes though - I rarely bet more than a tenner because I do it for fun rather than to make or lose money
Isn't that illegal as she was a minor?
The question then is whether the general election campaign will be more like the party conference season, or more like recent by-election campaigns, in terms of the media exposure for Farage et al.
We have a corporatist structure, where big companies cosy up to government to try and get regulations put in place to squeeze out competition.
Seem to be a growing number of outliers from different polling companies. Goodness knows the reaction of some when we get the next outlier with Tories 37 and Labour 36
hypotheticalbetting.com
The poor old SLDs are behind UKIP. Never seen that before.
SNP 41%, Lab 27%, Con 25%, UKIP 4%, LD 3%
I ask because I can't think of a single other election in 30 years where a comparable opposition position would be considered to stand a chance. Even 1977 doesn't count unless you think we're heading for a winter of discontent in 15 months.
As I'm sure will be clear by now I think Labour's screwed.
30% believe in spirits, 25% in angels, 14% in the devil, 10% in demons, 3% in jinns: ComRes for Theos comres.co.uk/polls/Theos___…
Lab 37%, Con 36%, UKIP 11%, LD 10%, Grn 5%
So, it is actually their dire performance in Scotland that is pulling the Labour figure down. We live in interesting times.
Tonight's candidate is the guy that ran in 2010's GE, but I don't know if he's the 2015 pick
Good interview
MORI - 0
TNS - 2
ICM - 4
YouGov Tue - 1
YouGov Wed - 5
YouGov Thur - 4
Average Lab lead across all 6 polls = 2.7%
Wow!
If Labour do surprisingly well, they could scrape a narrow majority, and if they do surprisingly badly they could fall behind in vote share, but I think the first 25 Conservative-Labour marginals in this list are pretty much doomed. Labour already hold one of them now, after all [Corby]. So it is hard to see how Labour can fail to get ahead in seats.
I've stood up for the possibility of Cameron winning some 2010 Brown voters to his banner, though, so I wouldn't rule out anything. There's still a long way to go.
If UKIP wants to win a Westminster seat they need to get Farage to pick a seat (in Kent - why not South Thanet?) and start working it. The longer they leave it the harder a breakthrough will be.
Time is the enemy so I don't post as often as I used to.
And with Ed Miliband and Ed Balls finally conceding the economic battle to the Conservatives this Autumn, they are now left claiming its the wrong type of growth in the economy, jobs, house building and cost of living etc. In other words, a robust, turbo charged, blow the doors off all economic predictions recovery has to be about the worst scenario for the Labour party as we start the count down to the GE. Ed Miliband is now left portraying himself as a consumer watch dog instead of a future PM, the perfect position for a leader of the Labour party best suited to Opposition rather than a Government trying to run a successfully growing economy.
A trip down memory lane to back in December 2008
Anthony Wells on UK Polling Report - The Abyss ahead of Gordon Brown...
Mike Smithson on PB - But what happens if optimism begins to wane?
(Thurrock being the town on the Essex side/Dartford on the Kent side)
A lot going for that bet I think although long while to tie money up
I wonder why Mark is so keen to shoot the messenger?
I went and checked my electricity bills for my apartment in the states, and I am paying exactly the same amount per kWh as I was 20 months ago -- 6 pence. What exactly is going on in the UK which makes it necessary to ramp the prices so much?
See you in an hour or so!
Have the Coalition discovered a way to make elderly MPs live longer?
Hopefully that wont give this non-story any more legs.
Farage talks general election during Thurrock visit
Polly backs Labour's energy bill freeze pledge
Labour have already picked a candidate in Thurrock, and she's on the ground campaigning for 2015 now. If UKIP want to mount a challenge there they need to get a move on, but Farage talks about revealing plans in the summer of 2014.
I don't know how strong the local Labour organisation is, and the demographics of the seat seem to be trending away from them over time, but on the face of it they look well organised to take the seat in 2015. It's only second on their target list.
On the other hand, if Farage were to choose to stand there one would expect that the UKIP price would come in a lot shorter than 16-1, so in those circumstances it could work well as a trading bet.
Fake racism pays their wages, time to see these idiots for who they are
...Ed Miliband is now left portraying himself as a consumer watch dog instead of a future PM ...
Perfect.
"The Which? Miliband"
www.thurrock.gov.uk/i-know/profile/pdf/our_thurrock_201207.pdf
And are you calling Martin Baxter a troll? What a rude man you are. Martin is one of the most respected figures in electoral prediction. He uses subsamples. They are a great tool for punters. Saved me a fortune at the Glenrothes by-election.
edit: some of the seats you mentioned will fit that bill.
In any case, immediately after the last election I did a post-mortem on swingback's performance, which wasn't so good. I identified the likely culprit as the innovation of the TV debates. Polls (Kalman-filtered) showed a reversal of trend immediately after the first debate, and the Tories consistently extended their lead all the way to polling day. I stated that swingback might no prove so accurate in the future if the TV debates became a fixture of future campaigns. The debates seemed to have produced about an extra 1% swing to the Tories, resulting in a lead on polling day of 7% instead of 5% (which would have validated the swingback model). The Tories ended up about 50 seats ahead instead of 20.
So I looked around for other models. L&N performed spectacularly well in 2010, and the model has 'predicted' every election since 1945 with remarkable accuracy.
So I just think PBers might like to know what these models are saying at the moment.
The L&N model may be the best long-range model we have and PM approval may be the best proxy variable available representing 'true' VI. Some evidence in favour of this is that while the PM approval has remained broadly steady since May 2013, the VI (opinion polls) seem to be catching up. Labour lead is now zero (MORI).
Anyhow, food for thought...
To calculate the average by-election swing required for the forecast to tip into a Tory lead, you must solve the equation for x (average by-election swing)
3.65 (the max swing to Labour which would retain a Tory vote lead) = 0.9916x-3.6458
which gives an x = 7.357
x is currently 8.18 after 14 by-elections
So for the fifteenth by-election to bring the average below 7.357 it would need a swing to Labour of (7.357*15)-(8.18*14) = -4.165 (negative meaning a swing to the Tories)
So a 4.165% swing to the Tories would do it.
Of course, there are many other possibilities...
Swings to Labour of 1% and 2% in two by-elections
Swings to Labour of 3%,3%,3%
Swings to Labour of 4%,4%,4%,4%
You get the idea...
http://www.amazon.com/Whos-Bigger-Historical-Figures-Really/dp/1107041376/
(Yes, I know, it's Amazon, evil tax avoiders. I expect I'll go to hell.)
I live near Thurrock and it feels UKIPish to me!
The ward In Harold Hill that UKIP won recently is similar to Thurrock
*As in I know they are categories of wealth/job type etc but wouldn't know which was which
Edit: Incidentally, the Court of Appeal (Hallett LJ, Singh J & HHJ Moss QC) recently considered this issue in R v Dodd [2013] EWCA Crim 660. I attach the judgment of the court if you are interested.
Well, maybe, perhaps. If there were a Scottish by-election in the run-up to the independence referendum it's possible that would queer things, with prominent Labour figures campaigning side by side with the Tories, the SNP could pull something off.
socio-economic groups
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090301094306AAD4Z1v
The division i gave was based on me thinking there's a fairly even four-way split in numbers between DE, C2, C1 and AB (which i read somewhere but may be wrong).