Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With so much difference between the week’s polls the best b
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With so much difference between the week’s polls the best bet is to rely on ICM
With so many different pictures being recorded in the polls in the past week my normal recourse is to revert back to what I regard as the gold standard – the monthly phone poll from ICM.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Apologies to Scots for not referring to Standard and Higher grades, but the tractor achievements mentality regardless of quality pervades the education system.
At the last election if I remember rightly Yougov were consistantly closer to what turned out to be the actual result for weeks. ICM simply made a sudden shift on their last poll.
So for punters who want to have a clue ahead of time I'd say YouGov is the most useful.
OT After the Sunday Times article on Red Ralph I wonder if that shoddy little man Paul Dacre will change the habit of a lifetime and do the honourable thing and apologize?
Also lots of police-related questions. In summary there is still a good deal of uncertainty about the Mitchell case - there is a shift to believing him, but not a decisive one, and lots of people just say they don't know about various aspects of the case. Police credibility has been damaged but there were quite a few sceptics already. EU questions also varying according to the wording, though the general tone is mild scepticism.
i think a lot of us might have misjudged him. I'm beginning to see quite an engaging character under that rather geeky exterior.
Cameron by contrast is looking evermore like the sleek account exec. A group I'm too familiar with. I feel about them as farmers do about foxes
YouGov in the middle with Lab 39 (+6)
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/97oer2oipq/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-181013.pdf
Cameron's approval slips, -15 (-4), while Miliband's improves, -26 (+4) and state of the economy -46 (-7) and personál financial situation -36 (-10) also take big hits.
On the 'trust' index the big losers are (net) Local Police: +40 (-8) and "upmarket newspaper" journalists: -22 (- 19), while My local MP ; -15 (+8) and judges +44 (+9) get a boost. The question was not asked about BBC or ITV journalists.
Belief that Mitchell told the truth grows; 36 (+6) but as many (40) believe he said "pleb" as do not (38). Opinion pretty evenly split on 'stitch up' (30) vs "misunderstanding" (21) vs "police telling truth" (24). Plebgate has not shifted overall trust in the police.
I thought polls were a prediction about what would happen if there was an election tomorrow.
i.e. specifically *not* a prediction of what the situation will be in 18 months time?
I don't disagree that ICM "feels about right" for today, but there is way too much uncertainty to think it is a good predictor of the next election's actual result.
Can I just say how weird Tristram Hunt's Spectator Diary was this week?
His opening paragraph was about how much he enjoyed sitting on the front bench watching David Cameron go red in the face.
That the sort of juvenilia I'd expect from a bloke posting anonymously on a website. Not from someone who aspires to be in the Cabinet.
ONE OF THE MINOR sociological treats of being appointed shadow education secretary is a frontbench view of David Cameron’s crimson tide — that half hour journey, every Question Time, during which the Prime Minister’s face turns from beatific calm to unedifying fury.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/diary/9057051/tristram-hunts-diary-a-close-up-view-of-david-camerons-rage-face/
PB Tories may want to write to Sky to complain about their partiality and their general left wingery.
If Cameron is an account exec, Miliband is a planner - lots of ideas, few of them practical....has a habit of rubbing people up the wrong way and overly fond of jargon which they think makes them sound clever.....
I mention all this because I was reflecting about how strong Labour is in London. In today's Yougov they have a lead of 15% which is fairly typical. So strong economic growth (no one could pretend that London is not already booming), high paid employment, fairly fantastic (compared to the rest of us) public services and high public investment in things like Crossrail and the Olympic sites are not winning the tories votes there. Even moving 2,000 BBC luvvies to Manchester has not made any difference.
Why not? I suspect that gross inequality is one of the reasons. Given the higher cost base being poor in London is being really poor and many live in really squalid housing conditions on incomes where they would be quite comfortable elsewhere.
The broader lesson is that an economic recovery that is very unequally shared may not garner as many votes for the tories as optimists like me wish to assume. The economic performance of London may be matched by the rest of the country by 2015 (at least in terms of growth) but it is a lazy assumption that this will turn the country blue. London is at least an example of how it won't.
"The budget fight that led to the first government shutdown in 17 years did not just set off a round of recriminations among Republicans over who was to blame for the politically disastrous standoff. It also heralded a very public escalation of a far more consequential battle for control of the Republican Party, a confrontation between Tea Party conservatives and establishment Republicans that will play out in the coming Congressional and presidential primaries in 2014 and 2016 but has been simmering since President George W. Bush’s administration, if not before."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/20/us/fiscal-crisis-sounds-the-charge-in-gops-civil-war.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20131020&_r=0
A good analogy but as Dave Trott once famously said you can split agencies into the chefs and the waiters. And however you look at it a planner is a chef and an account exec is a waiter.
(if as I suspect you were on the account side I have to say I have worked with some very bright ones though not often very creative)
I always saw the Creatives as the chefs!
The account execs were there to stop the clients and creatives murdering each other, while the planners smiled benignly and suggested a focus group....
Grade inflation is a corollary of the creeping Americanisation of the system: subjects taught in modules; almost everyone "graduates high school"; most go to university, often for a liberal arts education; the most academically gifted go from there to America's best-in-the-world graduate schools to study medicine, law or finance, or pursue research.
You voted for all this in, erm, well ...
And here's the irony, most of what many right-wing commentators see as the damage to our education system happened under Conservative governments.
Even grade inflation: is that a consequence of "All Must Have Prizes!" or of school league tables and market competition between exam boards?
Elections are decided not in London nor in other cities but in medium sized towns.
Take a look at the football League Two or football Conference - it is in those dreary sounding places where governments are chosen.
Our political overclass though thinks the world revolves around premiership type places.
"Nick Clegg concedes he will not get his changes past the education secretary before the election, so he will pledge to make them in the next Lib Dem manifesto.'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-24599458
Influxes of foreign money into property plus government infrastructure spending (and its bailout for the banks) rather than any intrinsic increase in wealth creation from the London economy itself.
The difference between a bubble and a boom is important and lies behind the failures of the overclass to predict and prepare for the recession and their mistaken policies afterwards.
And---that they are rather sneaky and smelly?
Very interesting post. The 'haves' in London make up a small percentage of the whole and for the rest daily living in can be a pretty excruciating experience.
I was working in Mexico City and was surprised by the way ostentatious wealth was living literally next door to dire poverty. I asked my Mexican client how this came about and he said it's what happens in all third world countries and in many ways that's what Mexico was.
Well despite the sparkle noted in your post in many parts of London the same is true.
"And---that they are rather sneaky and smelly?"
To non farmers they look rather attractive and even exotic
I take your point about means and medians. My point was rather that a strong economy, by far the strongest in the UK, is not stopping Labour making progress there. It is a warning the tories would do well to heed.
Best of all, they parrot the government's line that the report should be discounted because of "widespread public perception" of a problem, which seems like a bizarre way to govern.
Given the Telegraph's reliance on funding from the Barclay brothers et al, presumably we should ignore everything they have to say too
It is by no means all bubble.
"This came out on Monday night and had CON 34, LAB 38, LD 12, UKIP 8. My sense is that is about the best reflection at the moment of where we will end up in eighteen months time"
Now I can understand if you think ICM is the best reflection of current opinion, but what makes it the best predictor of how people will vote in 18 months' time? Although I admit ICM has been more stable than some other pollsters' and has been showing merely margin of error changes since before the summer.
He has just confirmed again he is feart to debate Alastair Darling
So many Londoners feel life is maybe exciting but a knife-edged business, and governments saying things are going splendidly just sound absurdly out of touch, almost as though they inhabited another planet. Gross inequality, as David says, rubs it in.
"The long road to Ted Cruz, Fox News, the Tea Party and right-wing insanity has its roots in the events of 1973"
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/19/birth_of_conservative_delusion_roger_ailes_takes_his_revenge/
If he is happy to debate Darling, why the caveat? Get on with it. Or is he feart?
In any case London tourism is clearly something with a maximum capacity.
As to IT and business services aren't these things in which the gains are concentrated in a small proportion of people. And, with respect, I'm always dubious on the London boom/bubble distinction - six years ago London's financial services were hailed as the envy of the world after all.
The marxist stuff is really nonsense and possibly just a link so he can name drop Ed. The problem we face is one that Marx did not foresee. It is the domination of the world economy by large supranational brands and businesses that are simply beyond the power of governments to control or even tax. They are not controlled by the bourgeoisie, they are not obviously controlled by anyone. They have become vampires feeding on the well being of nation states and consumers alike.
The main beneficiaries of these companies is not the property owning class but those that work for them. It is something I remember clearly from the first books on economics I read by JK Galbraith who Saatchi also name checks.
International capitalism in this form undoubtedly creates wealth. But it is a very unevenly divided wealth and many do not like it. It is not hard to understand why even if their hopes that nation states can still do something about it tend to the naive.
Instead of a debate between Scots about the future of Scotland, Eck refuses to engage until he has had another debate with an Englishman who has no vote.
It's posturing to avoid debating Mr Darling.
"Interesting article in Salon, tracing the Republican's Tea Party woes back to Nixon:"
Very. Reads like the synopsis of a film script
The beneficiaries are the executive class, who effectively steal the fruits of the workers labour and the fruits of the owners investments.
Within the tree of capitalism they are a species of parasite - self interested, self reproducing and rotting the whole structure while contributing nothing.
The commercial channels are rabble-rousers watched by people with a chip on their shoulders. The Beeb is watched by the middle classes who think the state owes them a living.
Let the two main forces meet and the Scottish electors have the benefit of their views.
Darling will have his turn and I have no doubt Salmond will meet the challenge.
The movement of civil service back office functions out of London, for example, seems to have had a stifling effect on enterprise in the regions where they were moved to making a public sector job more attractive and sucking up the local talent.
An exception the ST piece referred to was the transfer of 2,000 BBC staff to Manchester which seems to have been a great success creating a media city that now employs over 10,000 only a fifth of which work for the BBC. Perhaps the wrong kind of jobs have been moved.
Yet another interesting point made in the article was about HS2. It suggested those that wanted this cancelled and more runways at Heathrow instead were simply London centric. The head of Birmingham pointed out that with HS2 there was no reason why London's new airport with 4 runways might not be in Brimingham and be able to get people into the centre of London faster than you currently get there from Gatwick.
This is not an easy problem to solve as the failures of governments of both hues have shown. I think you are wrong to say the current government is indifferent to it.
Just as NATO, the EU and the Bank of England don't.
If the referendum was UK wide, then yes, the PM of the UK should debate with the FM of Scotland.
But it isn't.
Its a Scottish matter, for Scots, much as Salmond would like to have a 'posh English bloke telling the Scots how to vote', it ain't going to happen.
My view is clear. The Prime Minister should not dodge a debate with Salmond just as the latter should not avoid Darling.
As the Tories are the Westminster party with most to gain from Scottish independence, I think that they will not be too unhappy at a yes vote.
Is Darling rated highly in Scotland? I'd have thought his patrician manner would go down well there.
No excuses. Cameron should debate Salmond.
If the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom won't debate with the leader of a party that wants to breaks up that union, prior to a referendum, then he should expect ridicule.
We have the farcical situation where unionists say that Scottish Independence is a union-wide issue on the one hand , and then say it should just be Scots debating it on the other.
Salmond has continually (even pre-debate) been pushing the line that he is Cameron's equal.
He's not. One is the leader of a country. Until the referendum the other is not.
They say *independence* is a Scottish issue. *Devo Max* is a union wide issue
So perhaps Cameron is being sensible by refusing that battle though participating in such a debate could well improve Tory ratings north of the border and add a couple of seats to his election tally.
"I do hope so, as I have a small sum on Scottish Independence, but Jacks McARSE has spoken, and the Union will win."
Well done - Stiff upper lip old chap. Take the hit and make up your loses with my 2015 ARSE predictions.
"So, the nationalist argument goes, if Scotland is to create the more equal society that it evidently wants, and if it is to cement its relationship with the European Union, it needs to back independence when it gets the chance to do so next September.
But is Scotland a markedly more egalitarian, more social democratic society in its social outlook? And is it much keener on its links with Brussels? .....
.......So those who hope that independence would pave the way for Scotland to become a markedly more social democratic country that in addition would wish to be in the European fast lane should perhaps not set their expectations too high. At present at least, what Scotland wants looks too similar to what England wants for us to assume that is what would happen."
http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2013/10/two-different-countries-scottish-and-english-attitudes-to-equality-and-europe/
On the other hand I do not see why debates with Darling should in any way conditional on the debate with Cameron taking place. That is just cowardice.
Titters ...
Since you are so interested , would you like a wager on whether Yes will rise in the polls over the next 300 days
http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2013/10/tns-bmrb-october-poll-shows-little-change-again/
"Despite the confusion of the pollsters, it seems there really is no change happening at all!"
I would expect 'Yes' to get an uplift post the SNP conference, how much of that, and how long it sticks, time will tell.....
To declare an interest, my younger son lives not far from SeanT. When I stay with him, I meet his friends who are a multinational set aged 25-45 who are occupying a lot of the top jobs in London as they are mobile, aspirational and more competent and capable that many of the UK applicants. They are also multilingual and are ready to move and take their families to where the next best opportunity will be.
This multinational set create an aspirational buzz which is very motivating and so evident in contrast to the depressing "why wont the jobs come to us" attitude found in so much of the UK.
London is also the financial heart of the UK and Europe - where else will I find merchant banks that will back large trading ventures, without me contributing a penny.
All capital and successful cities have richness and poverty living cheek-by-jowl - it was always thus. However, this success can be collapsed by over-taxation which would make the wealth creators depart and so leave tens of thousands of people who they employed without jobs.
The Government and Cameron in particular are scared to debate the dissolution of the UK.
Cameron should not run away from the cause from which he has very solidly and IMO correctly set his mind to supporting
Joking apart, IIRC the most recent poll showed rUK even less enthusiastic about Scottish independence than the Scots - though there have been some in the past which showed the reverse....
Can you frame that?
A 5.7% swing to Labour? Second largest swing to any party since the War?
Miliband?
Pfft!
Salmond needs to debate Cameron because his Yes campaign is failing , therefore Cameron should refuse.
Why should Scots have fewer rights than them?
He is representing Better Together / all those Scots who want to remain in the union.