Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New GE2015 projection from Oxford’s Dr Stephen Fisher point
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New GE2015 projection from Oxford’s Dr Stephen Fisher points to a 48pc chance of a CON majority
A month ago the Oxford University political scientist, Dr Stephen Fish, produced his first projection for GE2015 in which he suggested that the Tories had a 57% chance of an overall majority.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png
But he's "back in the saddle" and will turn it all around now, right? Wrong.
Of course, the main point the Fisher analysis misses is that previous PMs could pick and choose the timing of their next general election to suit them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/10468115/Universities-can-segregate-men-and-women-for-debates.html
But as you say, quite what led her to make a threat like that is unfathomable.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/former-lib-dem-minister-nick-2840416
Inputted current average poll shares
Con : 31
Lab : 39
LD : 10
This, eye opening:
Forecast Election Day Shares with 95% Prediction Intervals
Con : 38.9 plus or minus 11.7 i.e. between 27 and 51
Lab : 32.6 plus or minus 6.5 i.e. between 26 and 39
LD : 11 plus or minus 14.1 i.e. between 0 and 25
And the same presumably the same enormo boll8cks that has tolerated slavery and widespread corruption because they are being perpetrated by people of foreign extraction, as with the gang rape of teenage white girls.
Does this breakdown exist? All ex Lib Dem seats I expect.
Until then it's hard to know whether he is more Michael Fish.
And, you are taking this joker seriously ?
The election timing point is correct, but a much bigger problem is that he's unskewing to correct for polling bias to Labour and the opposition that happened in previous polls, some of them decades ago, but the pollsters have already changed their methodologies to correct for these things.
To be fair, Calamity Clegg's doing ok. He gets to be DPM and the man who took the LibDems into government for the first time / first time in 80(?) years.
Not sure you can say the same thing about his party though...
I willing to go further. I can say, with 99.9% certainty, that the Tories will get between 27 and 51%...
;-)
But in a pretty liberal democratic country like this the standard outlets for it are not available.
So where do people with that mentality go ? Teaching seems like a good opportunity - a constant and guaranteed stream of little kids to be indoctrinated and/or bullied, the power of the state behind you, little risk of being disciplined.
On a related note a teacher friend of mine went on a couple of school trips - one to a Sikh Gurdwara which impressed him hugely, the other to a Mosque which had the opposite effect.
You may refer to this as the Surbiton Theory.
I mean event Surby got it!
Does this mean that Surby's sense of humour > EiT's sense of humour?
So what?
If all he wanted was to be close to the trappings of power then he and his lib dems MPs should have all became civil servants. If he just wanted to enjoy a nice ministerial car and feeling important there's always a job in the EU. But if he wanted to advance what his party stood for he's been a complete and utter catastrophe.
Power is meaningless if you don't know what to do with it or what you stand for.
What did most people think the lib dems cared about pre 2010 election?
Fairer voting system - AV Shambles.
Environment - Pure Greenwash and now Cammie's piled on the pain with "green crap".
House of Lords Reform - Another shambles.
Civil Liberties - Shockingly bad with his own party scarcely believing what Clegg was doing.
No more Iraqs - But almost a Syria and it certainly wasn't stopped because of Clegg.
Tuition Fees - Oh dear
No more broken promises i.e. we're not like the other parties - Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
To be fair though it's not as real lib dems who cared about those kind of issues sat back and took it as the polling shows. Most of them had enough of Clegg within the first year and left with the lib dem activist base eroding away year on year to dangerously low levels.
Was it the anti-EU stuff they told fishermen in Cornwall or the pro-EU stuff they told residents of Kingston? Was it the moderate stuff they told the good folk of Newbury or the leftie stuff they came up with in the North?
There is a hard core of LibDems - perhaps 10% - who have a clear view. The rest were protest and/or tactical votes. As we can see from the polling...
If you "predict" every outcome over a period of months you will no doubt be able to point to one of those months and claim to have got it right on the stopped clock principle. The volitility of this result, if it continues, will completely undermine both its credibility and utility.
No party can only appeal only to narrow 'core' vote or that vote shrinks and they can soon find themselves all but an irrelevance. Exactly what has happened to the lib dems in scotland.
They have enough MSPs to fit in a taxi now.
Nor are the lib dems alone. If the tories or labour go down to just a 'core' vote they won't be winning power any time soon. Swing voters matter. Marginals matter under FPTP. Denouncing those who might shift to another party is utter folly as the tories know all too well from the kippers. Will some lib dems drift back and some kippers drift back to the tories? Most people think so and I do too. But they won't all drift back and even previously tribal loyalty can be eroded by an arrogant, out of touch or just plain incompetent leader.
As for the lib dems ground campaigns with their 'flexible' messages, it didn't stop them winning even more seats under Kennedy. Clegg is in power because of a fairly rare quirk in electoral math, not because he powered the lib dems to dizzy new heights.
What will be left of the lib dems after Clegg, that's the question.
If it's anything like scotland then the answer is not very much at all.
And endless general anti-Labour stuff wherever they thought they had a better chance of beating Labour than the Conservatives did.
I think, per Clegg and Alexander, that they do believe in sane fiscal policies for the state. This clearly differentiates them from Labour but it also limits their opportunities amongst those who think George is some sort of grinch rather than Santa (sorry been dragged Christmas shopping this morning. In November!)
They are in favour of a more equal society with low taxation on the poor and limits on the cuts that are imposed on those in need, even if this means more taxes for the rich. For me this is by far their most attractive feature.
They are supposed to be libertarian but where are they in the criticism made of TPIMs? Why have Lib Dems not been brave enough to argue that there has to be limits on the powers of the state against people who are not convicted or even facing charges and that the authoritarian control orders of new Labour went too far?
They are pro EU. But they seem to accept, per DC, that changes are needed and the current EU is not working that well. Their position is quite difficult to differentiate from his which is frankly causing them both problems.
They want constitutional changes to the HoL and to the voting system. In fact their obsession with these sort of issues seems overriding and the implication is that is because it enhances their role as the king makers of our system.
I apologise to any Lib Dems if I have missed an important point. In fact I would like to hear from them explaining what is missing. At the moment it is a little hard to see their reason for existing. It has to be more than taking the edge off the views of the big boys.
My concern is that a swing of approximately 2% to Labour in a month seems to have produced a swing of 8% in the probabilities of one or other of the main parties getting a majority. If the model is this volatile it is of little use.
The probability of a tory majority was almost certainly too high to start with. It should have fallen given the recovery that Labour has had in a month when the trend should be against them (assuming we are heading to a tory majority). I just think the model needs to be more stable than this to be credible.
Alternatively where can those of us who voted LD over the years go, given the mishandling referred to by Mr Pork?
Clearly not the Tories. Some of us I suppose will hold our noses and vote Labour, although one can hardly regard them as having much of a social conscience nowadays.
Green?
1. they would track real votes
2. "swingback" will be automatically built-in.
I'll give it 10 minutes or so, see how things stack up.
Whether Clegg goes before or after the election matters little, and it is the survivors of the cull that the next leader will emerge from.
Firstly, the level of turnout is much lower, roughly half, so it only tells us what the most committed think. This is interesting but not a basis for prediction for the uninvolved.
Secondly, there is often a protest type element in such by elections as there is in Parliamentary by elections. Even Peter Snow stopped telling us what the HoC would look like on the back of the swings at by elections.
Opinion polls probably are the better basis although I would concede the continued strength of UKIP in particular in the local results is not without interest.
It wouldn't surprise me if turnout at 2015 was shockingly bad in some places.
Sometimes you just lose voters till a new leader or political force comes along that they are prepared to put their mark against.
Greens might do well but what often motivates voters is usually either 'get rid of that leader and/or his party ' or 'don't let that leader in and/or his party'. You get a mixture of it at every election to be fair.
If Clegg goes before 2015 then with a honeymoon leader in place some of those ripe for culling might just survive. You can be certain they know it too.
You also don't get to shape the 'new' party or choose a new leader if you've just been given a good smack from the voter and told where to go. So those lib dem MPs who want to have their voices heard on that direction, but know they are doomed regardless, will do so well before election day, even if Clegg stays.
To put it another way, people will vote LD in the next GE because, as usual, (a) they don't like the Conservatives, (b) they don't like Labour. The new precedent of a hung parliament and an unusual coalition situation will be very much secondary in their considerations.
Dr Stephen Fisher's probabilities - This is either a forecast or a nowcast
It is hard to see how the Conservatives would get an evens chance of a majority if the election was held tommorow hence to my mind it must be a forecast (If it is a nowcast then it certainly LOOKS wrong).
Now his CON majority price has decreased by 9 pts from October 25th - What has happened in the last month to justify such a dramatic swing, I honestly can't recall anything much to be honest except the normal fluctuations around the Conservative vote share. The Conservatives so far as I remember haven't LOST any VI share, nor have Cameron's various ratings gone sharply downwards.
The other factor that confuses me is why the bulk of the probability of the Conservative Majority has headed straight past NOM's door into Labour Majority. Have Labour's majority chances REALLY gone up by 46% in the last month - this seems daft, yes the ratings are up slightly but they are still basically on ~38.5%.
Precedents simply have to be broken next GE, and big ones too - we are in the first Coalition Lib Dem-Conservative era ever. A 4th party has never been as strong as UKIP are right now in terms of voting intention.
The thing is with any models is that you can never tell from a single result if they are correct - if we end up with a Labour Majority then we can't say Fisher's 22% chance was incorrect. He has predicted it to come in 1 in 5 times, and this time might be that 1 in 5 chance. Alternatively the Conservatives could get a majority and the 80% probability of a Labour Majority as predicted by Martin Baxter (If polls stay the same from now till GE 2015) may have also been a correct probability, and the 25-1 chance that he makes a CON majority has simply come in. The sample size of 1 is too small !
Having said that the fairly massive fluctuation internally (With not alot happening in the polls) in this model does not give me alot of confidence in it.
For example, if Eastleigh and Corby were somehow in the mix, I would doubt it. Seen nothing to make me believe the Tories are making progress in such seats.
Would someone be so kind as to find it ...
I think this will be the case where there is an incumbent Lib Dem MP but not elsewhere. Elsewhere the 2010 LD 'leavers' will vote Labour generally in the CON-LAB marginals.
Betting PostBacked Rosberg for pole at 8, hedged at 3:
enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/brazil-pre-qualifying.html
This will, of course, look bloody stupid if Vettel storms to victory. I'm hoping it's wet.
The recent LD conference had little in the way of leadership challenge, though like all parties a certain amount of positioning for potential post 2015 contests.
Your advice to the LDs is much like tims advice to the Tories, a mixture of negativism and wish to stir up internal conflicts. The value of such advice is less than zero. Indeed tims hostility to Cameron and Osborne just points up how afraid he is of them.
Could you let me have an email address as have some plot ideas
The LDs have been exposed as talentless and a brake on a return to fiscal sanity and a handicap to sane and efficient government, with their obsession with things that matter only to the LD elite: such as HoL reform.
They're the watermelon party - green on the outside, red on the inside (any party which uses the word 'fair' to mean 'rob the rich' is socialist in mind-set. And oblivious of history, biology and sound economics, as well as of political practicalities - don't YOU want to earn rather more? If so why would you vote to have more of that money taken from you by force, when you might otherwise donate it to an efficient and effective charity, voluntarily?)
No - the LDs appealed to those who would not support either a Cameron-led Conservative party, nor a Brown/Blair led Labour party: both are unconcerned (they feel) with anything but power - and themselves, supporting, as they both do, The Big Battalions (EU, Corporates, Unite).
So the erst-while LD voters will vote UKIP, as the rational choice.
Only Cameron or Milliband can be PM in June 2015, so, if you dislike both men, and.or what they represent and/or their policies, you join the NOTA voters.
Some voted Green (hahahaha- Aussie Marxists); some voted Loony (etc) and some were even deluded enough to vote LD - but NONE voted for a 'Party-That-Might-Form-The-Government'.
I.e They KNEW they were voting for a loser - which is, in itself, an odd thing to do.
So, now they'll vote UKIP, since they are the 'little guy' party, with a charismatic leader and policies which resonate with the electorate.
NB In the Celtic fringes, these demographic elected PC and the SNP to office - they're the 'anti-Establishment' parties.
And others did not vote at all. The CBA voters. IF (big, big, IF) any party leader can inspire and energise THAT demographic, they'll sweep to power.
I'd expect the LDs to poll 6-10% in GE 2015, and UKIP to poll anything from 15-28% (if UKIP win 'EU 14- they'll poll very well indeed in GE2015).
Too few on here seem to appreciate just how deep the loathing is for the 'political class' as a whole the SNP proved that in 2011
http://news.sky.com/story/1172696/fresh-details-in-london-slavery-probe
It sounds as if the women were part of a collective. So it would sound like either a political or religious cult.
The fact that the address and culprits are under wraps may suggest that some more extraordinary details will emerge in time.
Not only did he make an instant comment, he made an instant comment which was an attempt to "smear" Tory attitudes to immigration, about an hour after this disturbing story broke.
A new low, even for him.
It's perhaps the most explicit film mainstream cinema has shown. It's also probably the most compelling performance by an actress for quite some time.
Except in India it would seem:
A petition sent to the Supreme Court of India stated that the introduction of astrology to university curricula is "a giant leap backwards, undermining whatever scientific credibility the country has achieved so far", but it refused to intervene in the matter.[14]
In 2004, the Supreme Court dismissed a further petition, judging that the teaching of aStrology does not qualify as promotion of religion.[16] In February 2011, the Bombay High Court reaffirmed astrology's standing in India when it dismissed a case which had challenged its status as a science.[17]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_astrology
Personally, I like Brian Cox's views on astrology:
During Wonders of the Solar System, a TV programme by the BBC, the physicist Brian Cox said "Despite the fact that astrology is a load of rubbish, Jupiter can in fact have a profound influence on our planet. And it’s through a force . . . gravity." This upset believers in astrology who complained that there was no astrologer to provide an alternative viewpoint. To clarify, Cox gave the following statement to the BBC: "I apologise to the astrology community for not making myself clear. I should have said that this new age drivel is undermining the very fabric of our civilisation." [9] In the programme Stargazing Live, Cox further commented by saying: "in the interests of balance on the BBC, yes astrology is nonsense." [10]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_science
The lib dems simply don't have many options apart from dumping Clegg, a massive lurch to differentiation just before the election, or hoping that things will somehow just magically get better for them. Clegg isn't certain to go by any means but I know which options have more chance of shifting the polls.
You want more options then place your blame where it belongs. Clegg made every single meaningful choice to get the lib dems to exactly where they are now. Not me.
So I'm sorry that I don't worship at the altar of Clegg or try hopelessly to spin that the lib dems position is rosy but I have zero interest in doing so and it would be a lie.
As the LDs are well known to be pro Europe and anti a lot of UKIP policies, I cannot see that many LD to UKIP switchers, at least when a real election comes.
I cannot see UKIP pushing the LDs into 4th in the GE; though expect it in the Euro elections.
I think OGH's tip for the Conservatives as biggest vote share in the Euros remains the value bet. They'll not vote LD in 2015, 2020 or 2025
No - the LDs appealed to those who would not support either a Cameron-led Conservative party, nor a Brown/Blair led Labour party: both are unconcerned (they feel) with anything but power - and themselves, supporting, as they both do, The Big Battalions (EU, Corporates, Unite).
So the erst-while LD voters will vote UKIP, as the rational choice.
Only Cameron or Milliband can be PM in June 2015, so, if you dislike both men, and.or what they represent and/or their policies, you join the NOTA voters.
Some voted Green (hahahaha- Aussie Marxists); some voted Loony (etc) and some were even deluded enough to vote LD - but NONE voted for a 'Party-That-Might-Form-The-Government'.
I.e They KNEW they were voting for a loser - which is, in itself, an odd thing to do.
So, now they'll vote UKIP, since they are the 'little guy' party, with a charismatic leader and policies which resonate with the electorate.
NB In the Celtic fringes, these demographic elected PC and the SNP to office - they're the 'anti-Establishment' parties.
And others did not vote at all. The CBA voters. IF (big, big, IF) any party leader can inspire and energise THAT demographic, they'll sweep to power.
I'd expect the LDs to poll 6-10% in GE 2015, and UKIP to poll anything from 15-28% (if UKIP win 'EU 14- they'll poll very well indeed in GE2015).
Too few on here seem to appreciate just how deep the loathing is for the 'political class' as a whole the SNP proved that in 2011
Baxter says if there was a GE tomorrow then probability of Con majority is 4%.
Don't know how many times people are going to continue to get this wrong on this site - it must have been posted wrongly 100 times and corrected 100 times but people don't seem to be able to understand it and take it in.
The LDs have been exposed as talentless and a brake on a return to fiscal sanity and a handicap to sane and efficient government, with their obsession with things that matter only to the LD elite: such as HoL reform.
They're the watermelon party - green on the outside, red on the inside (any party which uses the word 'fair' to mean 'rob the rich' is socialist in mind-set. And oblivious of history, biology and sound economics, as well as of political practicalities - don't YOU want to earn rather more? If so why would you vote to have more of that money taken from you by force, when you might otherwise donate it to an efficient and effective charity, voluntarily?)
So the erst-while LD voters will vote UKIP, as the rational choice.
NB In the Celtic fringes, these demographic elected PC and the SNP to office - they're the 'anti-Establishment' parties.
And others did not vote at all. The CBA voters. IF (big, big, IF) any party leader can inspire and energise THAT demographic, they'll sweep to power.
I'd expect the LDs to poll 6-10% in GE 2015, and UKIP to poll anything from 15-28% (if UKIP win 'EU 14- they'll poll very well indeed in GE2015).
Too few on here seem to appreciate just how deep the loathing is for the 'political class' as a whole the SNP proved that in 2011
A post that ranks as one of the most ludicrous ever posted on this board . I have saved it for posterity so that I can throw it back at you when it has been shown to be utter drivel .
When he first issued model a few weeks ago there was an obvious inconsistency between his "Majority" percentages and his "Lead" percentages.
So has he refined the model to sort out that problem and the refinement has led to a much bigger change in the "Majority" percentages than would be justified by events of the last few weeks.
I do not think that throwing out Clegg and repudiating the coalition would enhance their credibility, it may well wreck what is left of credibility.
The fact that David Laws is in charge of the next manifesto would suggest that it will not be a radical leftist agenda.
"So you're telling me there's a chance? YEAH!!!!!"
- Jim Carrey in Dumb and Dumber.
His largest party/majority probabilities are now internally consistent although with no methodology change they don't have to be.
The current Ladbrokes line price is for the LDs on 37.5 seats - a level that I don't find tempting
Nicely done Sunil though you could have gone for the clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMRrNY0pxfM
I did not say that a whole 9% could just come from being a month closer to the GE.
Just that it was one factor you were ignoring.
If its a decent model it should be reasonably self correcting and become more accurate as more data is inputted, accounting for all the various unknowns described below. It shouldn't be Dr Fisher predicts by pulling numbers out of his arse (a la Hodges), but Dr Fisher's model predicts, and changes on the basis of evidence. The numbers will take some time to settle down.
Nate Silver isn't a genius, he just had a good model and alot of data over a long time period. Having said that, having looked at the methodology paper i'm not sure how sophisticated a statistician Dr Fisher actually is!
On the other hand, it clearly means something, in that if Mr C said the chance of a LibDem majority was 60%, we'd unanimously agree that Mr C was off with the fairies, and, if we couldn't assess probabilities at all in political betting, we couldn't make money from it.
I'll leave you with that conundrum, as it's my 60th birthday (!), and I'm planning to cope with this difficult concept by drinking some fine claret.
FPT
[Goldman Sachs] put their Farringdon HQ on hold and blamed it on the EU.
The real story is to do with the Diocese of London and taxi ranks. Goldman's thought they could screw the Church. They couldn't.
Any more on this story? Just curious.
You could take Elroy Jame's JFK book and just change the setting: CIA to MI5, Mafia to sovs, Cubans to IRA etc.
It is caused by the death of a Labour MSP who had a 4.9% majority in 2011.
The constituency includes 4 wards in full plus part of a 5th.
In the 4 wards totally included within the constituency boundaries, the 2012 locals result was:
Lab 51.3%
SNP 33.6
Con 7.9
LD 5.2
UKIP 1.7
Others 0.2%
The split ward voted Lab 46.4 Ind 27.51 SNP 19 Ind 4.43 Con 2.66%
Applying the next door Dunfermline by-election swing to 2011 result would result in a 18.78% majority....which is more or less like the 2012 locals lead in the area.
I suppose my taxes will now be going to support all the freebies you'll now get ;-)