Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Leader ratings 18 months before an election
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Leader ratings 18 months before an election
I thought it might be useful how Ed and Dave compare to their predecessors as Leader of the Opposition and Prime Minister, eighteen months prior to a General Election.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Both Miliband and Cameron, have a smaller pool of voters from which to attract positive ratings, and a larger pool of voters from which to attract negative ratings, so a double whammy.
-13
+7
-23
+12
+68
+52
-34
+14
And today, the PM is on +2.
I think I can confidently predict, it could go either way!
The assumption that the leadership ratings will matter more as the election comes closer seems quite widely shared among sensible people here. It sounds plausible, but is there any good evidence for it or is it mostly intuition?
1 day 2 hours 29 minutes
it may be the case of the resistible force meets the moveable object.
Blair Nov 03 vs Howard Nov 03 is also an indicator that relative strengths are not much use either (although in fairness Howard came reasonably close on the popular vote, it was the distribution that sank him).
I think looking at these figures it is those that think these ratings are useful to make their case. I am not seeing it.
It's also a reason for the disconnect between leader approval and voting intention. By definition it's the more fervent Labour supporters who see politics as a team sport and worry about "are we gonna win?", and they're not going to stop voting Labour.
Gove will be on the offensive this week arguing (correctly) that our educational establishment has failed our children and that this has major long term negative implications for their earning capacity. Whether his changes will make things better is more up for grabs of course but the puncturing of the smug, self satisfied educationalist establishment is a good thing.
It will be particularly interesting to see the results in Scotland where, as in so many areas, the SNP government has shown no interest whatsoever in challenging the institutional producer capture that Gove (and in fairness Adonis and Blair before him) is seeking to challenge in England.
Perhaps it just shows how polarising some leaders are. Mrs T is one example, as was Foot, while centrist candidates do somewhat better.
Really unpopular Prime Ministers get re elected except for some who don't?
The latest rankings in the Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa) will be published on Tuesday.
Sir John Rowling, of the Performance in Excellence (PiXL) Club, says Pisa tests are so politically important that pupils should prepare for them.
Results for England may cue "another blast of negativity", said Sir John.
The PiXL club is a group of some 800 schools dedicated to boosting pupils' exam performance at A-level and GCSE.......
In an interview with the Times Educational Supplement website, Sir John criticises the government's current attitude towards the Pisa tests which are sat in reading, maths and science, every three years, by a random sample of 500,000 15-year-olds from more than 60 countries.
The last set of rankings, published in 2010, were dominated by Asian school systems. Scandinavian countries had the best results in Europe, while scores from UK countries dropped to the middle of the table.....
Sir John suggests that England may be losing out because other countries take the tests more seriously and do more to ensure that pupils perform well.
The former headteacher says one solution would be to familiarise pupils with the style of the tests.
He told BBC News that because the tests are taken by a minority of pupils they are not taken seriously and "nobody bothers".
"It all seems so far away it doesn't seem to matter - but when politicians get hold of the results it matters a great deal."
He added that no-one would think of entering any other exam "from driving tests to Oxbridge exams" without preparing - but says schools are "dissuaded" from preparing pupils for Pisa.
"Maybe that's what the government wants. Maybe it's what Pisa wants too, and if everybody else is doing that, fair enough," he said.
But unless other countries did the same "you are not comparing like with like".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25156701
Labour should hang their heads in shame.
Gove should start by allowing headmasters more time to observe their teachers, even if it means taking on unions like the NASUWT. Currently, headmasters can only do classroom observations for three hours in a year.
http://www.nasuwt.org.uk/Whatsnew/NASUWTNews/Nationalnewsitems/FAQsEngland/index.htm
Can anyone defend this?
But it`s notable that Labour are going on the attack on day to day issues which they weren`t doing before and Ed is more often seen on our screens.So that could help improve his ratings.
And on energy, the coalition *may* be doing something to actually reduce bills, without the risk to the energy companies. Although I'd like to see more details before I say that for sure.
It means that teachers need to be held accountable for their performance, professionalism needs to be improved (see the NASUWT page below for how far that has got to go) and ways must be found to better reward and promote good teachers and good practice.
Glad you said that, - I was also struggling to see any correlation from the figures provided.
A handy quick summary of the 2014 new regulations is here: http://thewptformula.wordpress.com/2013/11/30/analysis-2014-general-summary/comment-page-1/#comment-247
#innocentface
This is in direct contrast with people like miners etc who (leaving school at 14) previously attained such levels using evening classes and were full of aspiration to succeed and were a source of pride to their old school and community.
I am amazed that Performance in Excellence Club has only some 800 schools - perhaps that demonstrates the problem we have today.
And poor parenting is not just the preserve of low-income families.
IMHO, obviously.
I suspect the subject was only offered because some parents wanted their sons to be doctors and there was no other option!
In essence, an entirely arbitrary definition has now been changed to a slightly different arbitrary definition. Fetch the pitchforks, light the torches and unleash the hounds!
On-topic: I concur with those who find it pretty hard to find all that much of use in the figures. Maybe it'd be handy to have more data. (Economic confidence in the Government/Opposition, popularity [or lack thereof] of parties etc).
The people who create this sort of nonsense have too much time on their hands.
The Top Gear piece on the firm was one of the best in recent series. Last I heard UK demand for cars was pretty high, but in Europe (probably excepting Germany) it's still pretty low. Not sure whether now's a good time to restart the business, but Saab has/had a pretty good reputation.
I suspect you'll see a big difference between Thatcher Dec81 and Thatcher Dec82.
An effective way to reduce relative poverty would be as follows: Assuming you have 100 people, ordered in terms of income, you need to reduce the incomes of the people from about 40 onwards. Therefore the 100th (lowest earning) person earns the same as the 50th.
You will have eliminated relative poverty.
It is a bonkers definition.
A new more complex deffinition of fuel poverty is now used in the UK, based on the Hills review. [4] This gave the following definition; fuel poverty is now defined as when a household’s required fuel costs are above the median level; and if they were to spend what is required, then the household would be left with a residual income below the official poverty line.
I must say that experience locally is that people are very happy to take up offers to assist in improving the insulation of their homes.
Vote Coalition !!
"I would immediately ask for the bill."
I suspect you represent the modern Labour Party.
"Oh, very well, Mr. Roger. From now on I shall only post on more intellectual matters, such as the detail of ancient warfare and the the intricacies of the 2014 F1 regulation changes."
That would be very welcome.
"i suspect you represent the modern Labour Party"
That would be nice. I have a feeling that Blair might have failed on all of those tests which is why I'm starting to warm to Ed who almost certainly wouldn't
Interestingly, teams will have fixed gear ratios for the season, with a single opportunity to change them (unsure if this is at a specific pre-determined point or whenever a team wants to). This matters because short gears mean, I think, faster acceleration out of corners but a lower top speed, which can seriously impede overtaking (cf Spain in 2010 or 2011 when Hamilton just couldn't pass Vettel on the straight because his car had gears which were too short). It also means teams not at the sharp end could gear specifically to suit a smaller number of circuits. That might sound stupid, but it would give them a better chance and an advantage at such circuits. Given the skewed, top heavy nature of the points structure, it's better to get a single 5th place finish than four 9th places.
"November saw the already solid upturn in the UK manufacturing sector gain further momentum. At 58.4, from an upwardly revised reading of 56.5 in October, the seasonally adjusted Markit/CIPS Purchasing Manager’s Index® (PMI®) rose to its highest level since February 2011. Moreover, the PMI has signalled expansion for eight months running.
The improved performance of the sector largely reflected substantial increases in both
manufacturing production and new orders, with rates of growth in both at, or near to, 19-year highs.
The ongoing recovery at manufacturers encouraged further job creation in November.
Employment rose for the seventh consecutive month, with the rate of increase accelerating to a two-and-a-half year record.
The sector is on course to beat the 0.9% increase in output seen in the third quarter, with the quarterly pace of growth so far in the final quarter tracking comfortably above the 1.0% mark"
http://www.markiteconomics.com/Survey/PressRelease.mvc/be38e62ac89f4fc1a3c0079f1a4050f4
France Manufacturing #PMI drops to five-month low of 48.4 in Nov, from 49.1 in Oct http://bit.ly/1ba6QIo
Well done Ed's Mate..
Worst in Europe too. Thank goodness we have Cameron and Osborne running the show over here.
__
+ve
Win
Lose
Win
-ve
Lose
Win
?
Win
N/A (Change leader)
Win
Lose
Opp
___
+ve
Win
Lose
Lose
Win
Win
Lose
-ve
?
Lose
Lose
Lose
Ed speaks great truth - I'm sure he wouldn't dump his bestest friend Hollande, just because it might be a bit difficult politically.
"Mr Miliband disclosed that he had struck up a “very warm” relationship with Mr Hollande, when the pair met in London in February.
“We got on extremely well,” the Labour leader told The Daily Telegraph, when asked about his meeting with the French President-elect.
“He’s a very serious person. I think he is focused on the job in hand.
"We talked about growth and austerity in Europe and how we can tilt the direction of where Europe is going. I think that’s important.
Mr Miliband spoke again to Mr Hollande on Thursday and the pair expect to meet again in the coming weeks.
“I think it’s a significant moment,” he said. “What does the Left have to prove across Europe and indeed in Britain?
“There are always going to be difficult decisions that you have to make. But the question is, is Europe going to grow, is Britain going to grow, or are we just going to be stuck in recession, flat-lining economy and austerity?”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/9259475/Ed-Miliband-plans-a-new-Europe-with-Francois-Hollande.html
Not a caring society any more - figures relate to past decade.
Who will be the French Maggie? If ever a nother country needed one, France is it.
If you're desperate for someone to take the other side of that bet, I'm happy to take 7/9 - any size you like
And unemployment is soaring- just ask Danny Blanchflower.
I see rcs is complaining that the most generous odds anywhere on earth aren't good enough, despite everyonè who commented on the relevant thread saying Lib Dems would hose up... Some people!
That is the number that could tear the European Union apart.
56 is the percentage of French GDP accounted for government spending. We, by the way, are at 47%, and falling.
Across Europe, everyone is seeing government spending as a percentage of GDP fall. We are, the Greeks, the Italians, the Spanish, the Irish, the Portuguese... In fact, Spanish government spending as a percentage of GDP has fallen by 5%.
Everyone, in fact, has cut spending except the French. Government spending continues to rise, while the population complains about (utterly non-existant) austerity.
Now, there are two ways this can go. Either the French can do what the Scandanavians did at the beginning of the 1990s, or we did in the early 1980s, or - indeed - what Germany did in the early 2000s. That is, cutting government spending and freeing up the labour market.
Or it can try and cling to the idea that the state can provide.
Personal view; if Hollande follows Mitterand (or Schroder) and becomes a Socialist leader who cuts spending and frees up the labour market, then France - and by association - the European Union will have a pretty good time between now and 2020. If, on the other hand, his statist tendencies prevail, then I think the whole EU and Eurozone could unwind.
We complain about the Oxbridge PPE mafia in British Politics. That's nothing compared to the École nationale d'administration
@DavidL you have £50@4/6
We had a large depreciation in 2008 and other than soaring inflation, I'm not sure that it had much benefit for the UK - certainly we did not see much export increase. Probably because most of what we export is not that price sensitive and depends on longer term relationships and fitting into existing supply chains. All of which require sustained work and government trade help.
If anything the soaring pound will help reduce inflation and deal with Ed's cost of living crisis.
Having put that cheap shot on the record I would agree they have been incapable of choosing on their own account to have QE but I am still far from sure what effect that had on our economy. It seems to me that the BoE somehow largely sterilised its effects.
I do recall commenting on here about 18 months ago that George was taking a year off deficit reduction and it is true the deficit remained at about 120bn for a significant period but I think we will see this week that we are back on the downward path again and that, if anything, it is somewhat steeper than it was before.
Yes, a lightening of the austerity programme has fed through to the deficit. Classic Keynes.
He carried on with his cuts in that spending, excluding the automatic stabilizer social security payments went down, but the deficit failed to move because tax income never went up as fast as expected - mainly due to europe's malaise. The current recovery isn't due to a fiscal stimulus.
We need to taper that support very quickly or we will simply never be able to pay it back.
So it is not a new fiscal stimulus. It is simply a continuation of the fiscal stimulus that peaked in 2008/9 and has been running ever since. This is why I do not agree with SO about the consequences of reducing austerity measures. The reason we flatlinned was not a lack of stimulus or "austerity". It was because there was no credit available in the economy to create additional demand or investment and no export markets available that we were capable of exploiting either.
The improving flow of credit is by far the biggest factor in the present recovery.
Can anyone defend the proposition that leader ratings are a useful predictor of general election results?
I was never disciplined for doing what I did.
But either way, we are talking about something that is not available to the French. So unless you think Labour would not have continued with quantative easing there really can be no comparison with what is happening over there.
"Between 1995/96 and 2004/05, UK median household income grew at an average rate of 3.7% per year, faster than GDP per person, which grew at 2.9% per year. However, while GDP per person continued to grow at similar rates between 2004/05 and 2007/08, growth of median household income slowed to a fifth of its previous rate in the years immediately before the start of the economic downturn.
Between 2007/08 and 2011/12, average income from employment and investments for the middle fifth of non-retired households fell from £37,900 to £32,600.
Cash benefits for the middle fifth of non-retired households rose from £3,100 to £4,600 between 2007/08 and 2011/12. As a result, the average proportion of gross income coming from cash benefits increased from 7.6% to 12.3% for this group.
Average direct taxes paid by the middle fifth of non-retired households have fallen from £8,700 in 2007/08 to £6,800 in 2011/12. As a percentage of gross income, this is equivalent to a fall from 21.1% to 18.3%. "
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_341133.pdf