Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tories move up 5pc in first full voting intention poll sinc
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tories move up 5pc in first full voting intention poll since the autumn statement
On Friday YouGov was showing a 12% lead from a poll where the fieldwork mostly took place before Osborne’s autumn statement. It was way out of line with previous polls and did look like an outlier.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
They also ask who would make best chancellor for first time since June. Numbers almost unchanged: Osborne 32; Balls 22; DK/none of the above 46.
Osborne's net good job/bad job is up from -27 in June to -20.
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/bcuvyc2obh/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-061213.pdf
Who do you think is most responsible for Britain's position in the education league tables?
Labour 24
Teachers 21
Parents 18
Coalition 17
Oth/DK 21
Too soon for Labour to return to power in 2015
I think it will be hard for Labour to gain traction on these issues until they come out with some policies.
The 5% gain is a bit large but interesting that it came from both Labour and UKIP. LDs are down to their base.
Maybe Osborne is not that toxic.
"All of the above" was meant in jest, but would reflect my opinion. Most intractable problems have no easy answer.
My problem is that I have more confidence that the first offeror will be a good neighbour than the second offeror, though I have no concrete ground to suspect the second offeror would be a bad neighbour. How much of a premium should I put on this?
Anyone who wants to play Through The Keyhole can have a look here:
http://www.daveystone.com/Property/Residential/for-sale/London/Epworth-Street/SH224ES.aspx
Emily Thornberry is welcome to read out the particulars on the floor of the House if she so wishes.
Cameron: -15 (+3)
Miliband: -35 (-2)
Clegg: -48 (+2)
Coalition managing economy well (net): -13 (+4)
Government policy in economy has made things:
Worse: 30 (-4)
Helped recovery: 36 (+4)
No difference: 24 (+1)
I am wary of ascribing poll shifts to "one off events" which we notice but I suspect the electorate do not - so if these shifts are sustained, I'd put it down more to the general narrative on the economy rather than the Autumn Statement per se. There is one question on the Autumn Statement - but again I suspect it's got more to do with the general narrative and expectations than specifics:
From what you have heard of Autumn Statement will you personally be:
Better off: 5
Worse off: 31
No difference: 46
Don't know:18
That 70% of the 18-24 segment who will now work into their seventies are "no difference" (34) or "don't know" (36) suggests they may not have been paying close attention....
Nice flat BTW, but for that money I can buy a grade 2 listed Queen Anne manor house in a village near me with good rail links to London. It is a crazy price for a flat.
As every good Tory knows, you should sell on price not sentiment.
@AveryLP I need to decide what price I put on the chance of regular noisy parties disrupting the enjoyment of my other property. Even good Tories would recognise that's not just about sentiment.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s I used to visit your part of town to collect specialist printing plates from a small company in Tabernacle Street. The whole area was full of printing companies or, more specifically, companies providing ancilliary services to the printing industry.
Your flat (its windows especially) and the large open area reminds me of the firm I visited. Was your building ever part of this former print industry?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labours-secrecy-over-falkirk-scandal-a-gift-to-the-snp-8990849.html
I'd think that in a few days we'll be back with the holding pattern (Labour lead 6-7 apart from MOE variation) until the New Year at least, and probably until the Budget, the next major event.
Malcolm Scott's sequestration will last for another 10 months and he now faces a government watchdog probe into his conduct.
Until last year, the Fettes-educated businessman donated at least £1.6m to the Conservatives and was the Scottish party's treasurer.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/former-tory-donor-scotts-bankruptcy-extended.22886423
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/96/UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png
Rioting/civil disturbance seems a distinct possibility in some areas given what has already been reported. The Tories will get the blame.
Con 301 .. LibDem 39 .. Others 310
@CarlottaVance the second potential offerors are a very nice middle aged couple buying for their daughter who is straight out of uni. I haven't met her and there is nothing about the parents that makes me suspect she will be anything other than delightful and considerate. It's pure ageism on my part.
Unless the Tories genuinely were on 29% of course? Which they weren't.
Second question - did anyone in the real world notice the statement and if they did what did they notice? The news agenda on the day was the storms and then became Mandela then the storms. Top of the news agenda it was not, and work until 70 seemed to be the headline that cut through loudly. At least until the following day when we had front page "IFS says Osborne a liar" stories.
In summary what Tories bounce? Lets see a few more polls shall we?
£100?
Kinnock on the Marr show seems to have aged 20 years .... looking like a very old man indeed !!
ie http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2504472/Fears-civil-unrest-Sheffield-locals-action-Roma-migrants.html
Update, given the above article about 'street patrols' I think you owe me £100 :-)
Now we have polling.
My memories of the area were that it was a somewhat run down enclave of old-fashioned terraced buildings, many specially built or adapted for their commercial use, which adjoined but didn't form part of the City. Because most of the small firms there occupied a single floor the buldings all had open doors at ground rather level like a university college 'staircase'. The other distinguishing feature was that there were very few 'shop fronts' at ground level, making it difficult to tell from a distance whether the streets were residential or commercial. Only the various firms billboards affixed outside at their floor level told you it was commercial. It had a very 1950s feel.
It would be interesting to hear how it has responded and changed under the influence of conversion to residential use. I hope some of its old unique flavour has been retained.
Residents on patrol != civil disobedience
I'm offering you a simple bet - reality versus david blunkett. I'm betting no riots. Come on, I;m sure you believe that - in the words of the Daily Mail - the number of aliens entering the country through the back door is a problem.
Fools who go on about the immigrant "problem" never mention demographic change.
Our future prosperity depends on more immigration
http://nosoapradiopolka.co.uk/index.php/2013/02/18/london-adjusting-to-the-great-wen/
Also some great travel writing, well at least more my taste than SeanT.
A million pound flat for an ex student to start work seems a bit extravagant.
My views on what the idea state looks like can be best summarized by the introduction to AJP Taylor's The Effects and Origins of the Great War:
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy, or the territorials. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence. Substantial householders were occasionally called on for jury service. Otherwise, only those helped the state who wished to do so. The Englishman paid taxes on a modest scale: nearly £200 million in 1913-14, or rather less than 8 per cent. of the national income. The state intervened to prevent the citizen from eating adulterated food or contracting certain infectious diseases. It imposed safety rules in factories, and prevented women, and adult males in some industries, from working excessive hours. The state saw to it that children received education up to the age of 13. Since 1 January 1909, it provided a meagre pension for the needy over the age of 70. Since 1911, it helped to insure certain classes of workers against sickness and unemployment. This tendency towards more state action was increasing. Expenditure on the social services had roughly doubled since the Liberals took office in 1905. Still, broadly speaking, the state acted only to help those who could not help themselves. It left the adult citizen alone.
In your opinion. In mine 'street patrols' is civil disobedience, they wouldn't be allowed in any other 'community'.
Bate me all you like but I have no problem with immigration per se, I am one.
I was merely expressing the opinion that current polls are irellevent and will depend upon events.
I also note you have changed you tune from "rioting or civil disobedience" to "I'm betting no riots".
A simple question: what level of immigration do we need to support the increasing demographic of older people?
The alternative is a rebalancing to a new demographic. But that holds its own issues and problems.
It's a sore point for me at the moment. Immigration has made my life hell. Just yesterday an immigrant forced me to go shopping for six hours ...
No comment...
I hold by that.
Come on - worth a £100, no?
1. Increasing the birth rate through various pro-natal policies.
2. Increasing the number of workers
The former is surprisingly difficult, as Singapore has shown. While the latter gets people's back up - especially people who think the state 'owes' them a job.
As I said "Rioting/civil disturbance seems a distinct possibility", not probable.
But I'm only curious as to why only two of the three bedrooms are shown.
If, money is not your primary concern and you have the option to ‘pick’ your new neighbours, go with your gut instinct. – Great building btw, such big windows must let plenty of light in.
A good poll for the conservatives/
We then discussed it further, and think we would go with the highest bid, as long as both had the same likelihood of completion.
(BTW, many ex-industrial buildings have very thick floors. Are you sure noise from one floor to another could be a problem? I lived in a flat once with concrete floors, and the people underneath us could have set off a nuclear bomb without us hearing).
Soon the Lib Dems will be ahead of UKIP and (relatively) winning here!
Best of luck with the sale, Mr. Antifrank. I sympathise deeply with your problem. Ahem.
In other news I was on Hampstead Heath yesterday and saw fully grown adults playing Quidditch. These people are allowed to vote, I muttered to myself as I walked on by.
You're a nostalgic sentimentalist.
Perhaps you should join Cousin Seth in Cleethorpes ;-)
In terms of years of active life ahead of us and dependency ratio, things have been getting better. Working longer is a perfectly viable alternative to mass immigration, particularly unselective low skilled immigration. French bankers and Romanian Doctors yes, but do we need more Bulgarian gangsters or Syrian Jihadists to look after us in our dotage?
What would be your solution for when the next lot of immigrants get old - as those who migrated to Britain in the 1950s and 1960s have now done ?
Let me guess even more immigration.
As the economic output and infrastructure of Britain is already unable to support us in the style we think we deserve then I don't see how an ever increasing population is going to improve matters.
There are myriad ways, Britain could always try the French way: http://news.msn.com/world/why-french-women-are-having-more-babies
That ed question was 'teachers and headteachers'. Wilshaw's on SP today - be interesting as he's just blamed teachers for the failure of the WWC and is introducing a 'Chinese blueprint' this week where teachers do 'national service' in failing schools.
It's worth noting that a lot of immigrants stay for a while, make some money and then return, preferring their previous country for family, weather or other reasons as they approach retirement. Others settle and lose interest in their previous country. I don't think we really know the long-term trend on this, but it's not as simple as assuming that we're simply geting the pensioners of 2050.
Incidentally, by European standards Britain isn't especially crowded, though central London certainly is. From time to time political parties talk of building new towns, though I've yet to see any details of how they will go about it. But regardless of immigration, I think it's a legitimate Government objective to encourage a shift of emphasis from soaraway London to struggling everywhere else. (I suspect you might say this shows the need for investments like HS2!)
If you mean they are not going to throw away the pizza flyers that get put in the communal hall I would live with that and take the higher offer.
If you mean they are going to play loud music at 4 in the morning mid week then (for me at least) peace and quiet is a huge premium.
Wouldn't the right way to do it be just to ignore the outlier (which I think most people thought the 12% lead was, although it didn't stop the lefties having their fun, in the same way a few of the more excitable Tories talked about "crossover").
i.e. we should look at this as a narrowing from the poll before last one? Does anyone have those number. Off the top of my head I would see this as a narrowing from a 7/8 Labour lead to a 5 point lead. Too early to say whether it is noise or real. In any event it is a solid single/double rather than a home run (but that is what, I suspect, they were aiming for)
The world has changed and no matter how many times you post that libertarian nostalgia we're not going to get rid of the welfare state or big government in general.
And have you considered the practical effects of your 'sovereignty of the individual'.
Millions of people would migrate to this country - after all living in poverty or being in jail here is still far superior to the hellholes many people live in around the world.
Then what happens ? Doubtless the authorites would ensure they are kept out of the posher areas so instead they would congreate in the poorer neighbourhoods. And without a welfare state they would subsist from charity handouts, unofficial work and crime.
Not a recipe for either social harmony or economic progress.
I think antifrank is too.
Buying two flats in a converted semi-industrial print suppliers building seems is very much a subliminal salute to his father's trade.
And it is a very clever place to live. Take a photograph of the streets and it could be in any large city in the county, yet you are less than four hundred yards away from Finsbury Square.
I wonder though whether it has gained the 'village' type life that characterise truly distinct areas of London. When I knew the area there were a few pubs but almost no shops or restaurants.
I am not even sure the area had its own name, though antifrank may put me right on this. Old Street or Clerkenwell are close but not really the same area.
It's the rate of immigration, the type (i.e. un/semi-skilled), the failings in the education and the welfare system and the multi-culturalism approach.
A manageable level of immigration, where they integrate into the host community is a great thing. The current situation is one where the education system has failed to prepare our young people to compete effectively in a cutthroat world and the welfare system provides them with a very comfortable long-term place to rest. The result is that we are importing people to do jobs that our own kids could and should do while abandoning them to the personal psychological decay of long-term joblessness.
Clearly the most critical part is to fix education and welfare. But uncontrolled immigration does not help matters at all. (Personally, I would look at right to claim welfare benefits, at the right to bring family and dependents, strengthening the points system, etc.)
SA v Ind one day you can still get 1.37 on SA, I bet a £5.00 before it started and got 1.66.
Seems like easy money to me, SA currently 92-0 17th over.
If Eng manage a draw due to weather I will be severely miffed, it will be totally undeserved and I'll only make a few quid instead of a nice drinky.
The important thing is to remember what the margin of error means.
First, it's only a statistical measure, which assumes that the pollster carried out a random selection. It makes no account of whether the margin gets bigger or smaller as a result of the various voting filters, or doesn't get a random sample. The weightings are all based on the assumption that they they don't.
Secondly, it's the definition of the margin of error that 95% of all samples will fall within the true value +/- the margin of error. Hence one in twenty - once a month, give or take - it will fall outside this range.
Thirdly, because of the 95% thing, the chance of one poll being +moe% then the next day -moe% is 2.5%*2.5%, i.e. very small. But that doesn't complete the picture, partly because of point 1 - the true moe is bigger than stated - but also it is wise to do something a bit Bayesian and ask well, if that's the chance of it happening by chance, what probability do I place on it happening because of a shift in the underlying Tory vote? Has the rare just happened?
Just an aside: given you are a lawyer, what about putting some covenants into the sale contract. Say "no loud music after 11pm" (although I guess you'd need to define.
You might even find that the parents are on your side...
We need people who want to come here, make money, set up their own businesses etc, not come here and claim Income Support, or indeed claim Child Benefit for children who live abroad.
tim for one seems to think that immigration should be a complete free for all, he is fond of quoting factoids like immigrants are 30% less likely than those born here to claim benefits (I can't actually remember the figure). However if we were fussier, maybe we could make that figure 70%?
Or Methodia.
Perhaps Abolitiontown.
What would be the effect on property prices if the area was given its own name ?
Although my all time favorite has to be the agent who tried to get me to buy a place in "St. Reatham" (Streatham)
A deeper question is: How much will technology enable cheaper and better public services? Here in the Netherlands the state is actually quite efficient and all their departments seem to link to a well run central system. In the USA the Obamacare website rollout seems to be an object lesson in 'how not to'. Can we shrink the state but yet achieve a better service for the public by just getting alot smarter and more efficient? Hell YES!
There is a discussion to be had on what renumeration, pension, expenses and booting-out-of-a-job payoff they get, but, IPSA have lost the plot if they think the general public are going to take the likes of Dorries, Abbott, other no mark back benchers, and the PPE elite on both front benches raking in at least another seven and a half grand lying down.
I've had 2% in the last 5 years.
IPSA will do morale for striking public sector workers a power of good, if they carry this out.
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/111650
Not enough evidence, wicked witch didn't mean a word...
The area, as another richard has correctly pointed out, demands a party with a nostalgic feel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nnTSePPCVk
But I think that Cameron should have a 3 line whip against this proposal. It will piss off his backbenchers, and I know that is a risk, but equally I suspect those that will be really upset are the Cameron-haters anyway.
I suspect that it would look very good to the public.
(as an aside, WTF haven't they replaced the pension scheme with a direct contribution scheme. It's outrageous that they still have a final salary approach. Don't care how much they have to pay out of wages. The state should not be underwriting a comfortable life for MPs for the rest of their lives).
But today he suggests replacing Ed Balls with Chuka Umunna (or Stella Creasy).
Really?
I don't get the Umunna thing. Young, clever and black, yes. But a bit too slick and gooey for me.
But with Rentoul mentioning it as a goer, perhaps he would be a popular choice.
Do Labour supporters think Umunna would work in a top job? Would he be a vote winner?
Personally I'd stick with Ed Balls if I were Ed Miliband. I know Balls is tainted by the Brown connection and he isn't particularly good in parliament, but he is the cleverest and toughest front-bencher Labour have and I imagine, given his fairly vast experience*, he'll cause problems for Osborne during the GE campaign.
*An interesting point in the McBride book was made regarding the Treasury and the Budget. McBride commented on the value of experience when it came to avoiding Budget-day pitfalls (the pasty tax for instance): being able to sift out good economic ideas in the knowledge that they could be calamitous in the polls. Balls will certainly know every nook and cranny of the Treasury. Someone new like Umunna or Creasy would be prone to making glaring mistakes. I still don't think - regardless of the polls - that Miliband can take big risks with his top personnel.
Still, even on this superb Tory poll, Labour is at 39% or, in other words, forming a government with a big majority.
Of course, come the elections, the gap will narrow. The best the Tories can hope for is a CON-LD coalition, the chances of which cannot be ruled out.
However, even that requires reasonable LD represenatation. But their poll numbers remain stubbornly low and UKIP equally high.
I would have thought more comment was needed on the leaked "Blairites in board" memo. My colleagues on Labour Left wonder if it's set up for Miliband to reject (there has been some angst amongst Progress types most upset at David M losing the election). For me I want Campbell on board - he is a consummate media operator who won two elections. And he's a loyalist who will communicate the message he's told to communicate. The right hate him not because of what he does but because he did a better job than their people did.
First, it's only a statistical measure, which assumes that the pollster carried out a random selection. It makes no account of whether the margin gets bigger or smaller as a result of the various voting filters, or doesn't get a random sample. The weightings are all based on the assumption that they they don't.
Secondly, it's the definition of the margin of error that 95% of all samples will fall within the true value +/- the margin of error. Hence one in twenty - once a month, give or take - it will fall outside this range.
Thirdly, because of the 95% thing, the chance of one poll being +moe% then the next day -moe% is 2.5%*2.5%, i.e. very small. But that doesn't complete the picture, partly because of point 1 - the true moe is bigger than stated - but also it is wise to do something a bit Bayesian and ask well, if that's the chance of it happening by chance, what probability do I place on it happening because of a shift in the underlying Tory vote? Has the rare just happened?
I get your first and second thing, but your third thing isn't what I'm asking. To clarify the question, which is purely about sampling error:
- A poll is conducted to determine the Con score such that 95% of all samples will fall within 3% of the true value. This gives us a number.
- Another such poll is conducted on another day, which results in a larger number.
- What's the difference minimum difference between the two numbers such that in at least 95% of cases where we got it, there had actually been a change, as opposed to the true number being the same and the difference being the result of sampling error?
Or to ask a slightly different, but related, question:
- If the true number hadn't really changed, what proportion of samples would show an increase of 5% (like today) purely due to sampling error?
Surely if in reality Labour was streets ahead in the country, we wouldn't have seen swings away from Labour in almost every council by-election held last Thursday!
Listened to Balls and he remains in the same fantasy world as his pal Blanchflower who remains a deficit denier and claims the Coalition ruined the economy.
The expenses scandal arose because in the 80's Thatcher and her Minister, Moore, ducked a similar issue and allowed the Expenses backdoor route. 20 years later it came to bite everyone big time.
Basically, what we are saying is that unless someone is very rich or is prepared to earn far less than some of them are capable of earning, they should not become an MP.
What did an MP earn in 1980 vs a GP, say ? What do they earn now ?
To answer my own question.....no