politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The monthly projection from Electoral Calculus sees the LAB

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The monthly projection from Electoral Calculus sees the LAB majority down from 80 seats to 78

The latet monthly projection from Martin Baxter’s Electoral Calculus sees a slight falling off of the projected LAB majority, The caluclation is based on applying Martin’s polling computation to his seat model and assuming a uniform national swing.

Read the full story here

TGOHF

Con Lib at 3% ? Pity no 33/1 on offer ...

Morris_Dancer

Damned new thread. FPT:
Hehe. Rather like this piece on the BBC rejecting a subscription approach:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25576289

"Current research shows 96% of UK adults use one or more of the BBC's services each week, costing 40p per household, per day."

Lots of people use news service which has a monopoly on radio, the lion's share of TV and one of the last free major news sites. Shocking.

Also, listing a price per day or week is a great way to make something seem cheap. To be fair, the annual cost is mentioned earlier.

"Responding to a government inquiry into the future of the BBC, it argued the £145.50 licence fee was the "most effective way" to fund the corporation.

It warned a subscription model - where users only pay for the services they want - would exclude many who could not afford it."

That's only rational if you make it more expensive. If someone only wants current events and history documentaries they could probably save quite a bit. And you can't argue against charging people too much making a network exclusive when you're collecting involuntary payment as a tax.

I do think there's a case for a core BBC service (current events) being funded by a licence fee, but the current approach is just crazy. It's also unsustainable. TVs will never die out (too convenient) but the proportion of people without a dedicated telly will only rise in the near future.

Innocent_Abroad

The first thing the next Parliament will do (irrespective of the political numbers) will be to repeal the absurd "5 year rule" Cameron and Clegg cooked up to stop themselves scratching each other's eyes out at the first opportunity (see LD poll figures for this Parliament passim).

My own guess is two more (short-lived) hung Parliaments during the second of which there'll be another referendum on PR - a proper one this time. How that will go I've no idea.

Philip_Thompson

A question for psephologists. The previous thread header discussed the role of public sector voters and there's long been polling evidence that public and private sector workers vote differently.

Over recent years the number if public workers have fallen and private workers has risen. This I would expect to continue. Presumably by 2015 a portion of the electorate will be ex-public, now-private workers.

Is there any logic or way of knowing the likely effect on voting intentions of these voters? In a close election this sort of change could make a difference.

Pulpstar

Thread header is incorrect.

Neil

So is 2 seats a good ready reckoner for the impact of a 1% swing from Con to UKIP (or UKIP to Con) at current levels of polling? You can see why Cameron thinks he needs to get them down to 5%.

Pulpstar

What was the 'Baxtered' seat projection on 2nd Jan 2009 btw ?

NickPalmer

Like Rod's model which shows a 0% chance of Labour government, I think these models are of limited use this far out. Baxter assumes no swingback, Rod's model IIRC assumes loads of swingback.

By the way, reading through Nate Silver's book, it's a delight for anyone interested in this sort of thing: http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Signal-Noise-Science-Prediction/dp/1846147522 .
He goes through diverse example from different walks of life, showing the ways in which people extrapolate from what they want to what they think. One of the intriguing suggestions (backed by survey research) is that people with strong ideological views become LESS accurate at prediction when they get more information, because they use it to build on their rigid theories and make themselves feel they're yet more perfect than before.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Abroad, I concur that the 5 year rule should be axed. However, it did help ensure a feeling of stability with this unusual coalition.

Mr. Neil, if UKIP fell to 5% from where they are it could be good for the Conservative or great for Labour. The purples will be the most interesting party to watch at the next election.

Philip_Thompson

How can Con+1, UKIP-1 affect Lab majority? A governmental majority is based on their numbers over all others (over 325) isn't it? The only way a Lab majority can change is more or less Lab seats, who the opposition seats belong to doesn't affect it does it?

Freggles

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Abroad, I concur that the 5 year rule should be axed. However, it did help ensure a feeling of stability with this unusual coalition.

Mr. Neil, if UKIP fell to 5% from where they are it could be good for the Conservative or great for Labour. The purples will be the most interesting party to watch at the next election.

I agree, it makes things too boring!

Philip_Thompson

Besides Sinn Fein of course effectively.

Pulpstar

Philip_Thompson said:

How can Con+1, UKIP-1 affect Lab majority? A governmental majority is based on their numbers over all others (over 325) isn't it? The only way a Lab majority can change is more or less Lab seats, who the opposition seats belong to doesn't affect it does it?

A change of 2 seats in a Labour majority is a fart in a Mili landslide-hurricane and very much MoE so far as this sort of model is concerned.

Grandiose

Baxter's system addresses a particular issue. It attempts to answer the question, "If the Conservatives win x%, Labour y%, the Lib Dems z%, and UKIP a%, who will govern?".

The percentages are the result of a particular polling average. Therefore the Baxter'd figures are effectively a nowcast, not a forecast. Although Baxter says "at the next general election", the "pred votes" column matches the current polls (predicting the future being an altogether different question). Hence the graph at the bottom on what future movement we might expect.

Neil

Philip_Thompson said:

How can Con+1, UKIP-1 affect Lab majority? A governmental majority is based on their numbers over all others (over 325) isn't it? The only way a Lab majority can change is more or less Lab seats, who the opposition seats belong to doesn't affect it does it?

Because it can enable the Tories to win slightly more (1 it looks like in this case!) marginals from Labour.

TGOHF

Pulpstar said:

What was the 'Baxtered' seat projection on 2nd Jan 2009 btw ?

His site doesn't appear to keep old projections - or I can't find a link on his site.

Neil

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Neil, if UKIP fell to 5% from where they are it could be good for the Conservative or great for Labour.

Why would David Cameron be wishing for something that could be great for Labour?

fitalass

Twitter
Christian May ‏@ChristianJMay 24m
FT report majority of economists predict rise in living standards in 2014. Labour's cost of living crisis could actually become...a crisis.

Pulpstar

YouGov show 11 point Tory lead
30 JAN 2009
YouGov’s monthly poll for the Telegraph has topline figures, with changes from the last YouGov poll in the middle of January, of CON 43%(-2), LAB 32%(nc), LDEM 16%(+2).

CON 349
LAB 252
LIB 21

Actual was ofc:

CON 36.97%
LAB 29.66%
LIB 23.56%

CON 307
LAB 258 (Quite close...)
LIB 57

RichardNabavi

NickPalmer said:

One of the intriguing suggestions (backed by survey research) is that people with strong ideological views become LESS accurate at prediction when they get more information, because they use it to build on their rigid theories and make themselves feel they're yet more perfect than before.

It may well not be related to ideology, but knowledge leading to over-confidence. There's a similar effect in financial markets: for example, there was a large study (I think in Denmark), which found that people who invest in shares in the same industry that they work in do less well than average investors. That's because they over-estimate the extent to which they understand the industry and the drivers of share prices.

Pulpstar

Lib Dems on 16% at the same point of the electoral cycle in 2009... interesting.

anothernick

fitalass said:

Twitter
Christian May ‏@ChristianJMay 24m
FT report majority of economists predict rise in living standards in 2014. Labour's cost of living crisis could actually become...a crisis.

A small rise in living standards - if it happens for the majority of people and not just for those at the top - will have little impact. There is virtually zero chance of living standards in 2015 being above 2010 levels so Labour is on pretty safe ground.

Grandiose

Grandiose said:

Baxter's system addresses a particular issue. It attempts to answer the question, "If the Conservatives win x%, Labour y%, the Lib Dems z%, and UKIP a%, who will govern?".

The percentages are the result of a particular polling average. Therefore the Baxter'd figures are effectively a nowcast, not a forecast. Although Baxter says "at the next general election", the "pred votes" column matches the current polls (predicting the future being an altogether different question). Hence the graph at the bottom on what future movement we might expect.

To reply to myself, I am much bemused at the "Predictions" box, that is to say, the bar chart. The central prediction doesn't have any natural margin of error nearly big enough (mostly the result of assuming a uniform national swing) and I can't find any explanation of the prediction part. Which means, I guess, Mr Baxter has fed in some future gazing, but I don't think so?

Freggles

RichardNabavi said:

NickPalmer said:

One of the intriguing suggestions (backed by survey research) is that people with strong ideological views become LESS accurate at prediction when they get more information, because they use it to build on their rigid theories and make themselves feel they're yet more perfect than before.

It may well not be related to ideology, but knowledge leading to over-confidence. There's a similar effect in financial markets: for example, there was a large study (I think in Denmark), which found that people who invest in shares in the same industry that they work in do less well than average investors. That's because they over-estimate the extent to which they understand the industry and the drivers of share prices.

I think the surveys will have specifically tested for ideological fervour rather than degree of knowledge. The effect sounds similar though.

Pulpstar

Analysis back in Dec 2008:

The abyss ahead of Gordon Brown…
19 DEC 2008

"The polls are now showing levels of support that would result in a hung parliament that would, given the maths, almost certainly produce another Labour government. However, expectations continue to be that Labour will lose the next election. As I type the bookies still have the Conservatives as the heavy odds-on favourite, betting spreads have a Tory majority, the last time the PoliticsHome panel of MPs, political journalists and so on were polled 40-odd percent still thought there would be a Conservative majority, even left leaning pundits like Michael White in the Guardian are saying they still don’t expect Labour to win. "

So the polls at this point show a stonking Labour Majority, whereas the bookies have it as Labour Most seats, NOM.

By this analysis of splicing the middle of bookies' expectations and polls we arrive at a paper thin Miliband Majority ?

taffys

Labour's cost of living crisis could actually become...a crisis.

The problem for labour is that this really is a last redoubt position. If living standards for the many do improve, what's their critique after that?

MonikerDiCanio

In the mid-term year Labour failed to make progress , in fact, they fell back.They're going to lose surprisingly badly in 2015.

Scott_P

taffys said:

Labour's cost of living crisis could actually become...a crisis.

The problem for labour is that this really is a last redoubt position. If living standards for the many do improve, what's their critique after that?

Fear not. I am confident Labour will come up with a continuous stream of things to point at and say "Ooh, that's expensive..."

BenM

MonikerDiCanio said:

In the mid-term year Labour failed to make progress , in fact, they fell back.They're going to lose surprisingly badly in 2015.

Alternatively, in a year when recovery allegedly took hold, the Tories flat-lined.

Scott_P

BenM said:

the Tories flat-lined.

Tell us, Ben, is that the same kind of flat-lining Ed Balls was claiming for the economy, or some other kind?

Pulpstar

BenM said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

In the mid-term year Labour failed to make progress , in fact, they fell back.They're going to lose surprisingly badly in 2015.

Alternatively, in a year when recovery allegedly took hold, the Tories flat-lined.

No. Not correct. The Tories increased. And Labour did drop slightly. But the Conservatives need to reach the sky and Labour need to metaphorically fall through the floor.

JosiasJessop

Scott_P said:

taffys said:

Labour's cost of living crisis could actually become...a crisis.

The problem for labour is that this really is a last redoubt position. If living standards for the many do improve, what's their critique after that?

Fear not. I am confident Labour will come up with a continuous stream of things to point at and say "Ooh, that's expensive..."

Don't forget that Labour target the really important issues, such as the rampant misogyny of Thomas the Tank Engine ...

TGOHF

Scott_P said:

taffys said:

Labour's cost of living crisis could actually become...a crisis.

The problem for labour is that this really is a last redoubt position. If living standards for the many do improve, what's their critique after that?

Fear not. I am confident Labour will come up with a continuous stream of things to point at and say "Ooh, that's expensive..."

You missed Miss Berger's press release (genuine) about the cost of gym membership this morning ?

The Daily Mail splashed it with glee..

anotherDave

Grandiose said:

Grandiose said:

Baxter's system addresses a particular issue. It attempts to answer the question, "If the Conservatives win x%, Labour y%, the Lib Dems z%, and UKIP a%, who will govern?".

The percentages are the result of a particular polling average. Therefore the Baxter'd figures are effectively a nowcast, not a forecast. Although Baxter says "at the next general election", the "pred votes" column matches the current polls (predicting the future being an altogether different question). Hence the graph at the bottom on what future movement we might expect.

To reply to myself, I am much bemused at the "Predictions" box, that is to say, the bar chart. The central prediction doesn't have any natural margin of error nearly big enough (mostly the result of assuming a uniform national swing) and I can't find any explanation of the prediction part. Which means, I guess, Mr Baxter has fed in some future gazing, but I don't think so?

Mr Baxter describes it as " basically Uniform National Swing (UNS), with an adaptation to keep each party's share of the vote positive."

There is a page explaining the model in more detail on the website.

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/strongmodel.html

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/trackrecord_10models.html

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/sitemap.html

Scott_P

TGOHF said:

You missed Miss Berger's press release (genuine) about the cost of gym membership this morning ?

The Daily Mail splashed it with glee..

No, I caught that one. It's AMAZING how many people "too poor to own a phone" complain to their Labour MPs about the cost of gym membership...

Pulpstar

I note the longest ever price on NOM was 2-1 from Hills in this parliament. It's always been favourite or close second favourite with the bookies !

MonikerDiCanio

BenM said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

In the mid-term year Labour failed to make progress , in fact, they fell back.They're going to lose surprisingly badly in 2015.

Alternatively, in a year when recovery allegedly took hold, the Tories flat-lined.

You've been generous in your recognition of the remarkable economic recovery in the UK this past year.Let's hope it continues.

BenM

Scott_P said:

BenM said:

the Tories flat-lined.

Tell us, Ben, is that the same kind of flat-lining Ed Balls was claiming for the economy, or some other kind?

Ed's flatlining gesture was when Osborne was, er, flatlining the economy into a double-dip recession!

Pulpstar

Shadsy currently has best price on CON Majority (Better than Betfair) ;p.

Best of luck taking him on

anothernick

Scott_P said:

taffys said:

Labour's cost of living crisis could actually become...a crisis.

The problem for labour is that this really is a last redoubt position. If living standards for the many do improve, what's their critique after that?

Fear not. I am confident Labour will come up with a continuous stream of things to point at and say "Ooh, that's expensive..."

Scott_P said:

taffys said:

Labour's cost of living crisis could actually become...a crisis.

The problem for labour is that this really is a last redoubt position. If living standards for the many do improve, what's their critique after that?

Fear not. I am confident Labour will come up with a continuous stream of things to point at and say "Ooh, that's expensive..."

They will say "are you better off now than you were when the coalition came to power?" And the answer for at least 95% of the electorate will be "no."

Slackbladder

BenM said:

Scott_P said:

BenM said:

the Tories flat-lined.

Tell us, Ben, is that the same kind of flat-lining Ed Balls was claiming for the economy, or some other kind?

Ed's flatlining gesture was when Osborne was, er, flatlining the economy into a double-dip recession!

The double dip recession which never actually happened?

Scott_P

Slackbladder said:

The double dip recession which never actually happened?

That's the one...

Scott_P

anothernick said:

They will say "are you better off now than you were when the coalition came to power?" And the answer for at least 95% of the electorate will be "no."

100% of the electorate are better off than they were before the last election. Every single day Gordo is not in No 10 the country is much better for all

BenM

Slackbladder said:

BenM said:

Scott_P said:

BenM said:

the Tories flat-lined.

Tell us, Ben, is that the same kind of flat-lining Ed Balls was claiming for the economy, or some other kind?

Ed's flatlining gesture was when Osborne was, er, flatlining the economy into a double-dip recession!

The double dip recession which never actually happened?

It happened.

Pulpstar

1.79% of bets are on UKIP majority !

Good Lord :P

TGOHF

BenM said:

Slackbladder said:

BenM said:

Scott_P said:

BenM said:

the Tories flat-lined.

Tell us, Ben, is that the same kind of flat-lining Ed Balls was claiming for the economy, or some other kind?

Ed's flatlining gesture was when Osborne was, er, flatlining the economy into a double-dip recession!

The double dip recession which never actually happened?

It happened.

Show us a graph then.

You will be worse off in 2015 - if you ignore tax cuts, fuel price freezes, rising house prices and include gym membership.

MonikerDiCanio

BenM said:

Scott_P said:

BenM said:

the Tories flat-lined.

Tell us, Ben, is that the same kind of flat-lining Ed Balls was claiming for the economy, or some other kind?

Ed's flatlining gesture was when Osborne was, er, flatlining the economy into a double-dip recession!

What happened to the triple dip recession EdM and Balls so longed for ?

state_go_away

From my experience I think Miss Berger is wrong with the 'soaring cost of gyms' . You can still get gym membership for £15 a month in most places if you go for the non frills end

Pulpstar

BenM said:

Slackbladder said:

BenM said:

Scott_P said:

BenM said:

the Tories flat-lined.

Tell us, Ben, is that the same kind of flat-lining Ed Balls was claiming for the economy, or some other kind?

Ed's flatlining gesture was when Osborne was, er, flatlining the economy into a double-dip recession!

The double dip recession which never actually happened?

It happened.

No, it did NOT.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23079082

Slackbladder

BenM said:

Slackbladder said:

BenM said:

Scott_P said:

BenM said:

the Tories flat-lined.

Tell us, Ben, is that the same kind of flat-lining Ed Balls was claiming for the economy, or some other kind?

Ed's flatlining gesture was when Osborne was, er, flatlining the economy into a double-dip recession!

The double dip recession which never actually happened?

It happened.

No, it didn't..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23079082

Freggles

Glitch in the Torybot programming there?

BenM

TGOHF said:

BenM said:

Slackbladder said:

BenM said:

Scott_P said:

BenM said:

the Tories flat-lined.

Tell us, Ben, is that the same kind of flat-lining Ed Balls was claiming for the economy, or some other kind?

Ed's flatlining gesture was when Osborne was, er, flatlining the economy into a double-dip recession!

The double dip recession which never actually happened?

It happened.

Show us a graph then.

You will be worse off in 2015 - if you ignore tax cuts, fuel price freezes, rising house prices and include gym membership.

pic.twitter.com/7hcPf5wRlK

Q1 2012 contracted by 0.04%.

Scott_P

MonikerDiCanio said:

What happened to the triple dip recession EdM and Balls so longed for ?

The only triple dip Ed Balls got was in his credibility

BenM

Pulpstar said:

BenM said:

Slackbladder said:

BenM said:

Scott_P said:

BenM said:

the Tories flat-lined.

Tell us, Ben, is that the same kind of flat-lining Ed Balls was claiming for the economy, or some other kind?

Ed's flatlining gesture was when Osborne was, er, flatlining the economy into a double-dip recession!

The double dip recession which never actually happened?

It happened.

No, it did NOT.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23079082

Yes it did.

Try data, not news reports.

pic.twitter.com/7hcPf5wRlK

BenM

Slackbladder said:

BenM said:

Slackbladder said:

BenM said:

Scott_P said:

BenM said:

the Tories flat-lined.

Tell us, Ben, is that the same kind of flat-lining Ed Balls was claiming for the economy, or some other kind?

Ed's flatlining gesture was when Osborne was, er, flatlining the economy into a double-dip recession!

The double dip recession which never actually happened?

It happened.

No, it didn't..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23079082

Yes it did.

state_go_away

BenM said:

Slackbladder said:

BenM said:

Slackbladder said:

BenM said:

Scott_P said:

BenM said:

the Tories flat-lined.

Tell us, Ben, is that the same kind of flat-lining Ed Balls was claiming for the economy, or some other kind?

Ed's flatlining gesture was when Osborne was, er, flatlining the economy into a double-dip recession!

The double dip recession which never actually happened?

It happened.

No, it didn't..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23079082

Yes it did.

Well it is panto season

Pulpstar

BenM said:

Slackbladder said:

BenM said:

Slackbladder said:

BenM said:

Scott_P said:

BenM said:

the Tories flat-lined.

Tell us, Ben, is that the same kind of flat-lining Ed Balls was claiming for the economy, or some other kind?

Ed's flatlining gesture was when Osborne was, er, flatlining the economy into a double-dip recession!

The double dip recession which never actually happened?

It happened.

No, it didn't..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23079082

Yes it did.

Following you on Twitter btw

anothernick

Scott_P said:

anothernick said:

They will say "are you better off now than you were when the coalition came to power?" And the answer for at least 95% of the electorate will be "no."

100% of the electorate are better off than they were before the last election. Every single day Gordo is not in No 10 the country is much better for all

But the absence of Gordon does not in itself raise living standards. Anyway he is already ancient history in political terms.

TGOHF

BenM said:

Slackbladder said:

BenM said:

Slackbladder said:

BenM said:

Scott_P said:

BenM said:

the Tories flat-lined.

Tell us, Ben, is that the same kind of flat-lining Ed Balls was claiming for the economy, or some other kind?

Ed's flatlining gesture was when Osborne was, er, flatlining the economy into a double-dip recession!

The double dip recession which never actually happened?

It happened.

No, it didn't..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23079082

Yes it did.

Did you and Mr Islam fail to spot the note (1) at the bottom of the table ?

MonikerDiCanio

anothernick said:

Scott_P said:

anothernick said:

They will say "are you better off now than you were when the coalition came to power?" And the answer for at least 95% of the electorate will be "no."

100% of the electorate are better off than they were before the last election. Every single day Gordo is not in No 10 the country is much better for all

But the absence of Gordon does not in itself raise living standards. Anyway he is already ancient history in political terms.

Brown is far from ancient history in political terms, his two dauphins , Ed Miliband and Ed Balls, hold the two most prominent positions in Labour.

Pulpstar

Freggles said:

Glitch in the Torybot programming there?

We both reached for the same heavily pro Conservative 'BBC' news source at the same time.

Apols.

JosiasJessop

TGOHF said:

BenM said:

Slackbladder said:

BenM said:

Slackbladder said:

BenM said:

Scott_P said:

BenM said:

the Tories flat-lined.

Tell us, Ben, is that the same kind of flat-lining Ed Balls was claiming for the economy, or some other kind?

Ed's flatlining gesture was when Osborne was, er, flatlining the economy into a double-dip recession!

The double dip recession which never actually happened?

It happened.

No, it didn't..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23079082

Yes it did.

Did you and Mr Islam fail to spot the note (1) at the bottom of the table ?

It's funny when people try to use such data to two decimal places. It gives an unwarranted importance to accuracy that does not exist.

anothernick

MonikerDiCanio said:

anothernick said:

Scott_P said:

anothernick said:

They will say "are you better off now than you were when the coalition came to power?" And the answer for at least 95% of the electorate will be "no."

100% of the electorate are better off than they were before the last election. Every single day Gordo is not in No 10 the country is much better for all

But the absence of Gordon does not in itself raise living standards. Anyway he is already ancient history in political terms.

Brown is far from ancient history in political terms, his two dauphins , Ed Miliband and Ed Balls, hold the two most prominent positions in Labour.

So what? Cameron was dauphin to Norman Lamont on Black Wednesday but that has not held back his career.

Scott_P

@PickardJE: The Labour MP known as @tom_watson mocks Ed Miliband's non-position on Europe in today's Mirror column http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tom-watson-european-elections-referendum-2980809

MonikerDiCanio

JosiasJessop said:

TGOHF said:

BenM said:

Slackbladder said:

BenM said:

Slackbladder said:

BenM said:

Scott_P said:

BenM said:

the Tories flat-lined.

Tell us, Ben, is that the same kind of flat-lining Ed Balls was claiming for the economy, or some other kind?

Ed's flatlining gesture was when Osborne was, er, flatlining the economy into a double-dip recession!

The double dip recession which never actually happened?

It happened.

No, it didn't..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23079082

Yes it did.

Did you and Mr Islam fail to spot the note (1) at the bottom of the table ?

It's funny when people try to use such data to two decimal places. It gives an unwarranted importance to accuracy that does not exist.

It reminds me of Brown lauding zero percent growth. Risible.

TheWatcher

TGOHF said:

BenM said:

Slackbladder said:

BenM said:

Slackbladder said:

BenM said:

Scott_P said:

BenM said:

the Tories flat-lined.

Tell us, Ben, is that the same kind of flat-lining Ed Balls was claiming for the economy, or some other kind?

Ed's flatlining gesture was when Osborne was, er, flatlining the economy into a double-dip recession!

The double dip recession which never actually happened?

It happened.

No, it didn't..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23079082

Yes it did.

Did you and Mr Islam fail to spot the note (1) at the bottom of the table ?

You have to wonder about an accountant who fails to spot the (not so) hidden detail.

TGOHF

TheWatcher said:

TGOHF said:

BenM said:

Slackbladder said:

BenM said:

Slackbladder said:

BenM said:

Scott_P said:

BenM said:

the Tories flat-lined.

Tell us, Ben, is that the same kind of flat-lining Ed Balls was claiming for the economy, or some other kind?

Ed's flatlining gesture was when Osborne was, er, flatlining the economy into a double-dip recession!

The double dip recession which never actually happened?

It happened.

No, it didn't..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23079082

Yes it did.

Did you and Mr Islam fail to spot the note (1) at the bottom of the table ?

You have to wonder about an accountant who fails to spot the (not so) hidden detail.

Mr Islam is claiming to be an accountant ?

TheWatcher

TGOHF said:

TheWatcher said:

TGOHF said:

BenM said:

Slackbladder said:

BenM said:

Slackbladder said:

BenM said:

Scott_P said:

BenM said:

the Tories flat-lined.

Tell us, Ben, is that the same kind of flat-lining Ed Balls was claiming for the economy, or some other kind?

Ed's flatlining gesture was when Osborne was, er, flatlining the economy into a double-dip recession!

The double dip recession which never actually happened?

It happened.

No, it didn't..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23079082

Yes it did.

Did you and Mr Islam fail to spot the note (1) at the bottom of the table ?

You have to wonder about an accountant who fails to spot the (not so) hidden detail.

Mr Islam is claiming to be an accountant ?

BenM claims to be a beancounter.

TGOHF

TheWatcher said:

TGOHF said:

TheWatcher said:

TGOHF said:

BenM said:

Slackbladder said:

BenM said:

Slackbladder said:

BenM said:

Scott_P said:

BenM said:

the Tories flat-lined.

Tell us, Ben, is that the same kind of flat-lining Ed Balls was claiming for the economy, or some other kind?

Ed's flatlining gesture was when Osborne was, er, flatlining the economy into a double-dip recession!

The double dip recession which never actually happened?

It happened.

No, it didn't..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23079082

Yes it did.

Did you and Mr Islam fail to spot the note (1) at the bottom of the table ?

You have to wonder about an accountant who fails to spot the (not so) hidden detail.

Mr Islam is claiming to be an accountant ?

BenM claims to be a beancounter.

Ah - Mr Islam doesn't work for C4 by accident - it is not difficult to determine the difference between his face and a ray of sunshine when good economic news is released.

malcolmg

anothernick said:

Scott_P said:

taffys said:

Labour's cost of living crisis could actually become...a crisis.

The problem for labour is that this really is a last redoubt position. If living standards for the many do improve, what's their critique after that?

Fear not. I am confident Labour will come up with a continuous stream of things to point at and say "Ooh, that's expensive..."

Scott_P said:

taffys said:

Labour's cost of living crisis could actually become...a crisis.

The problem for labour is that this really is a last redoubt position. If living standards for the many do improve, what's their critique after that?

Fear not. I am confident Labour will come up with a continuous stream of things to point at and say "Ooh, that's expensive..."

They will say "are you better off now than you were when the coalition came to power?" And the answer for at least 95% of the electorate will be "no."

That is well beyond the ken of Tories like Scott et al, he just likes to laugh at Labour and poor people. Any pathetic lie will do.

fitalass

Twitter
Kevin Maguire ‏@Kevin_Maguire 7m
Miliband "bottled" an EU referendum says Lab's ex-campaign chief @tom_watson in his mirror online column http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tom-watson-european-elections-referendum-2980809 …

RodCrosby

What's the point of a nowcast, dressed up as a 'prediction', let alone attaching spurious probabilities to it?

Only ONE Opposition with as small a mid-term lead as Labour's has gone on to 'win' the GE.

Labour 1972, but they still lost the popular vote in 1974, emerging just 4 seats ahead of the Tories, despite Heath's best efforts to commit electoral suicide...

philiph

malcolmg said:

anothernick said:

Scott_P said:

taffys said:

Labour's cost of living crisis could actually become...a crisis.

The problem for labour is that this really is a last redoubt position. If living standards for the many do improve, what's their critique after that?

Fear not. I am confident Labour will come up with a continuous stream of things to point at and say "Ooh, that's expensive..."

Scott_P said:

taffys said:

Labour's cost of living crisis could actually become...a crisis.

The problem for labour is that this really is a last redoubt position. If living standards for the many do improve, what's their critique after that?

Fear not. I am confident Labour will come up with a continuous stream of things to point at and say "Ooh, that's expensive..."

They will say "are you better off now than you were when the coalition came to power?" And the answer for at least 95% of the electorate will be "no."

That is well beyond the ken of Tories like Scott et al, he just likes to laugh at Labour and poor people. Any pathetic lie will do.

Like the pathetic lie that Tories like to laugh at Labour (true) and poor people (Untrue)?

fitalass

Malkie, you must be about the only Scot who has not managed to find a scrape of goodwill for your fellow posters on this site the entire Festive season. I mean, there has even been the odd ray of sunshine in amongst the winters storms up here in Scotland, which is still more than you have managed. So C'mon, put the Mr Grumpy act away for a few days, plenty time to get back to normal service when politics and polling really kicks off again in the New Year. x

malcolmg said:

anothernick said:

Scott_P said:

taffys said:

Labour's cost of living crisis could actually become...a crisis.

The problem for labour is that this really is a last redoubt position. If living standards for the many do improve, what's their critique after that?

Fear not. I am confident Labour will come up with a continuous stream of things to point at and say "Ooh, that's expensive..."

Scott_P said:

taffys said:

Labour's cost of living crisis could actually become...a crisis.

The problem for labour is that this really is a last redoubt position. If living standards for the many do improve, what's their critique after that?

Fear not. I am confident Labour will come up with a continuous stream of things to point at and say "Ooh, that's expensive..."

They will say "are you better off now than you were when the coalition came to power?" And the answer for at least 95% of the electorate will be "no."

That is well beyond the ken of Tories like Scott et al, he just likes to laugh at Labour and poor people. Any pathetic lie will do.

MonikerDiCanio

fitalass said:

Twitter
Kevin Maguire ‏@Kevin_Maguire 7m
Miliband "bottled" an EU referendum says Lab's ex-campaign chief @tom_watson in his mirror online column http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tom-watson-european-elections-referendum-2980809 …

Watson seems to be half in love with Farage. Worrying for Labour.

TGOHF

MonikerDiCanio said:

fitalass said:

Twitter
Kevin Maguire ‏@Kevin_Maguire 7m
Miliband "bottled" an EU referendum says Lab's ex-campaign chief @tom_watson in his mirror online column http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tom-watson-european-elections-referendum-2980809 …

Watson seems to be half in love with Farage. Worrying for Labour.

He ignored Clegg completely - interesting.

philiph

MonikerDiCanio said:

fitalass said:

Twitter
Kevin Maguire ‏@Kevin_Maguire 7m
Miliband "bottled" an EU referendum says Lab's ex-campaign chief @tom_watson in his mirror online column http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tom-watson-european-elections-referendum-2980809 …

Watson seems to be half in love with Farage. Worrying for Labour.

Even more worrying for Farage, I would have thought. Pass the mind bleach, please.

Grandiose

TGOHF said:

BenM said:

Slackbladder said:

BenM said:

Slackbladder said:

BenM said:

Scott_P said:

BenM said:

the Tories flat-lined.

Tell us, Ben, is that the same kind of flat-lining Ed Balls was claiming for the economy, or some other kind?

Ed's flatlining gesture was when Osborne was, er, flatlining the economy into a double-dip recession!

The double dip recession which never actually happened?

It happened.

No, it didn't..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23079082

Yes it did.

Did you and Mr Islam fail to spot the note (1) at the bottom of the table ?

The second red splodge should have given it away. The ONS cannot with the required level of confidence, say there was any change at all.

Pulpstar

TGOHF said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

fitalass said:

Twitter
Kevin Maguire ‏@Kevin_Maguire 7m
Miliband "bottled" an EU referendum says Lab's ex-campaign chief @tom_watson in his mirror online column http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tom-watson-european-elections-referendum-2980809 …

Watson seems to be half in love with Farage. Worrying for Labour.

He ignored Clegg completely - interesting.

Quit rightly too - The Lib Dems are beyond an irrelevance in the Euros.

Grandiose

anotherDave said:

Grandiose said:

Grandiose said:

Baxter's system addresses a particular issue. It attempts to answer the question, "If the Conservatives win x%, Labour y%, the Lib Dems z%, and UKIP a%, who will govern?".

The percentages are the result of a particular polling average. Therefore the Baxter'd figures are effectively a nowcast, not a forecast. Although Baxter says "at the next general election", the "pred votes" column matches the current polls (predicting the future being an altogether different question). Hence the graph at the bottom on what future movement we might expect.

To reply to myself, I am much bemused at the "Predictions" box, that is to say, the bar chart. The central prediction doesn't have any natural margin of error nearly big enough (mostly the result of assuming a uniform national swing) and I can't find any explanation of the prediction part. Which means, I guess, Mr Baxter has fed in some future gazing, but I don't think so?

Mr Baxter describes it as " basically Uniform National Swing (UNS), with an adaptation to keep each party's share of the vote positive."

There is a page explaining the model in more detail on the website.

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/strongmodel.html

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/trackrecord_10models.html

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/sitemap.html

I read them all through earlier.

They all cover the first part, namely the central forecast part - the majority 78 part - rather than the variance - 78% lab majority - part.

taffys

I'd love to know what the left think their poster boy Frankie Hollande should do right now to reverse the dogsh&t French economy. He could use the advice.

Boost public spending??? he seems to want to do the opposite. Raise taxes??? he now seems to want to cut them. Even as he raises them.

Luckily the whole of Europe's in the same boat. Except it isn't. Austerity economies like Spain, Italy and Greece are doing what Benomics dictated was impossible. They are recovering. Greek M/F PMI at 52 weak high, Italy 32 month high.

Perfect storm for Milli. The horse he backed is coming last, and the ones he laid are out front. And of course, a recovering Europe will only boost UK growth further.

taffys

Watson seems to be half in love with Farage. Worrying for Labour.

Some left wing commentators are trying to tiptoe their way to being on the side of the worker on low wages because eastern Europeans are depressing pay.

Really funny when it was you who let in 3 million, and called anybody who objected a racist.

RodCrosby

Grandiose said:

anotherDave said:

Grandiose said:

Grandiose said:

Baxter's system addresses a particular issue. It attempts to answer the question, "If the Conservatives win x%, Labour y%, the Lib Dems z%, and UKIP a%, who will govern?".

The percentages are the result of a particular polling average. Therefore the Baxter'd figures are effectively a nowcast, not a forecast. Although Baxter says "at the next general election", the "pred votes" column matches the current polls (predicting the future being an altogether different question). Hence the graph at the bottom on what future movement we might expect.

To reply to myself, I am much bemused at the "Predictions" box, that is to say, the bar chart. The central prediction doesn't have any natural margin of error nearly big enough (mostly the result of assuming a uniform national swing) and I can't find any explanation of the prediction part. Which means, I guess, Mr Baxter has fed in some future gazing, but I don't think so?

Mr Baxter describes it as " basically Uniform National Swing (UNS), with an adaptation to keep each party's share of the vote positive."

There is a page explaining the model in more detail on the website.

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/strongmodel.html

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/trackrecord_10models.html

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/sitemap.html

I read them all through earlier.

They all cover the first part, namely the central forecast part - the majority 78 part - rather than the variance - 78% lab majority - part.

He uses the Mulitivariate Beta Distribution, based on current opinion polls.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/hungparl.html
We note that just three months before the last GE his probability of a hung parliament was only 38%, whereas for years prior I had said it was around 68% likely...

Grandiose

RodCrosby said:

Grandiose said:

anotherDave said:

Grandiose said:

Grandiose said:

Baxter's system addresses a particular issue. It attempts to answer the question, "If the Conservatives win x%, Labour y%, the Lib Dems z%, and UKIP a%, who will govern?".

The percentages are the result of a particular polling average. Therefore the Baxter'd figures are effectively a nowcast, not a forecast. Although Baxter says "at the next general election", the "pred votes" column matches the current polls (predicting the future being an altogether different question). Hence the graph at the bottom on what future movement we might expect.

To reply to myself, I am much bemused at the "Predictions" box, that is to say, the bar chart. The central prediction doesn't have any natural margin of error nearly big enough (mostly the result of assuming a uniform national swing) and I can't find any explanation of the prediction part. Which means, I guess, Mr Baxter has fed in some future gazing, but I don't think so?

Mr Baxter describes it as " basically Uniform National Swing (UNS), with an adaptation to keep each party's share of the vote positive."

There is a page explaining the model in more detail on the website.

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/strongmodel.html

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/trackrecord_10models.html

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/sitemap.html

I read them all through earlier.

They all cover the first part, namely the central forecast part - the majority 78 part - rather than the variance - 78% lab majority - part.

He uses the Mulitivariate Beta Distribution, based on current opinion polls.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/hungparl.html
We note that just three months before the last GE his probability of a hung parliament was only 38%, whereas for years prior I had said it was around 68% likely...

What is it actually a measure of uncertainty in then? It doesn't look like it has any room for a forecast element. Is it correcting for the UNS? The extent to which the polls actually represent voting intentions? Something else?

Carola

NickPalmer said:

Like Rod's model which shows a 0% chance of Labour government, I think these models are of limited use this far out. Baxter assumes no swingback, Rod's model IIRC assumes loads of swingback.

By the way, reading through Nate Silver's book, it's a delight for anyone interested in this sort of thing: http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Signal-Noise-Science-Prediction/dp/1846147522 .
He goes through diverse example from different walks of life, showing the ways in which people extrapolate from what they want to what they think. One of the intriguing suggestions (backed by survey research) is that people with strong ideological views become LESS accurate at prediction when they get more information, because they use it to build on their rigid theories and make themselves feel they're yet more perfect than before.

Funnily enough just reading this:

http://www.teacherdevelopmenttrust.org/why-evidence-will-never-overcome-disagreement-in-education/?utm_content=buffer377eb&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer

Which is based on a book that's in my 'books to read pile':

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion-ebook/dp/B0076O2VMI?tag=httpwwwteache-21

Grandiose

NickPalmer said:

Like Rod's model which shows a 0% chance of Labour government, I think these models are of limited use this far out. Baxter assumes no swingback, Rod's model IIRC assumes loads of swingback.

By the way, reading through Nate Silver's book, it's a delight for anyone interested in this sort of thing: http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Signal-Noise-Science-Prediction/dp/1846147522 .
He goes through diverse example from different walks of life, showing the ways in which people extrapolate from what they want to what they think. One of the intriguing suggestions (backed by survey research) is that people with strong ideological views become LESS accurate at prediction when they get more information, because they use it to build on their rigid theories and make themselves feel they're yet more perfect than before.

I have a personally signed copy, but I haven't read it yet.

Carola

Not sure what planet they're on...

http://news.tes.co.uk/news_blog/b/weblog/archive/2014/01/02/young-classroom-teachers-could-earn-163-70k-a-year-through-performance-pay-new-report-claims.aspx

MikeSmithson

RodCrosby said:

Grandiose said:

anotherDave said:

Grandiose said:

Grandiose said:

Baxter's system addresses a particular issue. It attempts to answer the question, "If the Conservatives win x%, Labour y%, the Lib Dems z%, and UKIP a%, who will govern?".

The percentages are the result of a particular polling average. Therefore the Baxter'd figures are effectively a nowcast, not a forecast. Although Baxter says "at the next general election", the "pred votes" column matches the current polls (predicting the future being an altogether different question). Hence the graph at the bottom on what future movement we might expect.

To reply to myself, I am much bemused at the "Predictions" box, that is to say, the bar chart. The central prediction doesn't have any natural margin of error nearly big enough (mostly the result of assuming a uniform national swing) and I can't find any explanation of the prediction part. Which means, I guess, Mr Baxter has fed in some future gazing, but I don't think so?

Mr Baxter describes it as " basically Uniform National Swing (UNS), with an adaptation to keep each party's share of the vote positive."

There is a page explaining the model in more detail on the website.

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/strongmodel.html

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/trackrecord_10models.html

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/sitemap.html

I read them all through earlier.

They all cover the first part, namely the central forecast part - the majority 78 part - rather than the variance - 78% lab majority - part.

He uses the Mulitivariate Beta Distribution, based on current opinion polls.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/hungparl.html
We note that just three months before the last GE his probability of a hung parliament was only 38%, whereas for years prior I had said it was around 68% likely...

Trying to blind us with jargon again Rod.

So is your view that the 2010 LD switchers ar not going to remain with Labour? Yes or no?

HillmanMinx

MikeSmithson said:

RodCrosby said:

Grandiose said:

anotherDave said:

Grandiose said:

Grandiose said:

Baxter's system addresses a particular issue. It attempts to answer the question, "If the Conservatives win x%, Labour y%, the Lib Dems z%, and UKIP a%, who will govern?".

The percentages are the result of a particular polling average. Therefore the Baxter'd figures are effectively a nowcast, not a forecast. Although Baxter says "at the next general election", the "pred votes" column matches the current polls (predicting the future being an altogether different question). Hence the graph at the bottom on what future movement we might expect.

To reply to myself, I am much bemused at the "Predictions" box, that is to say, the bar chart. The central prediction doesn't have any natural margin of error nearly big enough (mostly the result of assuming a uniform national swing) and I can't find any explanation of the prediction part. Which means, I guess, Mr Baxter has fed in some future gazing, but I don't think so?

Mr Baxter describes it as " basically Uniform National Swing (UNS), with an adaptation to keep each party's share of the vote positive."

There is a page explaining the model in more detail on the website.

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/strongmodel.html

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/trackrecord_10models.html

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/sitemap.html

I read them all through earlier.

They all cover the first part, namely the central forecast part - the majority 78 part - rather than the variance - 78% lab majority - part.

He uses the Mulitivariate Beta Distribution, based on current opinion polls.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/hungparl.html
We note that just three months before the last GE his probability of a hung parliament was only 38%, whereas for years prior I had said it was around 68% likely...

Trying to blind us with jargon again Rod.

So is your view that the 2010 LD switchers ar not going to remain with Labour? Yes or no?

How can anybody put any faith in a holocaust denier who is also an Obama birther? Crosby made one lucky call last time.

smithersjones2013

and the Tories will be hoping to eat more into that UKIP polling share as well

Is there any real evidence the Tories have eaten into anything? Based on the their average monthly polling figure (taken from UK Polling report) they are 1 point higher in December (32.7%) than they were in January (31.6%). Their polling slumped around election time and subsequently recovered but seems to have been stagnant for much of the second half of the year.

From a Tory perspective they must be hoping the election time slump doesn't happen again in the next two years.

RodCrosby

MikeSmithson said:

Trying to blind us with jargon again Rod.

So is your view that the 2010 LD switchers ar not going to remain with Labour? Yes or no?

For the most part no.

richardDodd

I detect a Scouser accent from Hillman Minx..

Grandiose

MikeSmithson said:

RodCrosby said:

Grandiose said:

anotherDave said:

Grandiose said:

Grandiose said:

Baxter's system addresses a particular issue. It attempts to answer the question, "If the Conservatives win x%, Labour y%, the Lib Dems z%, and UKIP a%, who will govern?".

The percentages are the result of a particular polling average. Therefore the Baxter'd figures are effectively a nowcast, not a forecast. Although Baxter says "at the next general election", the "pred votes" column matches the current polls (predicting the future being an altogether different question). Hence the graph at the bottom on what future movement we might expect.

To reply to myself, I am much bemused at the "Predictions" box, that is to say, the bar chart. The central prediction doesn't have any natural margin of error nearly big enough (mostly the result of assuming a uniform national swing) and I can't find any explanation of the prediction part. Which means, I guess, Mr Baxter has fed in some future gazing, but I don't think so?

Mr Baxter describes it as " basically Uniform National Swing (UNS), with an adaptation to keep each party's share of the vote positive."

There is a page explaining the model in more detail on the website.

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/strongmodel.html

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/trackrecord_10models.html

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/sitemap.html

I read them all through earlier.

They all cover the first part, namely the central forecast part - the majority 78 part - rather than the variance - 78% lab majority - part.

He uses the Mulitivariate Beta Distribution, based on current opinion polls.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/hungparl.html
We note that just three months before the last GE his probability of a hung parliament was only 38%, whereas for years prior I had said it was around 68% likely...

Trying to blind us with jargon again Rod.

So is your view that the 2010 LD switchers ar not going to remain with Labour? Yes or no?

Without such information, the 78% above is meaningless. I don't even know for sure if it's a nowcast or a forecast, which makes such a big difference.

Morris_Dancer

Good evening, everyone.

Huzzah for good economic news!

The_Woodpecker

Is there an easy way to search (very) old threads on here to find a particular comment? Thanks.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Woodpecker, I fear it is not so. I have vague memories of a search through Google being possible, though (you'd probably need to have a specific term in mind).

MikeSmithson

RodCrosby said:

MikeSmithson said:

Trying to blind us with jargon again Rod.

So is your view that the 2010 LD switchers ar not going to remain with Labour? Yes or no?

For the most part no.

That's fair enough Rod. You've give me a view which, if right, changes many predictions of GE2015

MikeSmithson

smithersjones2013 said:

and the Tories will be hoping to eat more into that UKIP polling share as well

Is there any real evidence the Tories have eaten into anything? Based on the their average monthly polling figure (taken from UK Polling report) they are 1 point higher in December (32.7%) than they were in January (31.6%). Their polling slumped around election time and subsequently recovered but seems to have been stagnant for much of the second half of the year.

From a Tory perspective they must be hoping the election time slump doesn't happen again in the next two years.

Generally the biggest driver of polling changes is NOT people switching but those moving from don't know to a voting preference combined with increases in certainty to vote.

It is not a zero sum gain as many seem to think.

The coalition parties are both recording very high levels of don't know but that will change as we get closer. Also the best indicator of whether you will vote is whether you did last time.

The_Woodpecker

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Woodpecker, I fear it is not so. I have vague memories of a search through Google being possible, though (you'd probably need to have a specific term in mind).

Yeah I've tried that but no luck . Thanks for your suggestion though.

compouter1

richardDodd said:

I detect a Scouser accent from Hillman Minx..

Off we go again.....PB Hodges back in their everyone new is Tim mode.

I'll go next....err.....I'm Tim !

They do really miss him, don't they.