politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Into unknown territory with Ukip – just how much will Fara

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Into unknown territory with Ukip – just how much will Farage’s party impact on next week’s outcomes?

Today I’ve been at the annual briefing organised by the Political Studies Association on the May local elections. On the panel were Professor John Curtice from Strathclyde and Professors Rallings and Thrasher from the University of Plymouth.

Read the full story here

anotherDave

Does anyone offer figures for 2010 non-voters, who are currently motivated to vote?

Quincel

The Rallings and Thrasher projection sees the government losing 440 seats and Labour and UKIP gaining 390. Who's getting the other 50? A Green surge?

OblitusSumMe

anotherDave said:

Does anyone offer figures for 2010 non-voters, who are currently motivated to vote?

You won't get them from Mike. There were lots of people who told pollsters they would vote Lib Dem in 2010, who had been non-voters in 2005. They didn't vote in 2010.

Pulpstar

Interesting that the LAB switch to UKIP is lower than the LD switch, UKIP for sure strike me as being closer to 'old labour' rather than the Lib Dems.

Neil

@Quincel

Lots of boundary changes will reduce the overall number of seats by about that number.

[Deleted User]

I'm sure the Kippers will have a good day and Dave won't.

I'm also pretty sure that local and EU elections are a 'free' opportunity to steam off with no observable impact on one's life in the real world.

What I have no idea about is how this may play out at the GE and to what expect the kipper vote when it doesn't matter will be sticky when it does.

Norm

While The Tories are most damaged by UKIP, the number of Lib Dem switchers (particularly with the most respected pollster ICM) is also surprisingly high. In fact it may even be higher than the figures shown as I suspect former Lib Dem inclined floating voters may be less inclined to admit to (or even recall) their change of allegiance to a pollster than a militant disaffected Tory. Either way it is Labour who are left laughing.

GIN1138

Mike's getting a bit hung up on the Con/UKIP thing, IMO.

No doubt it is one of the stories of this Parliament, but it's not the only story and probably nothing more than might be expected in the mid term of an unpopular government.

Sure, the Con's are going to be hammered in the local elections and no doubt UKIP will do damage, but governments are always hammered mid time - Even the popular ones - How many seats did Blair lose 1999 and 2000? I seem to remember both local elections being pretty grim for Labour.

theakes

I estimate the Lib Dems will actually have net gains, UKIP should help them.

corporeal

tim said:

Pulpstar said:

Interesting that the LAB switch to UKIP is lower than the LD switch, UKIP for sure strike me as being closer to 'old labour' rather than the Lib Dems.

The LD's had a protest vote at the last election.

Evidence?

anotherDave

Pulpstar said:

Interesting that the LAB switch to UKIP is lower than the LD switch, UKIP for sure strike me as being closer to 'old labour' rather than the Lib Dems.

Labour only got 29% of the vote in 2010. A lot of those 'old labour' voters stayed home.

anotherDave

OblitusSumMe said:

anotherDave said:

Does anyone offer figures for 2010 non-voters, who are currently motivated to vote?

You won't get them from Mike. There were lots of people who told pollsters they would vote Lib Dem in 2010, who had been non-voters in 2005. They didn't vote in 2010.

2010 turnout was up on 2005.

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

corporeal

tim said:

corporeal said:

tim said:

Pulpstar said:

Interesting that the LAB switch to UKIP is lower than the LD switch, UKIP for sure strike me as being closer to 'old labour' rather than the Lib Dems.

The LD's had a protest vote at the last election.

Evidence?

They don't now.

That's not really good evidence. The shift to smaller parties has been pretty small, even smaller if you don't characterise them all as protest voters.

Morris_Dancer

Pretty clear pattern in the graphs there. However, it also matters where the voters are and what kind of voter (WWC, for example) are likelier to shift, and whether they're the sort who will return to a 'big' party at the General Election or not.

That said, Labour should make big gains at the locals and UKIP should have a good night too.

Charles

@tim FPT

I don't have an issue particularly with multiple member constituencies. Remember having a passionate argument with Marcus Fox back in the mid 90s trying to persuade him of the argument for dual-member seats (under FPTP with top 2 elected) - my view was it would effectively force parties to address the gender balance pretty explicitly.

I'm not really that keen on transferable vote systems because it seems to lead to the least offensive candidate being elected rather than the most persuasive. Multi-member FPTP could work though...

Grandiose

A defection of 17% of the Tories 36% vote would be 6% overall. On current polling the Tories have actually only lost around five percentage points since the last election, which means they have made a net gain from Labour and the Lib Dems. I'm not sure what Labour will think of the fact that they've lost 7% of their 2010 vote to the Tories (2% of people who voted), and gained only 4% of the Tory 2010 vote (1.5%). This contrasts with the 7% they've gained off the LDs.

(All figures from yesterday's YouGov)

BenM

FPT

JosiasJessop said:

I missed PMQ's. Did Ed really lead on the NHS?

Oh dear. I know there is a reality distortion zone around what happened in Stafford amongst many Labour supporters on here, but it's a shame that's extended to the top of their party.

And the Welsh NHS is failing, and that's being run by Labour.

Let's remember the extent of the reality distortion zone. According to BenM the following is just 'shoddy treatment':

The stories behind the harm are staggering. An old man forced to stay on a commode for 55 minutes wearing only a pyjama top; a woman whose legs were “red raw” because of the effect of her uncleaned faeces; piles of soiled sheets and vomit bowls left at the end of beds, a woman arrived at 10am to find her 96-year old mother-in-law “completely naked… and covered with faeces… It was in her hair, her nails, her hands and on all the cot sides… it was literally everywhere and it was dried.

Another woman who found her mother with faeces under her nails asked for them to be
cut, but was told that it was “not in the nurses’ remit to cut patients’ nails”.

This blasé attitude will just lead to it all happening again.

That is appalling treatment, but in all cases not lethal and doesn't support the fantastical "1200 deaths at Stafford" stat that no one on the Right can ever prop up.

Blase? Hardly. I would have spent extra £billions on extra nurses, midwives and so on rather than the kind of pointless disruptive reorganisations we've just seen under this coalition.

Those distractions lead to poor care. As we saw at Stafford - since rectified, by the way.

Millsy

corporeal said:

tim said:

corporeal said:

tim said:

Pulpstar said:

Interesting that the LAB switch to UKIP is lower than the LD switch, UKIP for sure strike me as being closer to 'old labour' rather than the Lib Dems.

The LD's had a protest vote at the last election.

Evidence?

They don't now.

That's not really good evidence. The shift to smaller parties has been pretty small, even smaller if you don't characterise them all as protest voters.

The Lib Dem vote has always been all over the place in between elections, and a lot of them returned to the party at election time. Which is one reason why the Labour and Ukip numbers are soft. That's not to say all of them will return and the Lib Dems will poll 23% in 2015. But i'd bet maybe half of them will (depending on what Labour get up to) and the Lib Dems will end up on about 15%.

corporeal

tim said:

@Corporeal

Around 8% of 2010 LD voters are now UKIP, look at the charts, thats about 600,000 voters.

1.8 million Tories have gone to UKIP and 400,000 Labour

A very recent thing tbh. For the past few months the total transfer rate from Lib Dem to smaller parties (I track the ICM polls) has been hovering about 5%, and if you go back before that it's vanishingly small.

And scaling that back up that's what, 1% overall vote share?

(EDIT: The transfer to UKIP's been bouncing around, with 5% as the mid-point, the total to smaller parties is averaging a couple of points higher).

MikeSmithson

This is the big story. I know it makes you feel uncomfortable but sobeit.

There will be a lot more to come.

GIN1138 said:

Mike's getting a bit hung up on the Con/UKIP thing, IMO.

david_kendrick1

I'm standing for UKIP against a very capable sitting LD member. I won't win. But I'll go from 3= to a clear 2nd.

AveryLP

More doom and gloom from Germany revealed in the Ifo Institute's survey of business confidence.

As Germany continues to struggle in its efforts to lead the Eurozone out of its recessionary mire, the Ifo institute's survey published on Wednesday painted an even gloomier outlook for the economy.

The survey, based on a sample of approximately 7,000 German business leaders and senior managers, showed deteriorating business sentiment, current conditions and expectations: with all three gauges missing consensus estimates.

Still it is rumoured that the official forecast for Germany's GDP annual growth in 2013, due to be published tomorrow, is going to be revised upward from 0.4% to 0.5%. The German government however concedes that its figures trail rather than lead the forecasts of the leading German economic institutes.

Interesting background to tomorrow's announcement of the UK's Q1 GDP growth first estimate. A figure of 0.1% growth would put us on par with Germany, although most forecasters are predicting a better second half of the year for the UK.

Grandiose

@MikeSmithson

What of the fact that just 6 or so % of people who voted Conservative in 2010 would now vote Labour?

I checked June and November 2008 when the Conservatives were just 2 or 3 points ahead on ICM and they were pulling 15% of the 2005 Labour vote.

corporeal

tim said:

@Corporeal

It might be recent, of course Cameron gave a huge boost to UKIP with his Europe and Immigration stuff, along with putting up an imbecile in Eastleigh, but it doesn't mean it's not real.ICM's adjustment mitigates it for the yellows.
We'll see some odd voting patterns next week, but if the Tories are losing 2 votes to UKIP for ever 1 that the LDs lose then it's good news for you given where most of the elections are being held.

All the focus will be on the Tories for a change in May.

ICM adjust the don't knows, not those saying they'll vote for different parties.

The number of respondents from the group LD2010 now voting UKIP is so small (single figures) that the %s bounce around like crazy from month to month.

Guardian ICM numbers for LD2010 now voting UKIP. April 5%, March 1% Feb 6% Jan 0%, Dec 2%

AveryLP

tim said:

@Corporeal

It might be recent, of course Cameron gave a huge boost to UKIP with his Europe and Immigration stuff, along with putting up an imbecile in Eastleigh, but it doesn't mean it's not real.ICM's adjustment mitigates it for the yellows.
We'll see some odd voting patterns next week, but if the Tories are losing 2 votes to UKIP for ever 1 that the LDs lose then it's good news for you given where most of the elections are being held.

All the focus will be on the Tories for a change in May.

The Labour controlled Rotherham Council decision to remove a child from UKIP supporting foster parents gave a far higher boost to UKIP polling than anything said or done by Cameron.

You were right though to point out that the moving protest vote accounts for the higher share of losses to UKIP from the Lib Dems than Labour.

UKIP's focus on Bulgarians and Romanians will also spread their appeal to a wider party base than high profile anti-EU messaging.

I suspect we still have more 'lap dancing club' revelations to come from the MSM in the runup to 2nd May, but such negative publicity may just increase the appeal of UKIP to its target groups.

Nigel Farage's antics in a night club make more acceptable copy than those alleged of Lord Rennard at a Lib Dem diversity and discrimination conference.

Gerry_Mander

I would like to see the faces on the 'we all hate the Tories' people if UKIP did get into power.

What are the lefties expecting?

Increased benefits for the workshy?
Unrestricted immigration?

Or is it that some people are so partisan they want to see the other team done down? Perhaps they're like a spurned lover.

Sean_F

One thing to bear in mind is that the starting point is June 2009, rather than May 2010. That was a good year for both the Conservatives, and the Lib Dems, in local electoral terms. In all likelihood, a fair number of voters who backed each of those parties, will switch to UKIP.

I think that there will be very few switchers from Labour (from 2009) given that the party's vote share (in the Counties) was reduced to 12%. That's the irreducible minimum.

If UKIP can push up their vote share by 12% in seats that they fought in 2009, then they'll win a string of seats in Devon, Norfolk, Kent, Staffordshire, and Cambridgeshire, and exceed 40 gains nationwide.

AndyJS

O/T:

I use the Rallings and Thrasher method when compiling target lists, which involves calculating swings when a party needs to overtake a second-placed party.

The Labour Party doesn't, which is why they said Eastleigh was number 258 on their target list, whereas I said it was number 337. The difference was because the Rallings/Thrasher method involved taking into account the need of Labour to overtake the Conservatives in second place in the case of Eastleigh.

CarlottaVance

AveryLP said:

Nigel Farage's antics in a night club make much better copy than Lord Rennard's at a Lib Dem diversity and discrimination conference.

And I suspect will be viewed a lot more forgivingly among their respective target voters....

Sean_F

tim said:

Quincel said:

The Rallings and Thrasher projection sees the government losing 440 seats and Labour and UKIP gaining 390. Who's getting the other 50? A Green surge?

Independents I'd imagine

I think that boundary changes have reduced the number of seats since 2009.

Richard_Tyndall

tim said:

UKIP Cornwall chairman Tom Hobbs said that when Mrs Bowen joined his party, describing herself as a "disillusioned Tory", she was asked to sign a document stating she had never belonged to the British National Party or any other organisation that might adversely affect UKIP's reputation.

I wonder if any other party has a bar on former BNP members? If not then they are in no position to criticise when UKIP take action like this.

JosiasJessop

BenM said:

FPT

JosiasJessop said:

I missed PMQ's. Did Ed really lead on the NHS?

Oh dear. I know there is a reality distortion zone around what happened in Stafford amongst many Labour supporters on here, but it's a shame that's extended to the top of their party.

And the Welsh NHS is failing, and that's being run by Labour.

Let's remember the extent of the reality distortion zone. According to BenM the following is just 'shoddy treatment':

The stories behind the harm are staggering. An old man forced to stay on a commode for 55 minutes wearing only a pyjama top; a woman whose legs were “red raw” because of the effect of her uncleaned faeces; piles of soiled sheets and vomit bowls left at the end of beds, a woman arrived at 10am to find her 96-year old mother-in-law “completely naked… and covered with faeces… It was in her hair, her nails, her hands and on all the cot sides… it was literally everywhere and it was dried.

Another woman who found her mother with faeces under her nails asked for them to be
cut, but was told that it was “not in the nurses’ remit to cut patients’ nails”.

This blasé attitude will just lead to it all happening again.

That is appalling treatment, but in all cases not lethal and doesn't support the fantastical "1200 deaths at Stafford" stat that no one on the Right can ever prop up.

Blase? Hardly. I would have spent extra £billions on extra nurses, midwives and so on rather than the kind of pointless disruptive reorganisations we've just seen under this coalition.

Those distractions lead to poor care. As we saw at Stafford - since rectified, by the way.

"In all cases not lethal" Are you sure? These are just a few stories of many. Just imagine infection control in such situations, especially when repeated many times. Imagine what would have happened to a member of my family if his head injury had been serious.

And you can't stand up your ridiculous 'perhaps one death' figure - the blog entry you point is flawed for the reasons I gave yesterday. If you think no-one died after such awful treatment, then you really are in a fantasy land.

As I said the other day, there is no way of knowing the true figure. But your assertion that no-one died is patently ridiculous. What is more, it is rather nasty. If it had happened under the Tories, we know you would be taking a directly opposite view.

The problems were throughout the system, despite massive increases in funding. It was because Labour were looking at the wrong things and measuring the wrong outcomes. They chose soundbites over lives.

I have no doubt that similar situations could develop again under the coalition and/or other governments. The human body is not a machine (or if it is, then it is an incredibly complex, interdependent machine that we are only just starting to understand in any depth), and diagnosing and treating it is often more of an art than a science. Mistakes will happen.

But these were not failures of knowledge or understanding, or even in many cases of medicine. They were failures of compassion throughout the trust. From the senior management to the very bottom. And what is wore, they tried to cover it up.

The lessons will not be learnt if people like you ignore what happened at Stafford and just cry: "throw more money at it."

I really hope none of us on here get treated by nurses and doctors with such a hideous sense of patientcare. Members of my family did. In one case we were fortunate they survived.

Sean_F

O/T Brian Coleman's trial has been put back to 3rd May.

Grandiose

Richard_Tyndall said:

tim said:

UKIP Cornwall chairman Tom Hobbs said that when Mrs Bowen joined his party, describing herself as a "disillusioned Tory", she was asked to sign a document stating she had never belonged to the British National Party or any other organisation that might adversely affect UKIP's reputation.

I wonder if any other party has a bar on former BNP members? If not then they are in no position to criticise when UKIP take action like this.

Quite, Mr Tyndall. But I believe Tim's point was to, firstly, highlight the somewhat contradictory position of the woman herself, and the particular difficulties UKIP might have with this sort of problem.

Sean_F

Where Labour can be potentially harmed by UKIP is if UKIP do sufficiently well to win wards that Labour might otherwise hope to regain, in places like Great Yarmouth, North Kent, Newcastle-under-Lyme, the Essex coast etc.

AveryLP

tim said:

Am I a misogynist? Ukip politician answers critics with female photo gallery

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10015155/Am-I-a-misogynist-Ukip-politician-answers-critics-with-female-photo-gallery.html

Godfrey and the [mounted] girls

What a picture! What a photograph!

anotherDave

tim said:

Matt Chorley ‏@MattChorley 4m
UKIP candidate kicked out for being BNP member. Joined both 'because I felt they would do something for the country' http://bit.ly/Y3TDxE

Mrs Bowen, a retired sheep farmer, said yesterday that she believed a member of Mebyon Kernow, a party of which she had also once been a member, had informed UKIP of her involvement with the BNP.

"I am no Nazi and I was duped into joining the BNP. I didn't like my country being given away to foreigners."

UKIP Cornwall chairman Tom Hobbs said that when Mrs Bowen joined his party, describing herself as a "disillusioned Tory", she was asked to sign a document stating she had never belonged to the British National Party or any other organisation that might adversely affect UKIP's reputation.

Not sure whether "my country" is Cornwall and the foreigners people from over the Tamar.

Nazis are of course welcome to stand as Labour Party candidates.

http://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/local/former-nazi-wins-a-labour-council-seat-1-3826439

TGOHF

What is puzzling is that the poster attacking Ukip most often is tim.

Should be bigging them up no ?

RobC

A lot of misogynists adore "hotties" but run a mile when females with brains challenge them.

TGOHF

Pulpstar said:

Interesting that the LAB switch to UKIP is lower than the LD switch, UKIP for sure strike me as being closer to 'old labour' rather than the Lib Dems.

Perhaps a surge in those that can't be arsed actually voting but supported Labour switching to can't be arsed voting but supporting Ukip.

TOPPING

tim said:

@AveryLP

The Labour controlled Rotherham Council decision to remove a child from UKIP supporting foster parents gave a far higher boost to UKIP polling than anything said or done by Cameron.

His "closet racists" slur,which Rotherham gave him the chance to withdraw, matters more than the Rotherham social worker, look at the polling.

Can you let us know tim when we are supposed to look at the polling and when it's not supposed to mean anything.

Are the polls showing contraction to a 7-pt LAB lead ones we should look at or not?

dr_spyn

Still only had one Lib Dem leaflet nothing from any other party, postal vote deadline is approaching, might as well pin the ballot form to a wall and throw darts at it.

If politicians want to stand for office as councillors, why should we let them have some responsibilities for our lives when they and their parties cannot be bothered to canvas voters or have leaflets distributed?

TGOHF

My latest LD leaflet proudly came out against upgrading the A14 as this would "cause more congestion".

Surely simpler to ban the wheel ?

Peter_the_Punter

david_kendrick1 said:

I'm standing for UKIP against a very capable sitting LD member. I won't win. But I'll go from 3= to a clear 2nd.

Hi David. Nice to see you back.....and well done for taking an active part in the political process.

Why won't you win? Man of your distinction and hairstyle would pose a threat to any incumbent!

Atb.

PtP

AndyJS

It'll be interesting to see where UKIP damages Labour more than the Conservatives. Most of any such areas will be mostly in the north of course but there'll probably be a few examples in the south as well, perhaps in places like Kent or Essex - (not the whole county, just a few divisions).

Millsy

corporeal said:

tim said:

@Corporeal

It might be recent, of course Cameron gave a huge boost to UKIP with his Europe and Immigration stuff, along with putting up an imbecile in Eastleigh, but it doesn't mean it's not real.ICM's adjustment mitigates it for the yellows.
We'll see some odd voting patterns next week, but if the Tories are losing 2 votes to UKIP for ever 1 that the LDs lose then it's good news for you given where most of the elections are being held.

All the focus will be on the Tories for a change in May.

ICM adjust the don't knows, not those saying they'll vote for different parties.

The number of respondents from the group LD2010 now voting UKIP is so small (single figures) that the %s bounce around like crazy from month to month.

Guardian ICM numbers for LD2010 now voting UKIP. April 5%, March 1% Feb 6% Jan 0%, Dec 2%

You need table 3 with the adjustments for likelihood and net of don't know or WNV

carl

Gerry_Mander said:

I would like to see the faces on the 'we all hate the Tories' people if UKIP did get into power.

What are the lefties expecting?

Increased benefits for the workshy?
Unrestricted immigration?

Or is it that some people are so partisan they want to see the other team done down? Perhaps they're like a spurned lover.

Personally, I want my vote to help get rid of this wretched Tory lot, almost at any cost.

Preferably by voting Labour or Lib Dem, but if it meant voting UKIP and putting up with them having an MP, I'd seriously consider it.

Anyone But Tory.

TGOHF

Speaking of bad haircuts - I got a Con leaflet for the first time in 7 years in Cambridge - glossy and everything. They are for the A14 upgrade - coalition eh ?

Labour leaflets all attacking LDs , no mention of blues.

TGOHF

carl said:

Personally, I want my vote to help get rid of this wretched Tory lot, almost at any cost.

Preferably by voting Labour or Lib Dem, but if it meant voting UKIP and putting up with them having an MP, I'd seriously consider it.

Anyone But Tory.

Can't wait to go back to the glory days of 2008-10 eh ?

Socrates

carl said:

Gerry_Mander said:

I would like to see the faces on the 'we all hate the Tories' people if UKIP did get into power.

What are the lefties expecting?

Increased benefits for the workshy?
Unrestricted immigration?

Or is it that some people are so partisan they want to see the other team done down? Perhaps they're like a spurned lover.

Personally, I want my vote to help get rid of this wretched Tory lot, almost at any cost.

Preferably by voting Labour or Lib Dem, but if it meant voting UKIP and putting up with them having an MP, I'd seriously consider it.

Anyone But Tory.

Ironically, this mentality is what could allow for right-wing governments to get back in. As we have seen, the Tories are deeply unpopular in parts of the country, and it looks like nothing they can ever do will avoid that. Meanwhile UKIP can get win votes in the north without having the legacy of Thatcher.

Socrates

RobC said:

A lot of misogynists adore "hotties" but run a mile when females with brains challenge them.

I think this is a good time to link this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIXPhpizNuE

TGOHF

tim said:

Can't wait to go back to the glory days of 2008-10 eh ?

Lower spending than Osborne you mean?

Half the equation tim as usual - 1/3 larger deficits under Darling.

Gerry_Mander

carl said:

Anyone But Tory.

Why? Would you care to explain?

RobD

tim said:

@RobD

When Dave was accused of misogyny he got photographed with a different woman MP walking him from his hotel to the GMEx, that was a a great tactic that wasn't transparent at all.

Wrong Rob. Use the quote button to avoid such confusion

Financier

Today's YouGov shows that 22% of LD 2010 voters Do Not Know regarding their VI and are still looking for a "home". That equates to approx 1.5m votes at GE turnout level.

The figure for Cons is 10% and for Labour 7%.

taffys

Meanwhile UKIP can get win votes in the north without having the legacy of Thatcher.

South Shields will test this assertion, I guess....

AndyJS

O/T:

Young people in America are driving less:

"Transportation and the New Generation:
Why Young People Are Driving Less and What It Means for Transportation Policy":

http://www.frontiergroup.org/reports/fg/transportation-and-new-generation

SouthamObserver

Yet another IDS claim about welfare scroungers bites the dust:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check/2013/apr/24/benefits

However, as the Tories know, it does not have to be true. As long as it is out there, reported as fact in the Tory press and people want to believe it is true it will work as a statistic. It's all rather unpleasant really. But it is something that both Labour and the LibDems have to realise they are up against come 2015.

sam

UKIP are an unknown quantity and it will be intereseting to see who has calculated their rise correctly.... Shame the 100+ gains price is so short (2/1 from 5/2), I think they could be a spectacular result, as their support is more enthusiastic and likely to vote.

As Mick Pork kind of pointed out ( I think) on the last thread, Farage's personality/ devil may care attituded to PC, will get him lots of publicity. I dont think tim was trying to smear with his links to the BNP member story, or the alleged mysogonism of Bloom.... I dont think so.... but the point is that people that are more inclined to vote UKIP arent as outraged about those sort of things as socialists.. . if anything it works in their favour that they laugh about past "mistakes", and arent self righteous.

People are fed up with cardboard cut out, evasive, lying politicians.

What price 150+ gains anyone??

Sean_F

Socrates said:

carl said:

Gerry_Mander said:

I would like to see the faces on the 'we all hate the Tories' people if UKIP did get into power.

What are the lefties expecting?

Increased benefits for the workshy?
Unrestricted immigration?

Or is it that some people are so partisan they want to see the other team done down? Perhaps they're like a spurned lover.

Personally, I want my vote to help get rid of this wretched Tory lot, almost at any cost.

Preferably by voting Labour or Lib Dem, but if it meant voting UKIP and putting up with them having an MP, I'd seriously consider it.

Anyone But Tory.

Ironically, this mentality is what could allow for right-wing governments to get back in. As we have seen, the Tories are deeply unpopular in parts of the country, and it looks like nothing they can ever do will avoid that. Meanwhile UKIP can get win votes in the north without having the legacy of Thatcher.

There are a fair number of voters with broadly right wing views who won't back the Conservatives. It may be because they simply reject the Conservatives on grounds of class, or because they assume that the Conservatives will never deliver on issues like immigration and the EU. UKIP suits these voters very well.

Anorak

sam said:

People are fed up with cardboard cut out, evasive, lying politicians.

How true. Farage is no Beppe Grillo, but the similarities in their respective rise in the polls are pretty clear.

RichardNabavi

SouthamObserver said:

Yet another IDS claim about welfare scroungers bites the dust:

Since the article starts by saying "Welfare secretary says there are 1 million people capable of getting on their bike and finding work - but are not bothering to do so", when IDS has never ever said anything of the sort, it is the Guardian, not IDS, who is lying. No surprise there, of course - the Guardian is as bad as its alter ego the Mail.

CD13

This reminds me of something. Not PB, obviously, oh no.

http://urlybits.com/2010/04/every-facebook-political-argument-youve-ever-seen/

Anorak

RichardNabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

Yet another IDS claim about welfare scroungers bites the dust:

...it is the Guardian, not IDS, who is lying. No surprise there, of course - the Guardian is as bad as its alter ego the Mail.

Something for your Christmas list, Richard:
http://www.shotdeadinthehead.com/the-guardian-daily-mash-t-shirt-mens.html

sam

Suarez banned for 10 games... Defoe bit Mascherano a few years back and got a yellow card/no retropsective punishment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNZXnbHaoHs

SouthamObserver

RichardNabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

Yet another IDS claim about welfare scroungers bites the dust:

Since the article starts by saying "Welfare secretary says there are 1 million people capable of getting on their bike and finding work - but are not bothering to do so", when IDS has never ever said anything of the sort, it is the Guardian, not IDS, who is lying. No surprise there, of course - the Guardian is as bad as its alter ego the Mail.

Of course Richard, though quick to get on your high horse about the awfulness of Labour, when the Tories do it there is never a problem.

The fact is that IDS is playing with figures to create a false impression. Clearly, you do not have an issue with that. But let's not pretend it is not happening.

Socrates

SouthamObserver said:

Yet another IDS claim about welfare scroungers bites the dust:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check/2013/apr/24/benefits

However, as the Tories know, it does not have to be true. As long as it is out there, reported as fact in the Tory press and people want to believe it is true it will work as a statistic. It's all rather unpleasant really. But it is something that both Labour and the LibDems have to realise they are up against come 2015.

I'm not sure this does bite the dust. Vicky Pollard types would presumably fall in IS lone parents group. The WRAG group it dismissed because they're not ready for work yet, but that is just damning of the previous system where they weren't prepared for work in the past.

But even if you ignore these groups, you still four hundred thousand people who have been off work for years.

sam

CD13 said:

This reminds me of something. Not PB, obviously, oh no.

http://urlybits.com/2010/04/every-facebook-political-argument-youve-ever-seen/

Haha thats brilliant

RichardNabavi

SouthamObserver said:

RichardNabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

Yet another IDS claim about welfare scroungers bites the dust:

Since the article starts by saying "Welfare secretary says there are 1 million people capable of getting on their bike and finding work - but are not bothering to do so", when IDS has never ever said anything of the sort, it is the Guardian, not IDS, who is lying. No surprise there, of course - the Guardian is as bad as its alter ego the Mail.

Of course Richard, though quick to get on your high horse about the awfulness of Labour, when the Tories do it there is never a problem.

The fact is that IDS is playing with figures to create a false impression. Clearly, you do not have an issue with that. But let's not pretend it is not happening.

Eh? I didn't mention Labour.

But IDS has NEVER said "there are 1 million people capable of getting on their bike and finding work - but are not bothering to do so", nor anything remotely like it.

By all means look for a quote which shows that I'm wrong, and that he has talked about a million people not 'bothering' to get on their bike and look for work. I'll donate £100 to the charity of your choice if you find one.

SouthamObserver

tim said:

@Southam

IDS seems to have developed a compulsion to lie about benefits as Grayling did about crime levels before the last election.
The problem is now everyone knows they'll fall apart within hours.

It's not just IDS though, is it? Schapps was doing it the other week when he was saying exceptionally misleading things about those claiming disability allowance.

http://disabilitylibdems.org.uk/en/article/2013/678159/govt-s-disability-distortion-even-worse-than-it-looked

It's clearly a thought-through tactic and one that will undoubtedly intensify over the comiung two years.

SandraM

SouthamObserver said:

tim said:

@Southam

IDS seems to have developed a compulsion to lie about benefits as Grayling did about crime levels before the last election.
The problem is now everyone knows they'll fall apart within hours.

It's not just IDS though, is it? Schapps was doing it the other week when he was saying exceptionally misleading things about those claiming disability allowance.

http://disabilitylibdems.org.uk/en/article/2013/678159/govt-s-disability-distortion-even-worse-than-it-looked

It's clearly a thought-through tactic and one that will undoubtedly intensify over the comiung two years.

It is one that can easily rebound; you can be judged fit for work and placed in the ESA work related category when you are very disabled and with little chance of finding work.

SouthamObserver

RichardNabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

RichardNabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

Yet another IDS claim about welfare scroungers bites the dust:

Since the article starts by saying "Welfare secretary says there are 1 million people capable of getting on their bike and finding work - but are not bothering to do so", when IDS has never ever said anything of the sort, it is the Guardian, not IDS, who is lying. No surprise there, of course - the Guardian is as bad as its alter ego the Mail.

Of course Richard, though quick to get on your high horse about the awfulness of Labour, when the Tories do it there is never a problem.

The fact is that IDS is playing with figures to create a false impression. Clearly, you do not have an issue with that. But let's not pretend it is not happening.

Eh? I didn't mention Labour.

But IDS has NEVER said "there are 1 million people capable of getting on their bike and finding work - but are not bothering to do so", nor anything remotely like it.

By all means look for a quote which shows that I'm wrong, and that he has talked about a million people not 'bothering' to get on their bike and look for work. I'll donate £100 to the charity of your choice if you find one.

Wonderful stuff. If you want to argue over a sentence instead of substance, so be it.

It must be a different Richard Nabavi who ceaselessly claims that Labour are dishonest, immoral and have tainted British politics with their deceptions and spin.

AlastairMeeks

Luis Suarez is box office. I don't think I'd want to spend much time in his company, but football would be a lot duller without nutters like him.

SouthamObserver

Socrates said:

SouthamObserver said:

Yet another IDS claim about welfare scroungers bites the dust:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check/2013/apr/24/benefits

However, as the Tories know, it does not have to be true. As long as it is out there, reported as fact in the Tory press and people want to believe it is true it will work as a statistic. It's all rather unpleasant really. But it is something that both Labour and the LibDems have to realise they are up against come 2015.

I'm not sure this does bite the dust. Vicky Pollard types would presumably fall in IS lone parents group. The WRAG group it dismissed because they're not ready for work yet, but that is just damning of the previous system where they weren't prepared for work in the past.

But even if you ignore these groups, you still four hundred thousand people who have been off work for years.

So let the debate be about them. Why inflate the figures except to paint a distorted picture? Given that the Tories have form on this, it's pretty clear what is going on.

corporeal

Millsy said:

corporeal said:

tim said:

@Corporeal

It might be recent, of course Cameron gave a huge boost to UKIP with his Europe and Immigration stuff, along with putting up an imbecile in Eastleigh, but it doesn't mean it's not real.ICM's adjustment mitigates it for the yellows.
We'll see some odd voting patterns next week, but if the Tories are losing 2 votes to UKIP for ever 1 that the LDs lose then it's good news for you given where most of the elections are being held.

All the focus will be on the Tories for a change in May.

ICM adjust the don't knows, not those saying they'll vote for different parties.

The number of respondents from the group LD2010 now voting UKIP is so small (single figures) that the %s bounce around like crazy from month to month.

Guardian ICM numbers for LD2010 now voting UKIP. April 5%, March 1% Feb 6% Jan 0%, Dec 2%

You need table 3 with the adjustments for likelihood and net of don't know or WNV

Ach, serves me right for trying to flick through too quickly

RichardNabavi

SouthamObserver said:

Wonderful stuff. If you want to argue over a sentence instead of substance, so be it.

It must be a different Richard Nabavi who ceaselessly claims that Labour are dishonest, immoral and have tainted British politics with their deceptions and spin.

What substance? The whole article is based on remarks never made, attacking a phrase 'lazy scroungers' which I don't think I've ever heard IDS use.

As anyone who's actually read IDS's stuff, or who has met him (as I have) will know, his views on welfare are very well founded in research, and he is absolutely scrupulous about not apportioning blame to welfare recipients. That indeed is the entire point of his work: he wants to address the perverse incentives and barriers which have condemned many people (sometimes over three generations) to empty lives. The point he makes again and again (including in the actual words of his quoted in that article) is that the welfare system can sometimes trap people into being victims - the diametric opposite of your caricature.

Maybe he is wrong, but why don't you follow your own advice and argue about the substance, not the Guardian's spin on a non-existent sentence?

MarkSenior

corporeal said:

Millsy said:

corporeal said:

tim said:

@Corporeal

It might be recent, of course Cameron gave a huge boost to UKIP with his Europe and Immigration stuff, along with putting up an imbecile in Eastleigh, but it doesn't mean it's not real.ICM's adjustment mitigates it for the yellows.
We'll see some odd voting patterns next week, but if the Tories are losing 2 votes to UKIP for ever 1 that the LDs lose then it's good news for you given where most of the elections are being held.

All the focus will be on the Tories for a change in May.

ICM adjust the don't knows, not those saying they'll vote for different parties.

The number of respondents from the group LD2010 now voting UKIP is so small (single figures) that the %s bounce around like crazy from month to month.

Guardian ICM numbers for LD2010 now voting UKIP. April 5%, March 1% Feb 6% Jan 0%, Dec 2%

You need table 3 with the adjustments for likelihood and net of don't know or WNV

Ach, serves me right for trying to flick through too quickly

I disagree , you should use the raw results on Table 2

SouthamObserver

RichardNabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

Wonderful stuff. If you want to argue over a sentence instead of substance, so be it.

It must be a different Richard Nabavi who ceaselessly claims that Labour are dishonest, immoral and have tainted British politics with their deceptions and spin.

What substance? The whole article is based on remarks never made, attacking a phrase 'lazy scroungers' which I don't think I've ever heard IDS use.

As anyone who's actually read IDS's stuff, or who has met him (as I have) will know, his views on welfare are very well founded in research, and he is absolutely scrupulous about not apportioning blame to welfare recipients. That indeed is the entire point of his work: he wants to address the perverse incentives and barriers which have condemned many people (sometimes over three generations) to empty lives. The point he makes again and again (including in the actual words of his quoted in that article) is that the welfare system can sometimes trap people into being victims - the diametric opposite of your caricature.

Maybe he is wrong, but why don't you follow your own advice and argue about the substance, not the Guardian's spin on a non-existent sentence?

I agree. When you hear him speak IDS is absolutely scrupulous about not apportioning blame to welfare recipients. However, he is not absolutely scrupulous about letting others use his words to do exactly that - and funnily enough it's always the same newspapers that get the advanced notice. It has happened too many times for this to be a one off and it is not only IDS doing it. It's all very unfortunate. But I do understand - it's bad when Labour does this kind of thing, it is OK when the Tories do it.

AndyJS

New Bundestag poll:

Forsa:

CDU/CSU: 42%
SPD: 23%
Green: 14%
Linke: 7%
FDP: 5%
Pirates 3:
Others: 6%

Very high figure for the Others excluding Pirates. Might be the new anti-Euro party.

http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/index.htm

Norm

RichardNabavi said:

As anyone who's actually read IDS's stuff, or who has met him (as I have) will know, his views on welfare are very well founded in research, and he is absolutely scrupulous about not apportioning blame to welfare recipients.

It's a waste of time arguing Richard. Labourites will rubbish anything IDS says because he's a Tory even if they privately agree with his findings.

nigel4england

sam said:

UKIP are an unknown quantity and it will be intereseting to see who has calculated their rise correctly.... Shame the 100+ gains price is so short (2/1 from 5/2), I think they could be a spectacular result, as their support is more enthusiastic and likely to vote.

As Mick Pork kind of pointed out ( I think) on the last thread, Farage's personality/ devil may care attituded to PC, will get him lots of publicity. I dont think tim was trying to smear with his links to the BNP member story, or the alleged mysogonism of Bloom.... I dont think so.... but the point is that people that are more inclined to vote UKIP arent as outraged about those sort of things as socialists.. . if anything it works in their favour that they laugh about past "mistakes", and arent self righteous.

People are fed up with cardboard cut out, evasive, lying politicians.

What price 150+ gains anyone??

Of course Tim was trying to smear UKIP, smearing and sneering is all he knows, it's what he's paid to do.

RichardNabavi

SouthamObserver said:

I agree. When you hear him speak IDS is absolutely scrupulous about not apportioning blame to welfare recipients. However, he is not absolutely scrupulous about letting others use his words to do exactly that - and funnily enough it's always the same newspapers that get the advanced notice. It has happened too many times for this to be a one off and it is not only IDS doing it. It's all very unfortunate. But I do understand - it's bad when Labour does this kind of thing, it is OK when the Tories do it.

I agree that newspapers misuse statistics, but that's hardly the government's fault, and the BBC and Guardian are as bad as the rest (the Times is probably the best). However, now you seem to be making things up - what 'advance notice'? Didn't the papers just get a copy of the report?

SouthamObserver

Norm said:

RichardNabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

As anyone who's actually read IDS's stuff, or who has met him (as I have) will know, his views on welfare are very well founded in research, and he is absolutely scrupulous about not apportioning blame to welfare recipients.

It's a waste of time arguing Richard. Labourites will rubbish anything IDS says because he's a Tory even if they privately agree with his findings.

I do not doubt IDS's personal sincerity or his genuine commitment to welfare and its reform. My problem is with his questionable use of statistics. And it is not just him, as Grant Schapps so shamefully demonstrated a few weeks back.

AlastairMeeks

Perhaps Abu Qatada and Julian Assange could trade places.

SouthamObserver

RichardNabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

I agree. When you hear him speak IDS is absolutely scrupulous about not apportioning blame to welfare recipients. However, he is not absolutely scrupulous about letting others use his words to do exactly that - and funnily enough it's always the same newspapers that get the advanced notice. It has happened too many times for this to be a one off and it is not only IDS doing it. It's all very unfortunate. But I do understand - it's bad when Labour does this kind of thing, it is OK when the Tories do it.

I agree that newspapers misuse statistics, but that's hardly the government's fault, and the BBC and Guardian are as bad as the rest (the Times is probably the best). However, now you seem to be making things up - what 'advance notice'? Didn't the papers just get a copy of the report?

The report was released today. Funnily enough, IDS rails against the BBC when he feels he has been misreported, but never against the Tory press when it uses the stats he provides to paint a distorted picture of welfare recipients.

RichardNabavi

tim said:

@RichardNabavi

So why does IDS undermine his credibility by releasing stats which always fall apart under scrutiny, we've seen it so many times now.

The stats don't 'fall apart under scrutiny'. Even the Guardian admits that, accusing him of 'employing a linguistic sleight of hand' apparently on the basis that he didn't actually say what they would like to accuse him of. What he said, in a sentence they've quoted out of context from a 48-page report, was quite accurate. They then go and deconstruct a completely different sentence which they think he must have intended to write, about numbers "who Duncan Smith must think have been unwittingly fostering a sense of dependence on the state,"

TGOHF

Embarrassingly for lefties they take the Indy & Granuaid as paragons of truth and unspun news.

Sad really.

Pulpstar

antifrank said:

Perhaps Abu Qatada and Julian Assange could trade places.

Speaking of Assange he could end up with a seat in the Australian senate... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/23/assange_poll/ though it doesn't grant any diplomatic privelidge.

Anorak

OT Went to the zoo. There was only one dog in it. It was a shitzu.

RobD

Pulpstar said:

antifrank said:

Perhaps Abu Qatada and Julian Assange could trade places.

Speaking of Assange he could end up with a seat in the Australian senate... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/23/assange_poll/ though it doesn't grant any diplomatic privelidge.

Elected with under 26% of the vote? Sounds worse than FPTP

CarlottaVance

Death to Splitters! Unite for Labour Unity!

Exclusive: Len McCluskey declares war on shadow cabinet "Blairites"
Unite general secretary says Miliband will be "defeated" and "cast into the dustbin of history" if he gets "seduced" by "the Jim Murphys and the Douglas Alexanders".

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/04/exclusive-len-mccluskey-declares-war-shadow-cabinet-blairites

sam

tim said:

Grayling is the best though, king of the obviously made up stat

Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling has been accused of misleading the public in his use of crime statistics.
The Tories have said data shows a big rise in violent crime during Labour's time in government

Millions of pulped leaflets with that one

Although IDS had a good go here.

Iain Duncan Smith misled Parliament by passing off figures from a property comparison website owned by the Daily Mail as official government figures.

In a parliamentary debate, the Work and Pensions Secretary claimed that the Office for National Statistics (ONS) found that private sector rents had fallen by 5 per cent last year. At the same time he claimed the amount local authorities paid to private landlords had risen by 3 per cent.

But, in fact, the ONS does not collect such statistics and the figures he quoted came from the website findaproperty.com owned by Daily Mail publisher Associated Newspapers.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/benefit-policy-based-on-figures-culled-from-web-2138178.html

And of course when the pair teamed up on immigrants and benefits everything always went wrong.

What happened, did they let in hundreds of thousands more than expected from Eastern Europe to rub their opponents noses in diversity without a care for the average bloke on the street?

CarlottaVance

Comrade Chuka's thoughts on Industrilal Policy:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/04/there-alternative-governments-can-do-what-markets-cannot

Curiously he does not dwell on the decline of manufacturing 1997-2010.....

TGOHF

CarlottaVance said:

Death to Splitters! Unite for Labour Unity!

Exclusive: Len McCluskey declares war on shadow cabinet "Blairites"
Unite general secretary says Miliband will be "defeated" and "cast into the dustbin of history" if he gets "seduced" by "the Jim Murphys and the Douglas Alexanders".

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/04/exclusive-len-mccluskey-declares-war-shadow-cabinet-blairites

" Just concentrate on what you’'re doing, concentrate on trying to create this alternative, this radical alternative that the British people are desperate for."

Evidence Len ?

With friends like Len and Gorgeous George...

Socrates

CarlottaVance said:

Comrade Chuka's thoughts on Industrilal Policy:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/04/there-alternative-governments-can-do-what-markets-cannot

Curiously he does not dwell on the decline of manufacturing 1997-2010.....

A decline in employment maybe, but not a decline in GVA.

CarlottaVance

Missed PMQs - but from the New Statesman looks like Cameron scored a direct hit:

PMQs review: Cameron plays dirty on the NHS
Miliband accuses the PM of a "disgraceful slur" after he says the Mid-Staffs report was a "reminder of Labour's record on the NHS".

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/04/pmqs-review-cameron-plays-dirty-nhs

Anorak

TGOHF said:

CarlottaVance said:

Death to Splitters! Unite for Labour Unity!

Exclusive: Len McCluskey declares war on shadow cabinet "Blairites"
Unite general secretary says Miliband will be "defeated" and "cast into the dustbin of history" if he gets "seduced" by "the Jim Murphys and the Douglas Alexanders".

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/04/exclusive-len-mccluskey-declares-war-shadow-cabinet-blairites

" Just concentrate on what you’'re doing, concentrate on trying to create this alternative, this radical alternative that the British people are desperate for."

Evidence Len ?

With friends like Len and Gorgeous George...

Miliband now backed by Len, Kinnock, Galloway and Livingstone. He's just needs to unearth Derek Hatton and Arthur Scargill and get them on side and he'll have the full set.

TCPoliticalBetting

Interesting article from OGH. Regarding the key intra-coalition fights which make up most of these seats. If ICM are the gold standard then the Lib Dem losses to UKIP are running at 4 voters for every 5 that the Conservatives have lost.

Taking into account that the Lib Dems have lost proportionately more voters overall than the Conservatives (according to the polls) then there maybe no significant net movement between the Conservatives and the Lib Dems this time around.

TGOHF

CarlottaVance said:

Missed PMQs - but from the New Statesman looks like Cameron scored a direct hit:

PMQs review: Cameron plays dirty on the NHS
Miliband accuses the PM of a "disgraceful slur" after he says the Mid-Staffs report was a "reminder of Labour's record on the NHS".

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/04/pmqs-review-cameron-plays-dirty-nhs

"His remarks were greeted with loud boos and cries of "shame" from Labour MPs but Tory backbenchers were visibly energised by the intervention (one that bears all the hallmarks of Lynton Crosby). "

I thought it bore all the hallmarks of the petrol price dropping.

Plato

RT @PaulBrandITV: UKIP candidate swamped in South Shields by *Labour* voters saying they'll swap to him. UKIP have even rented out shop front to campaign.