Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why the electoral bias against the Conservatives could be e

SystemSystem Posts: 12,138
edited October 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why the electoral bias against the Conservatives could be even greater next time

We all know that the national vote threshold for LAB overall majority is considerably lower than for the Tories. The reason is partly the boundaries but mostly down to the way the Labour vote is distributed.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    edited October 2013
    First Great Western....

    Labour caught out by The Mail, either they want to gain more publicity for the clusterfu*k or they are even incompetent, and out of touch than I thought.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2480664/The-phoney-ordinary-folk-Labours-TV-broadcast-Millionaire-restaurateur-Guardian-journalist-interviewees-saying-afford-fuel-bills.html

    Must be the same group which were squealing over cuts to CB last year. The ordinary people on £75K are usually the preserve of The Telegraph and almost as unrepresentative.

    Just wondering how many of the 2010 LDs who are switching back to Labour, actually voted for Labour in 2005 or 2002?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Labour voters by GE:


    1997: 13,518,167
    2001 : 10,724,953
    2005 : 9,552,436
    2010 : 8,606,517

    Labour voters are becoming scarcer - whether they voted LD or BNP in 2010..

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Con voters by GE

    1997: 9,600,943
    2001 : 8,357,615
    2005 : 8,784,915
    2010 : 10,703,654

    For comparison.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    I'd expect the opposite, in that the Sandalistas are already in Labour's national share, rather than being LibDem everywhere except Lab/Con marginals. I wouldn't trust the marginals polling to much, because it's a hard thing to get right.

    Against that, the absence of the scheduled boundary changes should make things easier for Labour than 2010 if the previous demographic trends - Labour-inclined people moving from safe Labour seats to marginals - are still happening.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    dr_spyn said:

    Just wondering how many of the 2010 LDs who are switching back to Labour, actually voted for Labour in 2005 or 2002?

    In Mori's "How Britain Voted" they do show a large slice of Labour to Lib Dem switchers between 2001 and 2005. The other main inter-party movement at that election was from Lib Dems to Tories.

    Not sure how reliable that data is though, because Mori didn't make this breakdown for GE2010, so perhaps they don't trust people's recollection of how they voted five years ago.
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    FPT Carlotta

    Of course, after yesterday you don't need a degree to be a teacher, relevant to subject or not. Or even a GCSE. You just need... I dunno. Length certificate? Third prize in the knobbly knees at Butlins?
  • I'm rather amazed that there are any LibDem voters in Con-Lab marginals as before every election we're told how a third of the previous lot will be voting Labour next time.

    In reality they don't.

    The biggest effect in 2015 will be incumbancy bonuses for new Conservative MPs instead of Labour MPs

    That will be worth the equivalent of a 2% national swing.

    It will be extremely difficult for either party to win a majority in 2015 but Labour with most MPs is the likely outcome.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,287
    edited October 2013
    MARGINAL SEAT POLLING

    A couple of weeks back, I had a discussion with Mark Senior about whether polling in marginal seats, like the mega Ashcroft surveys, was more likely to be accurate than, say, a national VI poll with the normal 1,000+ sampling.

    I promised to raise the subject with my old University chum and noted psephologist and former pollster, Dr Robert Waller (who I think Mike also knows) for his observations.

    This is what he wrote back to me (without editing):

    "The problem with marginals polls (of which I've taken a few) is not with the sample size. That's often a red herring, as it doesn't matter how many people you talk to if they're not typical of all voters.

    Therefore it's the 'sampling frame'. Assuming the poll is not random, and it won't be, the designers have to establish targets to set quotas to match with respondents.
    This is harder if it is not a standard national sample, as they have to find what is typical across 38 marginals, not the well known national figures that are regularly used.

    As a result, I would agree that marginals are harder to get accurate polling in.
    (Of course, the sample size in individual marginals will also be very small, so it's useless for single seats within the group).

    Overall, if the results of the poll across marginals suggests a different swing from that suggested by the whole weight of national polls, it's probable that it's the marginals poll that is wrong.

    So I think you are probably right - though polling has certainly become more sophisticated since I last took one in 1992, so the Ashcroft people may have made a better fist of the sampling than we did in the old days!

    By all means use me as an authority, though myself don't think I have much standing as one on polling nowadays ......"

    Rob has given me permission to publish his thoughts.


  • I would say the marginal effect could go either way.....the most recent marginal poll suggested that Labour were doing better in the marginal than on a UNS....BUT the last FULL marginal poll of all marginals back in March of this year showed that the Tories would do a full 30 seats better than on UNS! So I think the marginal effect compared to a UNS is complicated and still very much open to doubt.

    Personally, I agree with Yougov Labourite expert Peter Kellner...that the first time incumbency effect is likely to give the Conservatives a boost when compared to a UNS when individual MPs and individual constituency seats (and an actual GE) are considered, as per the most recent full marginal poll in March. But we shall see.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    tim said:

    Good luck Mike trying to get the PB Tories to engage in discussion about this polling, they prefer the 8 sample focus group.

    The key about this group of voters is that they rate health/education/jobs and the economy very highly.
    And among them Labour has a 40%+ lead on health and 20%+ on the other two.

    Well tim - if you don't like the results of a poll - or even the content of a post you can always send round the "Leverage Team"...

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2480643/Labours-Unite-paymasters-intimidated-managers-oil-refinery-battle.html

    "The full extent of the Unite union’s campaign of bullying and intimidation against senior managers during the bitter Grangemouth oil refinery dispute is revealed today.

    In a disturbing echo of the union militancy of the 1970s and 80s, Unite leaders deployed a dirty tricks squad to personally target and humiliate executives of the Ineos chemical company and their families.

    The sinister unit – known as the ‘Leverage team’ – sent mobs of protesters to the homes of senior figures in the firm.

    One director last night said he had feared for the safety of his wife and his two young children after 30 Unite protesters descended on his drive during the school holidays."
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    OMW - this is disturbing

    In a disturbing echo of the union militancy of the 1970s and 80s, Unite leaders deployed a dirty tricks squad to personally target and humiliate executives of the Ineos chemical company and their families.

    The sinister unit – known as the ‘Leverage team’ – sent mobs of protesters to the homes of senior figures in the firm.

    One director last night said he had feared for the safety of his wife and his two young children after 30 Unite protesters descended on his drive during the school holidays.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2480643/Labours-Unite-paymasters-intimidated-managers-oil-refinery-battle.html#ixzz2jHuUkTny
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    tim said:

    they prefer the 8 sample focus group.
    .

    When did anyone except you last mention it?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,725
    Miss Plato, indeed. Reminds me of those giving evidence to a Falkirk inquiry whose homes were allegedly visited by representatives who 'persuaded' them to withdraw their evidence.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    @JohnO

    Thanks for publishing that JohnO

    The framework of the sampling is critical. If ever we saw this to be the case it was in last years US presidential election where Gallup amongst others had a nightmare with their sampling of the minority demographic resulting in poorer Obama numbers.

    Clearly this demographic isn't as important in UK elections but to my view differential turnout will be a huge factor in bolstering Coalition MPs in 2015.
  • The question is which is right....the FULL marginal polling back in March showing a Tory boost relative to UNS...or the more recent marginal poll of the top 40 Lab-Con targets, which showed Labour doing better in these seats than on a UNS?

    It's hard to say before GE day, but I think it's more likely to be the former, especially when individual MP's names are mentioned and individual constituencies considered. At the moment, marginal polls are nothing more than theoretical snapshots of local voting intention without so much local knowledge on individual MPs and where local issues have yet to be discussed openly (and local personalities ignored). Only the GE of 2015 will change that.

    I think we'll find in 2015 that the Libs will hold onto more seats than many imagine, and that the Tories will hold most of the southern seats that on current polling would turn Labour....but will fail to impose themselves outside of the south and Midlands...therefore, the real battle for number 10 will be won and lost in the Midlands.

    But as I said, we shall see.
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    I see the economics remedial class were out in force on the previous thread. I don't know why I expect them to understand it, but on the off chance they do, here's a briefing note from ICAEW.

    Again I say to Carlotta and his/her/their/its followers - if you are bored of hearing about this, why raise it day after day after day?

    http://www.icaew.com/~/media/Files/About-ICAEW/What-we-do/Policy/budget-and-pbr/icaew-brief-child-benefit-changes.ashx
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382

    I'm rather amazed that there are any LibDem voters in Con-Lab marginals as before every election we're told how a third of the previous lot will be voting Labour next time.

    In reality they don't.

    The biggest effect in 2015 will be incumbancy bonuses for new Conservative MPs instead of Labour MPs

    That will be worth the equivalent of a 2% national swing.

    It will be extremely difficult for either party to win a majority in 2015 but Labour with most MPs is the likely outcome.

    Maybe there will be a first time incumbency bonus. Bit other polling suggests that CON MPs have far worse net satisfaction ratings than LAB or LD ones.

  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Plato said:

    OMW - this is disturbing

    In a disturbing echo of the union militancy of the 1970s and 80s, Unite leaders deployed a dirty tricks squad to personally target and humiliate executives of the Ineos chemical company and their families.

    The sinister unit – known as the ‘Leverage team’ – sent mobs of protesters to the homes of senior figures in the firm.

    One director last night said he had feared for the safety of his wife and his two young children after 30 Unite protesters descended on his drive during the school holidays.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2480643/Labours-Unite-paymasters-intimidated-managers-oil-refinery-battle.html#ixzz2jHuUkTny
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    @Plato

    This practice is not uncommon in either an authoritarian state or in many third-world countries where the media is not free and subject to strict government control. A bit like the UK is years to come?
  • @Mike Smithson,

    "
    Maybe there will be a first time incumbency bonus. Bit other polling suggests that CON MPs have far worse net satisfaction ratings than LAB or LD ones."

    At the moment...but that is likely to change with voting intention.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    tim said:

    they prefer the 8 sample focus group.
    .

    When did anyone except you last mention it?
    Give it a couple of weeks and "PB Tories" will have been the ones that commissioned that poll...
  • Financier said:



    @Plato

    This practice is not uncommon in either an authoritarian state or in many third-world countries where the media is not free and subject to strict government control. A bit like the UK is years to come?

    If only it were a democratically elected government controlling the media. What if it were Unite (representing their members, of course)?
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,162
    edited October 2013
    It's fascinating the way some left-wing posters believe insults of their opponents is the same as rational argument. Similarly only using the polls which support their view, however out of date or unreliable. One assumes it makes them feel good - important when your heroes have to be Miliband, Balls, McClusky, etc
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Matt1001 said:

    @Mike Smithson,

    "
    Maybe there will be a first time incumbency bonus. Bit other polling suggests that CON MPs have far worse net satisfaction ratings than LAB or LD ones."

    At the moment...but that is likely to change with voting intention.

    If there was a likely first time incumbency bonus then you would have expected the Ashcroft to find evidence of it. It didn't.

    Remember the sample in this single phone poll was greater than the aggregate sample in all Ipsos-MORI politival monitors in a year.

  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976

    Miss Plato, indeed. Reminds me of those giving evidence to a Falkirk inquiry whose homes were allegedly visited by representatives who 'persuaded' them to withdraw their evidence.

    You must be referring to this story from the Guardian.

    “An uneasy truce between Unite and the Labour leadership after Ed Miliband's decision to abandon an inquiry into voting malpractice in Falkirk was threatening to fray on Sunday amid claims that witnesses had been bullied into dropping accusations and a claim by a Labour MP that Unite threatened to stop £3m in party donations unless an apology was given.”

    Bullying and threatening families appears to be a UNITE trade-mark – I thought this unpleasant militant tendency crap had died out in the 1970s.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/08/labour-unite-falkirk-bullying-claims
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    This should pay for a few green tax cuts..

    Sky News Newsdesk ‏@SkyNewsBreak 4m
    Sky Sources: Chancellor considering imposing capital gains tax on foreign property investors
  • I really do I like the good Lord's polling, but would it be churlish to point out that in the last parliament, the mega marginal polling proved to be as accurate as an American war movie.

    For example in 2008, the super duper poll predicted the Tories would get 398 seats, and the 2009 one predicted the Tories would get 360. The same polls showed Labour would get less than 200 seats.

    They were accurate on the Lib Dem figure (55 predicted in 2009)

    The 2009 poll had a sample of 33,610.

    http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2009/10/03/will-the-towns-of-england-seal-browns-fate/
  • SchardsSchards Posts: 210
    I think polling has to be viewed through the prism of fixed term parliaments and I feel this is something the tories have embraced more than any other party. The tories seem unconcerned about short term unpopularity on specific issues as long as the issue works in their favour come May 2015 whereas Labour and ed are focussing on the next weekend's YouGov.

    Come the election, who of the electorate will remember Miliband fearlessly trying to put the Murdoch empire out of business? Very few, however, I can tell you who will remember, the Murdoch Press.

    Come the election, who will love Miliband's 20 month price freeze when the tories will be offering a price cut through green levies announced at a time of their choosing.

    Will a phoney "cost of living crisis" in 2013 matter when the economy has been growing steadily and wages are rising in 2015?

    Will demanding an EU a referendum in 2014 cut much ice in 2015? No, but being the only party able to deliver a referendum in the next pariament will.

    And so on and so on. Mid term polls have always been pretty irrelevent but I believe that, this time, they are even more so due to the certainty of the next general election date. Being popular in 2013 may will the odd by election but 2015 is the bigger picture and the tories are more focussed on that than any other party.
  • Do you think re-cycling this every other week (at best) somehow makes it more true Mike? It serves to do a couple of things. First, it makes it even more dubious. If you have to keep repeating the argument it obviously isn't a very good one. Second, it makes this site look stale.

    As for the argument, oh dear. I remember Neil Kinnock's Labour in 1992 banging the 'but we're doing so much better in the marginals' argument. Doesn't wash. Where the nation goes, the marginals will follow. But the LD switching argument is beginning to look terribly flakey. It reminds me of undergraduates who, when faced with a complex problem that they don't understand, pin all their hopes on one argument instead of reasoning through multiple angles and arguments.
  • @JohnO

    Thanks John, that is extremely helpful.

    And kind of your friend to allow his thoughts to be published verbatim.
  • Felix,

    To be fair, I've found the cherry picking of polls to be used by all sides....

    It's funny really...does anyone really think that having a Lab/Cons/Lib government will actually make much difference? I don't know, perhaps it's because I am somewhat apathetic most of politics, but I find the main parties are pretty much carbon copies of each other! That's why the psephological side of politics interests me far more than the day-to-day grind of politics. Probably my fascination with election day.

  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Reindeer steaks at Lidl Mail in Faux Outraged over desecration of Christmas - goes off to look for reference in Gospels for reindeer recipes...finds only lowing cattle and sheep. Baaa Humbug.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2480503/Lidl-accused-destroying-magic-Christmas-selling-reindeer-steaks-7-99.html
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Recruitment drive underway

    Conservatives @Conservatives
    Britain is turning a corner - help us finish the job. Join as a Supporter for only £1 today: conservatives.com/join
  • By the way, there will be a big incumbency factor for Cameron. Unlike Mike's Westminster bubble most of the 30million + who vote see a man standing in front of No.10 with the words 'Prime Minister'. They won't care about niceties surrounding 'oh but it's not really the Conservatives you know it's a ccccc-co-coalition'.

    Only two Governments have been voted out of office in the past c.35 years.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,772
    tim said:

    TGOHF said:

    This should pay for a few green tax cuts..

    Sky News Newsdesk ‏@SkyNewsBreak 4m
    Sky Sources: Chancellor considering imposing capital gains tax on foreign property investors


    He'd have to impose it on Brits as well for it to be legal, which would be the most sensible thing he's ever done, otherwise it'll just apply to non EU purchasers who will set up EU businesses to make the purchases.
    If a business buys a property then there would be corporation tax payable on the gain of the property, as PRR only applies to individuals.
  • @Mike,

    "If there was a likely first time incumbency bonus then you would have expected the Ashcroft to find evidence of it. It didn't.

    Remember the sample in this single phone poll was greater than the aggregate sample in all Ipsos-MORI politival monitors in a year."

    But the results of the marginal polls have been pretty mixed...the latest suggests Labour benefiting....the one before that (by Ashcroft) the Tories.

    Personally, I think until local personalities (and names) and local issues are discussed in depth in the lead up to a GE, the results of any marginal polls are liable to change pretty drastically...as with the latest two! Any first time incumbency effect, if it will exist in 2015, is only likely to show itself when local considerations come to the fore IMO, and that is only likely to be highlighted during a local campaign before a GE.
  • I'm rather amazed that there are any LibDem voters in Con-Lab marginals as before every election we're told how a third of the previous lot will be voting Labour next time.

    In reality they don't.

    The biggest effect in 2015 will be incumbancy bonuses for new Conservative MPs instead of Labour MPs

    That will be worth the equivalent of a 2% national swing.

    It will be extremely difficult for either party to win a majority in 2015 but Labour with most MPs is the likely outcome.

    Maybe there will be a first time incumbency bonus. Bit other polling suggests that CON MPs have far worse net satisfaction ratings than LAB or LD ones.

    No 'maybe'.

    Will be.

    This will vary from place to place depending upon how the local MP is viewed and how the outgoing Labour MP was viewed.

    Robert Halfon in Harlow is likely to have a significant incumbancy bonus for example.


  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,725
    Dr. Spyn, what's wrong with reindeer steak? I'd quite like to try one.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724

    By the way, there will be a big incumbency factor for Cameron. Unlike Mike's Westminster bubble most of the 30million + who vote see a man standing in front of No.10 with the words 'Prime Minister'. They won't care about niceties surrounding 'oh but it's not really the Conservatives you know it's a ccccc-co-coalition'.

    Only two Governments have been voted out of office in the past c.35 years.

    Everything is bad news for the Tories. No matter what the subject, polling or opinion formers say.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,854
    FPT Dr Spn

    "Labour caught out by The Mail"


    I've just looked at Labour's PPB it again and it's exactly what it says it is. The 'millionaire restaurateur' that got the Mail (and several PB posters so excited) is surprise surprise appearing as a restaurateur in his own restaurant. All the rest as far as I can tell are what they purport to be.

    The rules for a vox pop commercial are very stringent. No fee just expenses and the words have to be their own. The rules for a PPB are much more lax but even so I can't see anything here that wouldn't be acceptable in an ad let alone a PPB.


  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    Plato said:

    By the way, there will be a big incumbency factor for Cameron. Unlike Mike's Westminster bubble most of the 30million + who vote see a man standing in front of No.10 with the words 'Prime Minister'. They won't care about niceties surrounding 'oh but it's not really the Conservatives you know it's a ccccc-co-coalition'.

    Only two Governments have been voted out of office in the past c.35 years.

    Everything is bad news for the Tories. No matter what the subject, polling or opinion formers say.
    The thread is about the polling. I'm sure Mike could run a thread that spells good news for the Tories based on PB Tory anecdote.
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    Should I feel bad* for being pleased that the forecast is for rain during 'trick or treater' time?

    *doubts will be persuaded
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,772
    tim said:

    tim said:

    TGOHF said:

    This should pay for a few green tax cuts..

    Sky News Newsdesk ‏@SkyNewsBreak 4m
    Sky Sources: Chancellor considering imposing capital gains tax on foreign property investors


    He'd have to impose it on Brits as well for it to be legal, which would be the most sensible thing he's ever done, otherwise it'll just apply to non EU purchasers who will set up EU businesses to make the purchases.
    If a business buys a property then there would be corporation tax payable on the gain of the property, as PRR only applies to individuals.
    Blimey a substantive contribution from you, is it a leap year?

    From the story

    "According to the Treasury’s own internal research, the tax would be unlikely to raise significant sums – tens of millions rather than billions – but would address concerns that overseas investors might enjoy favourable treatment when it comes to property investment."

    Looks like a comfort signal which will avoid the real issue, which is Osborne deliberately stoking house price inflation
    Ironic from someone who's posted 12 times as many posts as me....
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536

    I'm rather amazed that there are any LibDem voters in Con-Lab marginals as before every election we're told how a third of the previous lot will be voting Labour next time.

    In reality they don't.

    The biggest effect in 2015 will be incumbancy bonuses for new Conservative MPs instead of Labour MPs

    That will be worth the equivalent of a 2% national swing.

    It will be extremely difficult for either party to win a majority in 2015 but Labour with most MPs is the likely outcome.

    Maybe there will be a first time incumbency bonus. Bit other polling suggests that CON MPs have far worse net satisfaction ratings than LAB or LD ones.

    No 'maybe'.

    Will be.

    This will vary from place to place depending upon how the local MP is viewed and how the outgoing Labour MP was viewed.

    Robert Halfon in Harlow is likely to have a significant incumbancy bonus for example.


    Agreed about Halfon - a first rate local MP who understands trade unions and the needs of working people, were it that the Tories could find more like him.

  • By the way, there will be a big incumbency factor for Cameron. Unlike Mike's Westminster bubble most of the 30million + who vote see a man standing in front of No.10 with the words 'Prime Minister'. They won't care about niceties surrounding 'oh but it's not really the Conservatives you know it's a ccccc-co-coalition'.

    Only two Governments have been voted out of office in the past c.35 years.

    And no government has increased its vote share in a GE for longer than that.

    But the interesting thing is that we will not have a government putting itself up for re-election in 2015.

  • @another Richard,

    Good points.

    Also, as I said before, net satisfaction ratings for MPs are likely to change roughly in line with national polling...at the moment, Labour has a 6-7% lead nationally, whilst their lead over the Tories with net satisfaction ratings is virtually identical at 8%.....you would, therefore, expect that if the Labour lead were to collapse completely, so would their lead in net satisfaction ratings with their MPs.

    But as already mentioned, this broad-based figure is also likely bound to mask regional variation and therefore be less meaning. It's individual seats which count...and the Tories are currently hated outside of their southern base.
  • Roger said:

    FPT Dr Spn

    "Labour caught out by The Mail"


    I've just looked at Labour's PPB it again and it's exactly what it says it is. The 'millionaire restaurateur' that got the Mail (and several PB posters so excited) is surprise surprise appearing as a restaurateur in his own restaurant. All the rest as far as I can tell are what they purport to be.

    The rules for a vox pop commercial are very stringent. No fee just expenses and the words have to be their own. The rules for a PPB are much more lax but even so I can't see anything here that wouldn't be acceptable in an ad let alone a PPB.


    Whoever would have thought it?

  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006
    These switchers are almost certainly previous Labour voters switching back, rather than core, long-term Lib Dems changing party. Many of these may still vote tactically for the Lib Dems in Tory / Lib Dem marginals but will vote Labour in the Con/Lab marginals. That Surely explains the rate of switching between the marginals and the rest of the country.
  • By the way, there will be a big incumbency factor for Cameron. Unlike Mike's Westminster bubble most of the 30million + who vote see a man standing in front of No.10 with the words 'Prime Minister'. They won't care about niceties surrounding 'oh but it's not really the Conservatives you know it's a ccccc-co-coalition'.

    Only two Governments have been voted out of office in the past c.35 years.

    And no government has increased its vote share in a GE for longer than that.

    But the interesting thing is that we will not have a government putting itself up for re-election in 2015.

    Yes, at the next election, you could have both Con and Lab arguing it is time for a change.

    Though I suspect the The Tories and The Lib Dems message will be "Don't let Labour ruin it again"
  • What we really need is a by-election.

    Can Ed Davey please be involved a scandal that involves him having to resign as an MP.

    A Kingston and Surbiton by-election would be fascinating.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    FPT - Carola - from the blog you posted a link to:

    "Whereas the head of a private school will usually be highly academically qualified themselves and be looking for somebody with a similar background, our state schools have not valued academic achievement in a long time. Headteachers do not go out of their way to get the best qualified staff as it is."

    Fair?
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536

    Roger said:

    FPT Dr Spn

    "Labour caught out by The Mail"


    I've just looked at Labour's PPB it again and it's exactly what it says it is. The 'millionaire restaurateur' that got the Mail (and several PB posters so excited) is surprise surprise appearing as a restaurateur in his own restaurant. All the rest as far as I can tell are what they purport to be.

    The rules for a vox pop commercial are very stringent. No fee just expenses and the words have to be their own. The rules for a PPB are much more lax but even so I can't see anything here that wouldn't be acceptable in an ad let alone a PPB.


    Whoever would have thought it?

    A truly astounding turn of events.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    tim said:

    TGOHF said:

    This should pay for a few green tax cuts..

    Sky News Newsdesk ‏@SkyNewsBreak 4m
    Sky Sources: Chancellor considering imposing capital gains tax on foreign property investors


    He'd have to impose it on Brits as well for it to be legal, which would be the most sensible thing he's ever done, otherwise it'll just apply to non EU purchasers who will set up EU businesses to make the purchases.
    Given that the details haven't been announced only the headlines leaked it's a bit early for educated filleting of the policy...
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Red underwear?

    The three-piece suite, coloured jeans and table linens have fallen victim to the dramatic change in how families shop, according to one of the most detailed insights into the behaviour of British consumers. The research by department store chain John Lewis, which has analysed a year of sales data, shows that consumers are shopping morning, noon and night thanks to the revolution in digital technology.

    The John Lewis report, called How We Shop, Live & Look, also highlights a stark North-South divide in the tastes and behaviour of shoppers. For example, Welsh shoppers are 19pc more likely to buy red underwear, while sales of suspenders are 45pc above average in the North East, and shape and control underwear is 35pc higher in Scotland.

    In addition, shoppers in northern cites are using the internet differently to the South East. So while families in Liverpool, Edinburgh and Newcastle still find it convenient to drive to the high street to shop, online penetration is highest in the affluent London commuter belt, which includes cities such as St Albans, and the SW London postcode. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/10415995/Three-piece-suite-falls-victim-to-online-revolution-says-John-Lewis.html
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited October 2013

    tim said:

    TGOHF said:

    This should pay for a few green tax cuts..

    Sky News Newsdesk ‏@SkyNewsBreak 4m
    Sky Sources: Chancellor considering imposing capital gains tax on foreign property investors


    He'd have to impose it on Brits as well for it to be legal, which would be the most sensible thing he's ever done, otherwise it'll just apply to non EU purchasers who will set up EU businesses to make the purchases.
    If a business buys a property then there would be corporation tax payable on the gain of the property, as PRR only applies to individuals.
    Companies already pay 15% stamp duty on residential properties over £2million - would never have happened under a Labour government!

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382

    Do you think re-cycling this every other week (at best) somehow makes it more true Mike? It serves to do a couple of things. First, it makes it even more dubious. If you have to keep repeating the argument it obviously isn't a very good one. Second, it makes this site look stale.

    As for the argument, oh dear. I remember Neil Kinnock's Labour in 1992 banging the 'but we're doing so much better in the marginals' argument. Doesn't wash. Where the nation goes, the marginals will follow. But the LD switching argument is beginning to look terribly flakey. It reminds me of undergraduates who, when faced with a complex problem that they don't understand, pin all their hopes on one argument instead of reasoning through multiple angles and arguments.

    Another TID Tory In Denial

    I will go on highlighting this as long as the polls show its happening because it is the overwhelming factor over te next election. My analysis on this is the same as Prof John Curtice.




  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083

    tim said:

    TGOHF said:

    This should pay for a few green tax cuts..

    Sky News Newsdesk ‏@SkyNewsBreak 4m
    Sky Sources: Chancellor considering imposing capital gains tax on foreign property investors


    He'd have to impose it on Brits as well for it to be legal, which would be the most sensible thing he's ever done, otherwise it'll just apply to non EU purchasers who will set up EU businesses to make the purchases.
    If a business buys a property then there would be corporation tax payable on the gain of the property, as PRR only applies to individuals.
    Judging by the Sky story, it's not about PPR relief - the story says (not entirely correctly) that currently UK owners only enjoy relief from capital gains tax on properties they live in, whereas overseas investors are exempt on all properties. That's just not true as a default analysis of the CGT treatment of UK situs assets, but as with all things there are ways that non-dom individuals or overseas individuals purchasing through offshore vehicles can avoid tax, including through sales of holding vehicles.

    Because of the new attempts to stop properties from being held within corporate/trust vehicles (ITED etc) then I'd have thought it's got a bit harder anyway. Equally, it is a bit hard to see what further steps can be taken; given the small amounts being talked about my guess is "not many" but it'll be interesting to see - certainly any progress should be applauded, though I'm sceptical about it being a story with any substance at this stage.
  • The Times following up from their piece the other day which I mentioned, that MPs office rental agreements are going to be published in a few weeks time, Labour is worried that it will refocus attention on Labour on the unions.

    For example, Luciana Berger rents from a trade union at £583 pcm, that same union gave £4,000 in cash to her constituency party.

    Owen Smith, shadow Welsh Secretary rents his from the GMB at £500pcm, the GMB made £7,000 in cash donations to his local Labour party.

    None of this illegal, or outside the rules, or improper, but in politics, sometimes the perceptions matter more than the facts.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,034

    Do you think re-cycling this every other week (at best) somehow makes it more true Mike? It serves to do a couple of things. First, it makes it even more dubious. If you have to keep repeating the argument it obviously isn't a very good one. Second, it makes this site look stale.

    As for the argument, oh dear. I remember Neil Kinnock's Labour in 1992 banging the 'but we're doing so much better in the marginals' argument. Doesn't wash. Where the nation goes, the marginals will follow. But the LD switching argument is beginning to look terribly flakey. It reminds me of undergraduates who, when faced with a complex problem that they don't understand, pin all their hopes on one argument instead of reasoning through multiple angles and arguments.

    Another TID Tory In Denial

    I will go on highlighting this as long as the polls show its happening because it is the overwhelming factor over te next election. My analysis on this is the same as Prof John Curtice.




    By the way, there will be a big incumbency factor for Cameron. Unlike Mike's Westminster bubble most of the 30million + who vote see a man standing in front of No.10 with the words 'Prime Minister'. They won't care about niceties surrounding 'oh but it's not really the Conservatives you know it's a ccccc-co-coalition'.

    Only two Governments have been voted out of office in the past c.35 years.

    The incumbncy factor will be for Conservatives in conservative held seats, and Lib Dems in Lib Dem seats. That, at the very best can preserve the status quo - I think the most Con can hope for is a continuation of the coalition or a Con minority Gov't. Only place I can see CON making gains is Scotland actually.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    @Roger –“ All the rest as far as I can tell are what they purport to be.”

    Really ? Even you can’t believe that – As Priti Patel said: ‘Labour’s party political broadcast would be a lot more effective if they used real people rather than their own coterie of left-wing campaigners and champagne socialists.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited October 2013
    tim said:

    Roger said:

    FPT Dr Spn

    "Labour caught out by The Mail"


    I've just looked at Labour's PPB it again and it's exactly what it says it is. The 'millionaire restaurateur' that got the Mail (and several PB posters so excited) is surprise surprise appearing as a restaurateur in his own restaurant. All the rest as far as I can tell are what they purport to be.

    The rules for a vox pop commercial are very stringent. No fee just expenses and the words have to be their own. The rules for a PPB are much more lax but even so I can't see anything here that wouldn't be acceptable in an ad let alone a PPB.


    You get the impression the PB Tories hadn't watched the thing, did they imagine he was posing in a bedsit?
    Didn't see that one. Must have been the regional variant for Merseyside and Cheshire.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,034
    I'm waiting to see SeanT's appearance in a Labour PPB as he becomes a fully signed up member of the guilt-ridden champagne left.
  • @Roger –“ All the rest as far as I can tell are what they purport to be.”

    Really ? Even you can’t believe that – As Priti Patel said: ‘Labour’s party political broadcast would be a lot more effective if they used real people rather than their own coterie of left-wing campaigners and champagne socialists.

    Is Priti Patel saying that Mr Casey has lied about having no affiliation to the Labour party?

  • @pulpster,

    "The incumbncy factor will be for Conservatives in conservative held seats, and Lib Dems in Lib Dem seats. That, at the very best can preserve the status quo - I think the most Con can hope for is a continuation of the coalition or a Con minority Gov't. Only place I can see CON making gains is Scotland actually."

    I totally agree with this assessment.
  • Pulpstar said:

    I'm waiting to see SeanT's appearance in a Labour PPB as he becomes a fully signed up member of the guilt-ridden champagne left.

    Well SeanT did vote Lib Dem in 2010.

    As a 2010 Lib Dem, he's got a got strong possibility of voting Lab in 2015, if he hasn't already defected.
  • This is starting to sound like Republican supporters heading towards the last presidential election. They would give a huge amount of if and buts about why the majority of the polls are wrong and were in denial about their findings. I still find it quite funny that people as an excuse are saying they are mid-term polls when in reality we are heading down the home straight.I assume some will be still saying this right up until the election.
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805

    FPT - Carola - from the blog you posted a link to:

    "Whereas the head of a private school will usually be highly academically qualified themselves and be looking for somebody with a similar background, our state schools have not valued academic achievement in a long time. Headteachers do not go out of their way to get the best qualified staff as it is."

    Fair?

    Pretty fair I'd say - though I'm not sure I agree about 'valued'. There are lots of factors come into play re this.

    Cutting back on staff costs is becoming increasingly the norm now budgets have been 'freed' - though not, I have to say, when it comes to creating more management posts, which apparently have upped by 35%.

    The big mistake Gove is making - or not, depending on what you think his goal is - is to assume that school leaders/managers are any good. Or remotely competent.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,595
    It is electoral bias, or poor electoral strategy by the Tories. The Tories would be well advised to spend less time whinging and concentrated on broadening their appeal to be attractive in marginals.

    In 1992 they said Labour could never win under FPTP.
  • Though I would add...given the constituency boundaries, austerity and current polls I am sure the Tories would be secretly delighted being the largest party but short of an overall majority.

    With things as they are....with the public yet to be enamoured with either Labour or EM....but with Labour recording modest mid-single digit leads in the polls....I still think a hung parliament is the likeliest scenario.
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    Once again, Carola is the barometer of the nation:

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/10/31/who-knew-britain-hates-halloween/
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976

    @Roger –“ All the rest as far as I can tell are what they purport to be.”

    Really ? Even you can’t believe that – As Priti Patel said: ‘Labour’s party political broadcast would be a lot more effective if they used real people rather than their own coterie of left-wing campaigners and champagne socialists.

    Is Priti Patel saying that Mr Casey has lied about having no affiliation to the Labour party?

    I think Mr Casey falls under the category of ‘champagne socialist’ - rather than a party activist masquerading as ‘ordinary folk’ off the street.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,384
    edited October 2013
    Carola said:

    Once again, Carola is the barometer of the nation:

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/10/31/who-knew-britain-hates-halloween/

    I knew there was a reason I picked Halloween as my wedding date.

    Which means today is my anniversary.

    Uh oh.

    See you in a few days.
  • What's interesting about the Labour PPB is not so much that it is phoney but the mindset it reveals: Guardianistas talking to each other.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    not sure than SeanT's glass is half empty.

    sean thomas knox ‏@thomasknox 57m
    Checking the flatness of the Plains.
    pic.twitter.com/sF6TsNxIDj
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @TheScreamingEagles

    'I really do I like the good Lord's polling, but would it be churlish to point out that in the last parliament, the mega marginal polling proved to be as accurate as an American war movie.

    For example in 2008, the super duper poll predicted the Tories would get 398 seats, and the 2009 one predicted the Tories would get 360. The same polls showed Labour would get less than 200 seats.'

    Thanks for pointing that out.

    About as useful & reliable as an Angus Reid poll.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Carola said:

    FPT - Carola - from the blog you posted a link to:

    "Whereas the head of a private school will usually be highly academically qualified themselves and be looking for somebody with a similar background, our state schools have not valued academic achievement in a long time. Headteachers do not go out of their way to get the best qualified staff as it is."

    Fair?

    The big mistake Gove is making - or not, depending on what you think his goal is - is to assume that school leaders/managers are any good. Or remotely competent.
    You'd think they'd have learned from the NHS - so how do failing Heads get replaced?

  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    dr_spyn said:

    not sure than SeanT's glass is half empty.

    sean thomas knox ‏@thomasknox 57m
    Checking the flatness of the Plains.
    pic.twitter.com/sF6TsNxIDj

    It's smugness as an art form.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited October 2013
    tim said:

    What's interesting about the Labour PPB is not so much that it is phoney but the mindset it reveals: Guardianistas talking to each other.

    A policy that has 80% public support is so niche, Labour have dropped the ball on this one
    You'd have thought in that case that could have found some normal people to bitch about non-existent profiteering, but obviously they think the entire world comprises Guardian-reading whingers who live in Primrose Hill.
  • "For example in 2008, the super duper poll predicted the Tories would get 398 seats, and the 2009 one predicted the Tories would get 360. The same polls showed Labour would get less than 200 seats"

    Weren't the measurements "as things stand today"?

    Given that the big shift against the Tories happened from Jan 1 onwards, what else would you expect?
  • Do you think re-cycling this every other week (at best) somehow makes it more true Mike? It serves to do a couple of things. First, it makes it even more dubious. If you have to keep repeating the argument it obviously isn't a very good one. Second, it makes this site look stale.

    As for the argument, oh dear. I remember Neil Kinnock's Labour in 1992 banging the 'but we're doing so much better in the marginals' argument. Doesn't wash. Where the nation goes, the marginals will follow. But the LD switching argument is beginning to look terribly flakey. It reminds me of undergraduates who, when faced with a complex problem that they don't understand, pin all their hopes on one argument instead of reasoning through multiple angles and arguments.

    Another TID Tory In Denial

    I will go on highlighting this as long as the polls show its happening because it is the overwhelming factor over te next election. My analysis on this is the same as Prof John Curtice.




    Actually I'm a 2010 LibDem voter. You're in denial about the likely swing to the Conservatives, though I notice you've already started backtracking on your inappropriate 'pure fantasy' jibe about a Conservatives winning a majority since Mr Fisher came out with the same line as me.


  • Pulpstar said:

    Do you think re-cycling this every other week (at best) somehow makes it more true Mike? It serves to do a couple of things. First, it makes it even more dubious. If you have to keep repeating the argument it obviously isn't a very good one. Second, it makes this site look stale.

    As for the argument, oh dear. I remember Neil Kinnock's Labour in 1992 banging the 'but we're doing so much better in the marginals' argument. Doesn't wash. Where the nation goes, the marginals will follow. But the LD switching argument is beginning to look terribly flakey. It reminds me of undergraduates who, when faced with a complex problem that they don't understand, pin all their hopes on one argument instead of reasoning through multiple angles and arguments.

    Another TID Tory In Denial

    I will go on highlighting this as long as the polls show its happening because it is the overwhelming factor over te next election. My analysis on this is the same as Prof John Curtice.




    By the way, there will be a big incumbency factor for Cameron. Unlike Mike's Westminster bubble most of the 30million + who vote see a man standing in front of No.10 with the words 'Prime Minister'. They won't care about niceties surrounding 'oh but it's not really the Conservatives you know it's a ccccc-co-coalition'.

    Only two Governments have been voted out of office in the past c.35 years.

    The incumbncy factor will be for Conservatives in conservative held seats, and Lib Dems in Lib Dem seats. That, at the very best can preserve the status quo - I think the most Con can hope for is a continuation of the coalition or a Con minority Gov't. Only place I can see CON making gains is Scotland actually.
    No, it's another of your mistakes. Whilst people vote in a constituency with a X against the candidate most people haven't a scoobies who their local MP is and they vote for the national leaders based on the press / tv / media. The next election will be all about 'the Prime Minister David Cameron' vs Ed Milliband and, to a lesser extent, Clegg and Farage.
  • @tim - It certainly doesnt make me angry, quite apart from anything else no-one watches Party Political Broadcasts. I really don't know why the parties bother with them.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Carola said:

    Once again, Carola is the barometer of the nation:

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/10/31/who-knew-britain-hates-halloween/

    Up to a point, Lord Copper....

    Devil Worship Celebrating Halloween highest among Lib Dems, with Cons biggest True Christians Party Poopers:

    Net 'Celebrating Halloween':
    Con: -68
    Lab: -44
    LibD: -37
    UKIP: -56

    http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/pwd56t48sa/YG-Archive-Halloween-results-301013.pdf

  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Carola said:

    Once again, Carola is the barometer of the nation:

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/10/31/who-knew-britain-hates-halloween/

    Fairly ambivalent when it comes to trick or treating – each year we get perhaps half a dozen under-tens dressed in a variety of costumes while an adult chaperone stands at the garden gate. If it rains that night, we’ll see no one and we have to eat the sweetie stash ourselves. (bummer!)

    If we lived in a more urban area perhaps, where teenagers who preferred ‘tricking’ was the norm, then no doubt we’d be one of the 70% who answered the poll.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    tim said:

    Maria Miller saying it'll take a year to set up the press regulator.
    Now I know that the PB tories want to ignore this but can someone explain why timing that for the election run up is smart politics?

    Why don't you explain it? It's all Ed's doing isn't it?

  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083

    Carola said:

    FPT - Carola - from the blog you posted a link to:

    "Whereas the head of a private school will usually be highly academically qualified themselves and be looking for somebody with a similar background, our state schools have not valued academic achievement in a long time. Headteachers do not go out of their way to get the best qualified staff as it is."

    Fair?

    The big mistake Gove is making - or not, depending on what you think his goal is - is to assume that school leaders/managers are any good. Or remotely competent.
    You'd think they'd have learned from the NHS - so how do failing Heads get replaced?

    Well, the governors/LEA/free school trust (sorry, not up on the correct name for that one) have sufficient powers to do that. The macro question though is "where do decent heads come from?" - the argument for non-qualified teachers is that well-managed schools are smart enough to pick good teachers, and don't need the safety net of a "minimum quality guarantee" (which teacher training should be, but may or may not be). It pushes extra quality assurance/due diligence down to the individual school level, which means that high-quality local management staff are even more important.

    But if you follow it through, it would seem to suggest that an untrained teacher, employed by a poorly managed school, could in time be appointed as a head by a set of untrained, inexpert governors... there does seem to be a problem there. The model moves away from reasonably transparent standards of training and qualification towards a kind of occult guild-apprenticeship system policed by inspection regimes which are either easily dodged or potentially very time-consuming and stressful for everyone involved, including those who are quietly getting on with a good job.

    Having a fair bit of experience of the training and management style of the Church of England, the idea of rolling this approach across to the education system doesn't fill me with great hope...
  • tim said:

    @Ricardohos

    "As for the argument, oh dear. I remember Neil Kinnock's Labour in 1992 banging the 'but we're doing so much better in the marginals' argument. Doesn't wash. Where the nation goes, the marginals will follow. "

    Major had a 30-50 point ratings lead over Kinnock, Cameron has trailed Miliband in 15 out of the last 18 months, you'd better hope you are wrong.

    Not really sure what you are going on about, but then I don't suppose you are either. Are you mixing up personal approval ratings (probably dubious polls) with national voting intention figures? Major's Conservatives more-or-less narrowly trailed Kinnock's Labour right up to the wire http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-1987-1992
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591
    Jonathan said:

    It is electoral bias, or poor electoral strategy by the Tories. The Tories would be well advised to spend less time whinging and concentrated on broadening their appeal to be attractive in marginals.

    In 1992 they said Labour could never win under FPTP.

    The Tories' electoral "strategy" seems to have been to throw away any opportunity of winning an overall majority.

    They could have gone for an alliance with the Lib Dems but they threw away that possibility with their attacks on the LDs at the time of the AV referendum.

    They could have got the boundary changes but they threw away that possibility by refusing to give the Lib Dems even a token reform of the House of Lords.

    They could have gone all-out to re-establish a meaningful presence in the North and Scotland by adopting Lib Dem pavement politics techniques in areas where there are "one-party state" Labour councils but they seem incapable of doing this - maybe because their local parties in these areas have withered away to nothing.

    Their failure to do anything about the anti-Tory bias in the electoral system is incredible, unbelievable and will go down as one of the biggest failures of Cameron's government.

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Carola said:

    Once again, Carola is the barometer of the nation:

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/10/31/who-knew-britain-hates-halloween/

    Fairly ambivalent when it comes to trick or treating – each year we get perhaps half a dozen under-tens dressed in a variety of costumes while an adult chaperone stands at the garden gate. If it rains that night, we’ll see no one and we have to eat the sweetie stash ourselves. (bummer!)

    If we lived in a more urban area perhaps, where teenagers who preferred ‘tricking’ was the norm, then no doubt we’d be one of the 70% who answered the poll.
    I must say that LibDem trick or treaters are in mighty short supply at Auchentennach Castle which is surprising giving the polling indicates their more positive attitude to dungeons and all things spooky !!

    It's a mystery ....

  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,854
    @Simon

    "As Priti Patel said: ‘Labour’s party political broadcast would be a lot more effective if they used real people rather than their own coterie of left-wing campaigners and champagne socialists."

    But that's how you put a vox pop or a testimonial together. There's no other way.

    People with an interest get in touch or you get in touch with them. They might have written or called in the past.

    You then ask some questions and if you think they're suitable you invite them in for an interview.

    You then select the most interesting set up the shoot and re interview them on camera.

    Pritti Patel is obviously ignorant of the process.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Applying the 35% figure to the Con/Lab battleground would harvest the reds 39 Tory seats, compared to 23 seats with 17%:

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dE0wZTMyZW1nYko1TE15MDVJVF8zYXc&pli=1#gid=0
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Roger said:

    @Simon

    "As Priti Patel said: ‘Labour’s party political broadcast would be a lot more effective if they used real people rather than their own coterie of left-wing campaigners and champagne socialists."

    But that's how you put a vox pop or a testimonial together. There's no other way.

    People with an interest get in touch or you get in touch with them. They might have written or called in the past.

    You then ask some questions and if you think they're suitable you invite them in for an interview.

    You then select the most interesting set up the shoot and re interview them on camera.

    Pritti Patel is obviously ignorant of the process.

    You're misreading what she said. What she said was: "Labour’s party political broadcast would be a lot more effective if they used real people rather than their own coterie of left-wing campaigners and champagne socialists."

    She didn't say that was practical to do this, merely that it would be a lot more effective if it were done.

    Interplanetary travel would be a lot more effective if we all had TARDISes.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    @Roger –“But that's how you put a vox pop or a testimonial together. There's no other way.”

    Beg to differ Roger - That is not a ‘vox-pop’ – it is an echo chamber, dressed up as 'reality'.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    AndyJS said:

    Applying the 35% figure to the Con/Lab battleground would harvest the reds 39 Tory seats, compared to 23 seats with 17%:

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dE0wZTMyZW1nYko1TE15MDVJVF8zYXc&pli=1#gid=0

    Thanks Andy. My back of an envelope calculation made it 15 seats

  • Those contemplating an early bet on the US Presidentials will be interested in this CNN piece:

    http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/30/rahm-emanuel-nsa-obamacare-2016-hillary/?hpt=po_c2

    It's a significant straw in the wind and prompted me to have another £40 at 6/4 with Hills on Hillary to be the Democrat nominee.

    Not sure how long Sidney can hold that price.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    AndyJS said:

    Applying the 35% figure to the Con/Lab battleground would harvest the reds 39 Tory seats, compared to 23 seats with 17%:

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dE0wZTMyZW1nYko1TE15MDVJVF8zYXc&pli=1#gid=0

    Thanks Andy. My back of an envelope calculation made it 15 seats

    I forgot to say this assumes no change in the Conservative share, just a LD->Lab swing.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    tim said:

    Carola said:

    Once again, Carola is the barometer of the nation:

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/10/31/who-knew-britain-hates-halloween/

    Up to a point, Lord Copper....

    Devil Worship Celebrating Halloween highest among Lib Dems, with Cons biggest True Christians Party Poopers:

    Net 'Celebrating Halloween':
    Con: -68
    Lab: -44
    LibD: -37
    UKIP: -56

    http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/pwd56t48sa/YG-Archive-Halloween-results-301013.pdf

    Thats just age related, the Tories are less likely to have kids or younger siblings, nephews nieces etc.

    If you will take it seriously.....doesn't explain UKIP.......
  • @Roger –“ All the rest as far as I can tell are what they purport to be.”

    Really ? Even you can’t believe that – As Priti Patel said: ‘Labour’s party political broadcast would be a lot more effective if they used real people rather than their own coterie of left-wing campaigners and champagne socialists.

    Is Priti Patel saying that Mr Casey has lied about having no affiliation to the Labour party?

    I think Mr Casey falls under the category of ‘champagne socialist’ - rather than a party activist masquerading as ‘ordinary folk’ off the street.

    And he is a champagne socialist because he does not believe that the energy companies are operating in a truly competitive market and that this means businesses like his have to pay more for their power than would otherwise be the case. I see. That makes perfect sense.

    Surely it would have been simpler and more honest for Piri to say: "I don't like this successful businessman because he does not agree with me."

  • antifrank said:

    Roger said:

    @Simon

    "As Priti Patel said: ‘Labour’s party political broadcast would be a lot more effective if they used real people rather than their own coterie of left-wing campaigners and champagne socialists."

    But that's how you put a vox pop or a testimonial together. There's no other way.

    People with an interest get in touch or you get in touch with them. They might have written or called in the past.

    You then ask some questions and if you think they're suitable you invite them in for an interview.

    You then select the most interesting set up the shoot and re interview them on camera.

    Pritti Patel is obviously ignorant of the process.

    You're misreading what she said. What she said was: "Labour’s party political broadcast would be a lot more effective if they used real people rather than their own coterie of left-wing campaigners and champagne socialists."

    She didn't say that was practical to do this, merely that it would be a lot more effective if it were done.

    Interplanetary travel would be a lot more effective if we all had TARDISes.
    Without wishing to restart that fight, the plural of TARDIS is TARDIS.

    This discussion was memorable on outpost Gallifrey many years ago.

    Think of the AV discussions but with geeks on speed.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382

    tim said:

    @Ricardohos

    "As for the argument, oh dear. I remember Neil Kinnock's Labour in 1992 banging the 'but we're doing so much better in the marginals' argument. Doesn't wash. Where the nation goes, the marginals will follow. "

    Major had a 30-50 point ratings lead over Kinnock, Cameron has trailed Miliband in 15 out of the last 18 months, you'd better hope you are wrong.

    Not really sure what you are going on about, but then I don't suppose you are either. Are you mixing up personal approval ratings (probably dubious polls) with national voting intention figures? Major's Conservatives more-or-less narrowly trailed Kinnock's Labour right up to the wire http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-1987-1992
    The polls were flawed up to the 1992 polling disaster. Since then the pollsters have either left the scene (Gallup) or changed their methodolgies. We've also had an influx of new firms.

    A lot of the swingback to incumbents effect that is sometimes described was actually flawed polling.

This discussion has been closed.