politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Leave till last. Identifying the next Conservative leader

GIN1138 said:

notme said:

4pt con lead on latest YouGov 1st may.

Wonder what accounts for this uptick in Con support?

It's like the worse Windrush has got (even including a Cabinet resignation) the more Con support has picked up?

The uptick happened 4 weeks ago in YouGov polls... last 4 weeks' Tory leads have been: 0% (level), 5%, 5%, and now 4%.

david_herdson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Tissue_Price said:

Big ranges of possible results though (which is surely the correct approach to forecasting something like this):
https://twitter.com/StephenDFisher/status/991610185306296320

Fisher goes -206 seats for the big three ?!

March of the residents association ?

Makes no sense, given that UKIP will be contributing around 120 seats to the pool. It doesn't inspire confidence.

Note the table at the end of the article, showing the outcome vs forecasts in 2017. Rallings & Thrasher were miles out then.

Executive summary: no-one has a clue!

Edit: Ah yes, looks like a typo. That makes much more sense.

Are there fewer seats in total this time? I think Birmingham has had its number of councillors cut - have other councils fared similarly / been merged / abolished?

Good question. I don't know, but I doubt if the total will have changed very much.

I also wonder whether the fringe parties, Residents, etc, will be squeezed a bit. Given that the big two seem to be squeezing other parties nationally, it seems at least possible.

GIN1138 said:

notme said:

4pt con lead on latest YouGov 1st may.

Wonder what accounts for this uptick in Con support?

It's like the worse Windrush has got (even including a Cabinet resignation) the more Con support has picked up?

Well most people think we're a bit overcrowded as an island to be honest. Labour's stance plays well to the media and parliament, but the centre of gravity there is far more pro immigration than in general.
There is no doubt the whole Windrush affair was a scandal, but the man in the provincial street sees Abbott opening the floodgates if she was ever in one of the great offices of state.

david_herdson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Tissue_Price said:

Big ranges of possible results though (which is surely the correct approach to forecasting something like this):
https://twitter.com/StephenDFisher/status/991610185306296320

Fisher goes -206 seats for the big three ?!

March of the residents association ?

Makes no sense, given that UKIP will be contributing around 120 seats to the pool. It doesn't inspire confidence.

Note the table at the end of the article, showing the outcome vs forecasts in 2017. Rallings & Thrasher were miles out then.

Executive summary: no-one has a clue!

Edit: Ah yes, looks like a typo. That makes much more sense.

Are there fewer seats in total this time? I think Birmingham has had its number of councillors cut - have other councils fared similarly / been merged / abolished?

I don't think that the boundary changes in Leeds have resulted in a reduction in seats.

David_Evershed said:

JosiasJessop said:

David_Evershed said:

JonnyJimmy said:

I'm used to Roger defending appalling luvvies and disgraceful lefties for their disgusting behaviours, and I can understand his sycophantic desire to do so.

But why's he sticking up for Berco Baggins?

Just because your boss loses his temper does not mean he is bullying you.

For someone who spent 30 years in the navy Bercow's ex Secretary seems remarkably fragile and feeble. Let's hope the current naval staff have more backbone.

There's an interesting distinction here: if someone only ever loses his or her temper with underlings, then it's probably bullying. If that same person also loses his or her temper with their bosses or customers, then they're just a git.

If you do lose your temper with your employees, people under you, or other colleagues, it is so important to apologise, explain, and try to make amends. Most of all, it is important to try to moderate your behaviour in future.

Bosses can lose their temper with the situation rather than with employees. But fragile employees might think the boss is angry with them rather than the situation.

Yep, and I've been in that situation occasionally, on both sides. It is critical for anyone who is a boss to understand this happens, to try and reduce the number of occasions when it does happen, and to make amends when it does. That's simple professionalism.

Heck, it can be as simple as saying sorry and buying doughnut for everyone afterwards.

Problems occur because too many bosses think that as they are more important than their employees, they have no need to moderate behaviour in front of them, or to apologise.

Then there are the straight out bullies.

Why is the URL for this thread '__trashed-3' ? Is a not-so-subtle message being sent?

geoffw said:

Bercow Baggins is not Happy.

Speaker B's tenure isn't going to end well... He shouldn't stuck to what he said in 2009 (which is that he'd stand down as Speaker in 8 years) trying to go "on and on" is always a bad idea...

There is an incentive for Con and Lab controlled councils to have fewer councillors.

The bigger the ward/division the harder it is for minor or insurgent parties to work the ward to reach a majority. Similarly boundary changes help to disrupt the efforts of smaller parties to gain a foothold over time.

The establishment of unitary authorities reduces the number of councillors and increases the size of wards/divisions but this is happening only very slowly.

One question about Mr Sinclair's NDA: who paid the £86k ? Was it Bercow himself, or did it (as I expect) come from the taxpayer?

JosiasJessop said:

One question about Mr Sinclair's NDA: who paid the £86k ? Was it Bercow himself, or did it (as I expect) come from the taxpayer?

I suspect that will be the angle Bercow's opponents use. And quite reasonably, too.

Prof Fisher said:

On that occasion, my model rightly predicted Liberal Democrat losses. In truth, it was wrongly based on the party being down in the polls. In fact, the Liberal Democrats’ Projected National Share (PNS) and NEV for 2017 were up from the comparable figures for 2013. It was not so much their own failings to win new votes but the greater rise in the Conservative vote that cost the Liberal Democrats council seats last year.

[...]

In 2013 and 2014 the Rallings and Thrasher estimates were better than my first two attempts. And so they should be, given their model applies predicted share changes at the seat level and not the national level. Last year my predictions were better. This may have been, as I suggested at the time, because I could take into account the most recent polls that showed a big boost for Conservatives well after the last of the local by-elections that Rallings and Thrasher had to work with. Also, as noted above, my Liberal Democrat forecast was right for the wrong reasons.

Whoever's predictions end up being right, Prof Fisher showing us all how forecasts should be done when it comes to confidence going forwards and accountability looking back.

https://electionsetc.com/2018/05/02/forecasting-local-election-seat-gains-losses-2018/

Dura_Ace said:

David_Evershed said:

For someone who spent 30 years in the navy Bercow's ex Secretary seems remarkably fragile and feeble. Let's hope the current naval staff have more backbone.

I saw, received and gave plenty of full spectrum bollockings in the RN but I think I can count on my genitals the times I saw an officer genuinely lose his shit with a rating. We were in the business of sailing all over the world looking for people to fight so the selection process ruthlessly weeds out the emotionally unstable.

Mr Evershed might have the wrong angle on this: perhaps Mr Sinclair's decades in the Navy taught him the correct way that people should behave towards their staff, and recognise poor behaviour.

Tissue_Price said:

On topic, it's worth noting that someone who was seriously considered for Home Secretary earlier this week is available at 500/1 on betfair.

I'd just noted the same anomaly, and took the £2!

Jeremy Hunt is TSE's 100/1 tip but he always looks a bit shabby on camera so he must seek David Cameron's mum's advice on suits, ties and haircuts. It worked for Jeremy Corbyn. Even the official Cabinet photograph at the top of this piece seems to have caught Hunt adjusting his fly.

JosiasJessop said:

One question about Mr Sinclair's NDA: who paid the £86k ? Was it Bercow himself, or did it (as I expect) come from the taxpayer?

Because senior Commons staff are involved with confidential discussions, on Newsnight it was said that Non Disclosure Agreements are commonly used for early retirements and dismissals. NDAs will be paid from the same source as the salary.

There are some terrific long-odds lays in the Next PM market if you've got a big enough bankroll: Ruth Davidson 38, David Miliband 95, Sadiq Kahn 200, Nigel Farage 400..

Mr. Evershed, I agree. We ought not belittle the Speaker.

Richard_Nabavi said:

There are some terrific long-odds lays in the Next PM market if you've got a big enough bankroll: Ruth Davidson 38, David Miliband 95, Sadiq Kahn 200, Nigel Farage 400..

I layed Right Wing Ruth at the weekend. Those seem ludicrous odds for her to be the next PM.

Dura_Ace said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

There are some terrific long-odds lays in the Next PM market if you've got a big enough bankroll: Ruth Davidson 38, David Miliband 95, Sadiq Kahn 200, Nigel Farage 400..

I layed Right Wing Ruth at the weekend. Those seem ludicrous odds for her to be the next PM.

I think there was a reasonable path (involving a by-election) but her pregnancy has probably put paid to that.

She'd be 3/1 if she were an MP, imo. If she weren't leader already.

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/991622014141165568

DecrepitJohnL said:

Jeremy Hunt is TSE's 100/1 tip but he always looks a bit shabby on camera so he must seek David Cameron's mum's advice on suits, ties and haircuts. It worked for Jeremy Corbyn. Even the official Cabinet photograph at the top of this piece seems to have caught Hunt adjusting his fly.

Two of the ladies on the front row of the Caninet photograph are now replaced by gentlemen.

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/991622014141165568

I really do believe that the difference between leave and remain was the EU allowing Romania in. If they had been given a much longer accession period and a 15 year immigration restriction, I think it would have been a narrow victory for remain.

Richard_Nabavi said:

david_herdson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Tissue_Price said:

Big ranges of possible results though (which is surely the correct approach to forecasting something like this):
https://twitter.com/StephenDFisher/status/991610185306296320

Fisher goes -206 seats for the big three ?!

March of the residents association ?

Makes no sense, given that UKIP will be contributing around 120 seats to the pool. It doesn't inspire confidence.

Note the table at the end of the article, showing the outcome vs forecasts in 2017. Rallings & Thrasher were miles out then.

Executive summary: no-one has a clue!

Edit: Ah yes, looks like a typo. That makes much more sense.

Are there fewer seats in total this time? I think Birmingham has had its number of councillors cut - have other councils fared similarly / been merged / abolished?

Good question. I don't know, but I doubt if the total will have changed very much.

I also wonder whether the fringe parties, Residents, etc, will be squeezed a bit. Given that the big two seem to be squeezing other parties nationally, it seems at least possible.

The number of seats in Birmingham has been cut from 120 (40 wards each of 3 seats) to 101 (69 wards of 1 or 2 seats). Previously, only 1/3 of the seats have been up for election each time, so full coverage required a party to stand just 40 candidates. This time, though, all 101 seats are up for grabs, which is why the smaller parties have been scrabbling to field a full set of candidates.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Evershed, I agree. We ought not belittle the Speaker.

Nor big him up.

MaxPB said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/991622014141165568

I really do believe that the difference between leave and remain was the EU allowing Romania in. If they had been given a much longer accession period and a 15 year immigration restriction, I think it would have been a narrow victory for remain.

While more than 413,000 Romanian and Bulgarian citizens are living in Britain only 6,200 British citizens live in Romania and Bulgaria.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/11/number-of-romanians-and-bulgarians-in-uk-rises-413000

FeersumEnjineeya said:

MaxPB said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/991622014141165568

I really do believe that the difference between leave and remain was the EU allowing Romania in. If they had been given a much longer accession period and a 15 year immigration restriction, I think it would have been a narrow victory for remain.

But wasn't it the UK that was encouraging the accession of the Eastern European countries to the EU?

And indeed Turkey.....

MaxPB said:

This is what I love about the Med, two coffees and 3 excellent pastries for €4.20. In Zurich that would have been about 22 francs, London at least a tenner.

don't forget the olive oil and local honey.,cucumbers no longer wrapped in condoms,oranges,lemons and a sight of the fire-fly or the poop of the Scops Owl ,being woken by crickets and a big warm yellow thing in the sky.Mind the mozzies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPH8-tiFKHE

Benpointer said:

geoffw said:

GIN1138 said:

notme said:

4pt con lead on latest YouGov 1st may.

Wonder what accounts for this uptick in Con support?

It's like the worse Windrush has got (even including a Cabinet resignation) the more Con support has picked up?

Could be that they are seen to be doing something while preserving a stringent attitude to illegals.

The uptick occured before the Windrush scandal hit the fan.

Tbh we’ve been seeing small Tory leads since the earlier part of the year (specifically February) though it was actually around March when small Tory leads started appearing with more frequency. YouGov so far appear to be the only pollster though consistently showing a 4-5 point Tory lead - the first of which appeared around Salisbury IIRC before going back to level pegging. Others such as a MORI and ComRes are still level pegging, while ICM showed MOE movements from a previous level pegging poll. Perhaps YouGov are on to something other pollsters are not, perhaps they aren’t - only time will tell.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

MaxPB said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/991622014141165568

I really do believe that the difference between leave and remain was the EU allowing Romania in. If they had been given a much longer accession period and a 15 year immigration restriction, I think it would have been a narrow victory for remain.

But wasn't it the UK that was encouraging the accession of the Eastern European countries to the EU?

Yes, in apparent ignorance of the massive immigration wave of unskilled it would cause.

david_herdson said:

SandyRentool said:

david_herdson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Tissue_Price said:

Big ranges of possible results though (which is surely the correct approach to forecasting something like this):
https://twitter.com/StephenDFisher/status/991610185306296320

Fisher goes -206 seats for the big three ?!

March of the residents association ?

Makes no sense, given that UKIP will be contributing around 120 seats to the pool. It doesn't inspire confidence.

Note the table at the end of the article, showing the outcome vs forecasts in 2017. Rallings & Thrasher were miles out then.

Executive summary: no-one has a clue!

Edit: Ah yes, looks like a typo. That makes much more sense.

Are there fewer seats in total this time? I think Birmingham has had its number of councillors cut - have other councils fared similarly / been merged / abolished?

I don't think that the boundary changes in Leeds have resulted in a reduction in seats.

No, Leeds hasn't (declaration of interest - I'm a candidate there this year).

May I ask which ward?

david_herdson said:

SandyRentool said:

david_herdson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Tissue_Price said:

Big ranges of possible results though (which is surely the correct approach to forecasting something like this):
https://twitter.com/StephenDFisher/status/991610185306296320

Fisher goes -206 seats for the big three ?!

March of the residents association ?

Makes no sense, given that UKIP will be contributing around 120 seats to the pool. It doesn't inspire confidence.

Note the table at the end of the article, showing the outcome vs forecasts in 2017. Rallings & Thrasher were miles out then.

Executive summary: no-one has a clue!

Edit: Ah yes, looks like a typo. That makes much more sense.

Are there fewer seats in total this time? I think Birmingham has had its number of councillors cut - have other councils fared similarly / been merged / abolished?

I don't think that the boundary changes in Leeds have resulted in a reduction in seats.

No, Leeds hasn't (declaration of interest - I'm a candidate there this year).

Newcastle-under-Lyme has gone from 60 to 44.

As for Corbyn, I think it’s foreign policy which has hurt him the most. His personal approval ratings have been in gradual decline since December, but it’s been more marked ever since Sailsbury. Corbyn’s strength during GE 2017 was never playing to the traditional expectations of a leader to be ‘good in a crisis’ et al but rather as an outsider addressing the economic grievances of many people, especially the under 40s. Corbyn is a very good campaigning politician, it’s odd that it feels like he hasn’t been campaigning that much during this time around the local elections.

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/991622014141165568

Interesting to see the Polish so popular. It does look very much that the immigrants that Britons do not want are the duskier hued varieties, particularly Muslim ones.

The other interesting point is that none of the groups are very negative and most significantly positive, yet overall people feel that overall immigration has been bad for the country. There is more than a little cognitive dissonance about.

The_Apocalypse said:

As for Corbyn, I think it’s foreign policy which has hurt him the most. His personal approval ratings have been in gradual decline since December, but it’s been more marked ever since Sailsbury. Corbyn’s strength during GE 2017 was never playing to the traditional expectations of a leader to be ‘good in a crisis’ et al but rather as an outsider addressing the economic grievances of many people, especially the under 40s. Corbyn is a very good campaigning politician, it’s odd that it feels like he hasn’t been campaigning that much during this time around the local elections.

He has been campaigning a lot, but he hasn't received much helpful publicity.

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse said:

As for Corbyn, I think it’s foreign policy which has hurt him the most. His personal approval ratings have been in gradual decline since December, but it’s been more marked ever since Sailsbury. Corbyn’s strength during GE 2017 was never playing to the traditional expectations of a leader to be ‘good in a crisis’ et al but rather as an outsider addressing the economic grievances of many people, especially the under 40s. Corbyn is a very good campaigning politician, it’s odd that it feels like he hasn’t been campaigning that much during this time around the local elections.

He has been campaigning a lot, but he hasn't received much helpful publicity.

Ah, thanks.

@foxinsoxuk You should see the replies to that tweet!

HYUFD said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/991622014141165568

Totally generic and pointless question, I expect there are some very hard working Somali immigrants and even a few lazy Australians who contribute little, it depends on the individual applicant not the country of origin

It is interesting that you think there are "some very hard working Somali" and "even a few lazy Australians".

Mostly, I think this poll is showing that people like immigrants who integrate peacefully. Also interesting that the Chinese are not mentioned, despite a significant community.

https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/991634962842439681

Dr. Foxy, it's old (over 10 years probably now) but Channel 4 had a very good documentary breaking down migration by nationality and looking at how various groups did. Chinese and Indians, I think, integrated best (maybe Poles too), with Portuguese and Somalians likeliest to be criminals.

With Indians getting a positive rating yet Bangladeshis and Pakistanis a negative one, I really don't think you can base an analysis of those figures on skin colour. Following the rape gangs of Rotherham, Rochdale, Newcastle etc, it's unsurprising if people aren't necessarily enamoured with the idea of being 'culturally sensitive' to those who perpetrate such crimes.

If the authorities had actually done their jobs then, as a side-effect to preventing the scale of child rape that happened, the public might have been reassured that 'culture' could not be used by perpetrators to hide behind. Instead, it's reinforced suspicions that the authorities will go soft on criminals for fear of being accused of bigotry, with the innocent paying the price for the cowardice of those charged with their protection.

Foxy said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/991622014141165568

Interesting to see the Polish so popular. It does look very much that the immigrants that Britons do not want are the duskier hued varieties, particularly Muslim ones.

The other interesting point is that none of the groups are very negative and most significantly positive, yet overall people feel that overall immigration has been bad for the country. There is more than a little cognitive dissonance about.

India (which has more Muslims than any other country) is rated +25

Tissue_Price said:

Big ranges of possible results though (which is surely the correct approach to forecasting something like this):
https://twitter.com/StephenDFisher/status/991610185306296320

If true that would be an excellent result for May after last year's disaster, the first net gain of district councillors mid-term for an incumbent government since 2011.

It would also be a poor result for Corbyn, the first net loss of district councillors mid-term for the main opposition party since 1985

HYUFD said:

Tissue_Price said:

Big ranges of possible results though (which is surely the correct approach to forecasting something like this):
https://twitter.com/StephenDFisher/status/991610185306296320

If true that would be an excellent result for May after last year's disaster, the first net gains of district councillors for an incumbent government since 2011.

It would also be a poor result for Corbyn, the first net loss of district councillors for the main opposition party since 1985

He means LAB +131.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

MaxPB said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/991622014141165568

I really do believe that the difference between leave and remain was the EU allowing Romania in. If they had been given a much longer accession period and a 15 year immigration restriction, I think it would have been a narrow victory for remain.

But wasn't it the UK that was encouraging the accession of the Eastern European countries to the EU?

Since when has government policy on the EU ever really reflected public opinion?

Foxy said:

The other interesting point is that none of the groups are very negative and most significantly positive, yet overall people feel that overall immigration has been bad for the country. There is more than a little cognitive dissonance about.

Not necessarily cognitive dissonance.

If the pro immigration people arepositive to all groups, but the anti-immigration arepositive to the rich white countries and negative to the poor muslim countries then you end up with these results more or less.

And it's not inconsistent (or even implausible) for the anti immigration people to say overall immigration has been bad, although I welcome the Irish coming here, they're alright.

Richard_Tyndall said:

CarlottaVance said:

Brom said:

Gardenwalker said:

Douglas Carswell is actually one of the more palatable Brexiters, but he too seems to have been driven mad by Brexit.

https://twitter.com/douglascarswell/status/991026293033652224?s=21

Carswell is defined by Brexit. If you think he's driven mad look at the remain supporters who thought it would never happen and are slowly waking up to smell the coffee, these people have gone completely bonkers!

I think in any Brexit Bonkers list A C Grayling would come pretty near the top....

https://twitter.com/acgrayling/status/991595356558372864

Bloody hell. How an someone so supposedly intelligent be so dumb. He must realise that voting Green or Lib Dem only takes votes away from Labour and they are still the only realistic hope Remaniacs have of reversing Brexit.

Surely that depends where you live? It's a local election - wouldn't it be nice if people actually voted on the basis of what sort of local council they Want? Tomorrow's vote isn't going to stop Brexit - it may affect your social care or schools or roads or libraries.

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/991622014141165568

Totally generic and pointless question, I expect there are some very hard working Somali immigrants and even a few lazy Australians who contribute little, it depends on the individual applicant not the country of origin

It is interesting that you think there are "some very hard working Somali" and "even a few lazy Australians".

Mostly, I think this poll is showing that people like immigrants who integrate peacefully. Also interesting that the Chinese are not mentioned, despite a significant community.

I don't think yougov asked about the Chinese.

Corbyn fluffing it....

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/991636677113405441