Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The polling differential in the marginals that would mean t
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The polling differential in the marginals that would mean that we should be adding 5 to the LAB lead
Back in September Lord Ashcrooft published his 12,083 sample phone polls showing that LAB was doing substantiality better in the key battlegrounds than in the country as a whole.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
First, but not in any superiorityist-élitist way! Down with the renegade Milibandite clique! Uphold the liberating and invigorating progressive warmth of Goveism-Barwellism! Resist the tyranny of Old Grumpy Head!
"The biggest economic risk facing Europe doesn't come from those who want reform and renegotiation," he will say.
"It comes from a failure to reform and renegotiate.
"It is the status quo which condemns the people of Europe to an ongoing economic crisis and continuing decline.
And he will talk about how the 2008 financial crisis exacerbated the EU's problems.
"We knew there was a competitiveness problem in Europe before the crisis," he will say.
"But the crisis has dramatically accelerated the shifts in the tectonic economic plates that see power moving eastwards and southwards on our planet."
In a sign he believes spending on social security is too high not just in the UK but across Europe, he will claim: "Europe accounts for just over 7% of the world's population, 25% of its economy, and 50% of global social welfare spending."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25740462
A guide to life in a marginal constituency. How, if one live in a marginal constituency and have been identified as a "Not sure which way I'm going to vote" one is going to be targeted by the contenders.
Starts with a picture of a householder opening the door to a smiling Gordon Brown.
On Osborne's speech, I see he mentions patent numbers as an indication of the EU falling behind on innovation. Clearly, what he won't mention is that one of the reasons European patenting numbers are comparatively low is because the British are so reluctant to submit applications. Our record compared to the Germans and even the French is lamentable, and if you look on a per capita basis we are miles behind the Dutch, the Swedes and the Finns. In any case equating patents with innovation is profoundly wrong. One reason for the explosion in patents over recent years has been China's policy of subsidising applications from domestic companies for unexamined utility model patents. These are nothing more than pieces of paper that have never been scrutinised for an inventive step. Chinese companies apply for them because with a certain number of patents you become an R&D company and so get tax breaks.
Why?
What are the issues / policies that drive a different outcome? What should Dave be doing or saying differently to correct this polling problem? What is Redward doing right? We have some nice data on this thread but as yet no information. Do any PBers know (and I mean know - not guess or think)?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/838de446-7d2f-11e3-a579-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz2qRv1GRad
"Immgration has surged up the political agenda as the government has hardened its rhetoric on the issue but ministers have failed to provide evidence to back claims, repeated by Mr Cameron, that many migrants travel to Britain for generous benefits.
The government's discomfort on the issue was compounded on Tuesday when Robert Chote, head of the Office for Budget Responsibility, told MPs that the country's fiscal position would be worse if net migration was lower because immigrants were more likely to be of working age."
Because as any fool knows you don't win elections by throwing your resources at safe seats. Labour can afford to lose a few thousand votes in places like South Shields to UKIP. It won't cost us any seats as long as we get the votes out in the marginals.
Mike showed us a good example of this at the last election. The seats that went Tory in 2005 we did really badly in 2010. Did it effect the overall result? No. Because we didn't lose any seats by being hammered there and managed to hold on to many of the ones we just about could because we targeted our resources and worked hard on the ground in the seats we could.
So to hell with the national polls. Long live marginal polls. Because it is around 165 seats throughout the country that matter, that and the competing parties ground operations in those seats.
I don't think a lot of Tories realise it yet but the combination of splitting the right, surrendering completely on Europe and destroying the membership has left them in some real long term trouble.
This is Cameron's personal fault as party leader. In time, he will be judged very very harshly for it.
So rather than consoling themselves with this fearsome ground game Labour should be reflecting on the fact that the tories overachieved in these seats which are in fact more "Labour" than they voted in 2010.
The more interesting question is therefore why the tories overachieved in these seats and whether they can do so again come the election. The performance in the 2005 seats should also worry Labour about the seats they actually lost.
If Labour believed they were performing substantially better in the marginals than nationally would they be scaling back their expectations in the marginals as reported in LabourUncut ?
Labour up cut have actually just made that up. And if other political parties want to believe that then that is up to them. But as Lord Ashcroft describes comfort polling. That is comfort blogging.
What can Dave do? Encourage more L voters to vote LD?
In my seat, I since know many LD voters all of whom have had visits from the Labour candidate former MP. The Tories just started to get their together putting out a glossy calendar from the sitting MP. They need to be knocking on doors.
IoS is right. The ground game matters and you need a motivated activist force for that.
Next Monday, the Williams Commission on public services is likely to recommend a big reduction in the number of councils from the current 22.
The last restructuring in Welsh local government was nearly 20 years ago.
Last autumn, First Minister Carwyn Jones said he knew of no-one who argued to keep the existing councils in their current form.
The estimates on potential job losses and the cost were included in the WLGA's official submission to the review.
It says: "With workforce in local government being the biggest asset in cost and resources, a reduction stemming from larger scale and the removal of duplication could see large savings.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-25730619
Incidentally, London has had 32 boroughs when it also had a GLC, when they were the only tier of local government, and still now it has a Mayor and GLA. So far as I know Boris has never said 32 is too many, so we now have the endearing site of a Labour regional government wanting more cuts that a Tory Mayor.
Have a nice day, children, I'm off to play bridge at U3A (whom God preserve)...
For sure the Tories are suffering badly from the left being unsplit. They desperately need the LibDems to recover some of their mojo and start clawing voters back from the red team.
The Tories themselves also need to claw back UKIP and Did Not Vote electors.
So I guess a principled parting of the coalition ways with the LDs going more lefty and Dave going populist will be good for both parties.
I'm personally wired directly into 4 seats, two of which will likely appear in the "JackW Dozen", and I have to say the activity in all of these marginals varies vastly with Labour activity almost none existent in two, visible in one and significant in the last.
"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 ..."
In the final analysis I look to make a few shillings from political betting and help others to do so and whilst I have my own political preferences I don't allow them to colour the cold, hard judgements I make where money is concerned - I am a Scot after all with a wife who enjoys the finer things of (shoe) life !!
Look for the pattern: the Tories taking populist-but-divisive right-wing positions. This forces Labour to either agree, losing left-wing Lib->Lab switchers, or disagree, losing swing voters.
They're squeezing Labour votes to either the Lib Dems or the Tories, which benefits the Tories either way.
Expect this pattern to steadily ramp up through until the election to bolster the Lib Dem's left-wing credentials.
It was a few hours after Major had called the election. The following conversation ensued.
Pollster: "if there was a General Election to-morrow, how would you vote?"
IA: "there isn't going to be a General Election to-morrow, there's going to be one on 9 April."
Pollster: "yes, but if there were - "
IA: "So you don't want to know how I'm going to vote in a real election, but you do want to know how I'm going to vote in an election that isn't going to take place."
Anecdotal obviously - and Labour probably don't need this ward to win. But still. Striking that Labour appear to be so lackadaisical.
However that little nugget chimed with information I had from a southern Labour target marginal. Useful snippets to store away.
However I accept your general point that the voters experience of campaigning, even in marginal seats, is very varied across the country: just because in Bedford the Tories have gone to sleep doesn't mean they are in North London.
I assume that even more immigrants would be brought in to pay for the previous immigrants.
But it is to be expected that the OBR sees nothing wrong with human ponzi schemes, after all they see nothing wrong with economic ponzi schemes.
Betting PostBacked SImon to beat Cilic (4 on Betfair). He's got a 3:0 record.
Though that does suggest that there might be scope for a bigger swing back to Labour in 2015.
On the other hand the incumbancy effect will now be working for the Conservatives. Although that will itself vary from constituency to constituency - Harlow = big, Broxtowe = small.
As a general rule there is far far more activity for local council seats then general elections.
If your ward is solid Tory or LD-CON then it is not suprising that you are not seeing much LAB effort.
I live in a marginal where there are not local elections this year so the effort is on GE2105
Also, although immigrants do have more children than natives on average I believe that they revert to the national mean surprisingly quickly- so that effect is not as great as you imagine. another time I will look up the study for this, I can't recall it at the moment.
The solution to our dependency ratio problem is simple: just increase the retirement age and fast! When old age pensions were introduced life expectancy was far, far lower than it is today: they were never intended to support the whole population for a period of 20-25 years before they eventually died.
Incidentally OGH was complaining the other day that pensions were lumped together with benefits. While his point has some credibility his point is somewhat diminished by the way which the middle class, because they live longer, get so much more out of pensions than the poor.
So either:
1) Immigration hasn't been the great economic benefit it is claimed to be by those with a vested interest in it
2) The UK economy has received massive structural damage some time after 2000
I'll let everyone else have a think about that as its time for me to do some real work.
Basically, successful companies keep getting ambushed by small firms with debatable patents - patents which amount to do the traditional thing using a computer, with no novel algorithm specified. In general, companies find it cheaper to settle out of court than to engage in a lengthy legal fight, but they don't like it. (Look up 'patent trolls' for a fuller description.)
From what I've read, at the moment this is mainly a US problem, but if Osborne tries to encourage more EU patents, he could easily end up importing the problem here, which would not go down well.
Really, the whole intellectual property field probably needs reforming, to account for the internet and other changes. There are powerful vested interests that will protect the status quo, but there may be scope here for a brave campaigning politician.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Cameron will be hailed as a great party manager. I commented on here several years ago that one of his big weaknesses, and potentially his future downfall, is his relative lack of support within the party. He and Osborne rose too quickly and bypassed too many time-servers to win the support of the machine. They are the anti-Brown (both a good and bad thing) and their roots in the party are not quite deep enough.
And then you have their own (real and perceived) personal shortcomings. Like Blair, both Cameron and Osborne make no secret of the fact they see themselves as reformers of their party, with the implied slight that their party is wrong on many issues. Like Blair, their analysis is generally correct, intellectually, morally and politically. However, it does not endear them to party members. Whilst Europe is a hot topic for many party members, I don't think the party leadership's position is unpopular, except with the irreconcilable BOOs. Cameron's support for overseas aid and gay marriage and (in the minds of many Conservatives) abhorrent failure to cut benefits to the bone has done more damage to party relations. These issues are compounded by the impression that Cameron and Osborne exude that they don't have respect for contrary views on these topics and that they aren't much interested either in the daily struggle or in the hard yards of constituency politics. This latter point is the one that Cameron and Osborne could and should address, and need to in order to motivate the troops for the next election.
If we are stopped by interviewers and asked about healthy living, we will agree with questions which suggest we are eating less, exercising more etc. We wont turn round and say "I can't be bothered and don't care if I look like a fat lump".
If someone is asked about his/her constituency and it is flagged up that somehow it is important, extra special etc, the response will reflect that newly realised importance.
Come General Election day it might be wet, Man Utd might be playing to win the English Premiership, the SKY box might be on the blink, in short there will be other things which for the typical voter in the typical marginal constituency requires greater attention. In such circumstances they either vote the way they always do or simply don't bother. It is a small number of voters who change votes/stick to their previous voting intention which determines the result. That's why they are marginal.
Sadly, although he was my friend, he wasn't my party!
3) The economy has been affected by something that has nothing to do with immigration at all , e.g. technological change
Itas all about the effect on the wages of the lowest paid, which are depressed while it is the profits of corporations and the spending power of the rich that increase because of mass immigration.
The social effect and loss of community in (poor) towns affected by mass immigration outweigh any positive boost to an economic number that is irrelevant to most people's lives
"Correction: labour let the banking system explode. "
Who let the other banking systems explode? Or did he collapse world banking all by himself?
“Miliband's French opposite number, François Hollande, is in deep doodoo. Not only has he turned the French economy into a basket case – negative growth in Q3, unemployment at 11 per cent, public spending as a percentage of GDP second-highest in the eurozone – he's got himself embroiled in a highly undignified love triangle. Miliband's words on Hollande's election victory in 2012 will surely come back to haunt him:
"This new leadership is sorely needed as Europe seeks to escape from austerity … He has shown that the centre-Left can offer hope and win elections with a vision of a better, more equal and just world." - Doh!”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100254675/five-reasons-ed-miliband-should-feel-depressed-this-morning/
I keep outlining the details, they are v simple, and you keep ignoring it,,, are we on?
If you want to blame Labour, it was the lack of using the tax revenues from financial services, to better insulate the UK economy. Financial services became too dominant.
The fact that almost every other western banking system collapsed around the same time is irrelevant?
Nice wriggle....but no cigar.
So basically you're saying you're easily duped. You shouldn't be let near other people's money on that basis.
Who were the two who originally decided to deregulate "and set capitalism free"?
The seeds were sown well before Blair and Brown, though I agree that both were stupid enough to believe the rank insanity.
it's a logical argument from ruthless free market capitalists, but from the Labour Party???.
No,to there eternal shame, they along with several other leaders, bought into the idea that money can directly make money without an intermediate stage (usually "production").
One economist who had a half baked idea that suited the ideology of the times set the whole mess rolling.
And, in response to Max: thanks for the thoughtful response. You're right on pretty much everything except where I live. I have been priced out of Hampstead proper by those dastardly bankers!!
The problem arose when Gordon, in his infinite wisdom, decided to take control away from the Bank, split the oversight role, create the useless FSA, and thereby effectively remove systemic risk management form the whole. If he'd done nothing at all to the regualtory regime during Labour's 13 years our banks would not have exploded.
Borrowing like a fool and spending like a drunk sailor in a whorehouse for 13 years didn't help alot either. Brown created the bubble and he took away the mechanism to stop things getting out of hand too. O neman has done alot more to damage this country than all the terrorists have ever done put together.
Not Lewisham I am guessing...
Money being used to directly make money is what it always has been from time immemorial,.
A ponzi scheme.
This doesn't stop people believing in it though.
On topic, and after a long break, this is an interesting poll that’s drawn me to comment. Do we know which marginals? For instance, does it just cover seats currently held by the Conservatives? Or does it cover marginals from their *current* base, say, any seat held by the three main parties with a majority< 5,000? I’ll admit I haven’t researched the methodology.
This matters because the results may partly be a function of the parties targeting strategies. Last time I checked, Grant Shapps was planning on a “40:40” strategy (defend the 40 most marginal seats and go for the 40 most marginal labour seats) to deliver a Tory majority. If this is the case, it’s possibly that approx. 50 seats that the Conservatives gained in 2010 are seeing very little activity at present. The Liberal Democrat strategy is probably entirely defensive. I don’t know the Labour strategy but where they have selected candidates (sometimes even before) they seem to be hitting the ground hard. It'd be interesting to see if any results correllate to this.
Notwithstanding the difficulty of polling the marginals, if the Conservatives truly are performing below average in the marginals, it wouldn’t surprise me. There has been a big drop in party membership over the last few years. There are fewer ‘troops on the ground’ and this must be having an effective on canvassing returns and leafleting activity. Furthermore, my understanding is that Ashcroft is no longer supporting marginal seats as he did extensively in 2005-2010.
This may well cause problems in the build-up to the 2015 election. I know Shapps is trying to compensate by getting ‘supporters’ registered for £1 (who will no doubt then be encouraged to deliver leaflets!) but there’s not much evidence they will. Furthermore, a lot of troops were provided by Countryside Alliance in 2010 focused on the marginal seats. They have made their anger at the government clear for failing to deliver the hunting vote. I doubt many will turn out next year.
Against this is the 1st time incumbency factor and the £10k communication allowance that allows sitting MPs to pump out literature, but I do get the impression the Conservatives are complacent about this. It is clearly from the posts on here – and evidence from elsewhere – that Labour have stepped-up their game over the last year and the Conservatives need to match this. It's clear Labour know exactly where to target and who to squeeze. Since the Liberal Democrats won't help, the Conservatives need to work out what they can do.
I hope the 40:40 strategy does not appear hubristic in May 2015. Personally, I’d be following a 60:20 strategy on the quiet now. It wouldn't surprise me if this is what Shapps will switch to once the campaign starts in earnest. But by then it might be too late.
I could be wrong, but I think the communications allowance has gone. I certainly hope it has.
Perhaps then I'll be able to read what i'm writing! Cheers.
Economies cannot survive without credit. 99% of all human development and improvement in living standards across history has happened since about 1600a.d. with the invention of joint stock companies and capital markets. We have the ability to control these - just sometimes not the will.
http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2013/05/by-mark-wallacefollowmarkon-twitter-in-october-cchq-announced-that-it-was-launching-a-4040-strategy-aimed-at-winning-the.html
Note to Neil. I hereby predict this Fag Packet idea will not propel Ed into Downing Street.
The January LD ICM was:
2011: 15%
2012: 16%
2013: 15%
2014: 14%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
If a bank invests money in a factory, and takes its share of profit from the goods produced,that is "reality"
The problem starts when they add the profits from the perceived rise in the factories "assets", then it becomes mere "belief"
It is in these inflated asset prices that the ponzi starts.
Another property boom anyone? Guaranteed return on investment with no work involved?
Once more brave Comrade Miliband spearheads socialist thinking in the post-crisis world!
Already he has promised to freeze energy bills, a wise and foresighted measure opposed only by those who hate the poor and mutter about the negligible risk of blackouts. Then Comrade Miliband, aghast at the Coalition of Capitalists plans to price out the poor from exercise and condemn them all the obesity, promised that all exercise would be affordable and many (including running, jumping and ballroom dancing) would be free.
Now he has turned the sights of his revolutionary rifle upon the enemy within: the banks and the bowler hat-wearing, pinstriped moneymen who run them.
Only by restricting their market share, closing branches, and hanging the more offensive executives from lamp posts can we possibly hope to encourage more banks to open and enter the UK market and thereby encourage competition.
Otherwise we will retain the predominance of several large banks, intent upon awarding its executives obscene bonuses, grinding the poor underfoot and wrecking the economy to feather their own nests!
The only way to foster new banks and encourage them is to ruthlessly smite the profiteering pigdogs who have had the temerity to lavish upon themselves boundless wealth in a vain hope to satiate their inhuman capitalist greed. Those who make profits shall be destroyed! Those who do not shall be rescued!
Isn't there a teensy, weensy little conflict of interest given Labour's connections with the CoOp Group and the CoOp bank? Trying to reduce the size of the large banks may well help the smaller ones, such as the CoOp.
Still, it's stupid, as the CoOp's own crisis shows: it's not the size of the bank, but the (mis)management.
anotherDave - thanks. The Tories might pick up a few a seats from the Lib Dems. I seem to recall that in 2010 the Tories only picked up 6 (?) lib-dem seats they were targetting where the existing sitting Lib Dem MP, rather than a new candidate, so this might only carry them so far. In any event, it's defence against a resurgent Labour that knows exactly how and where to pick its fights that I'd be worried about.
[Oh.. my boss has just called me out to help her with a client meeting. Will drop in later]
The economic recovery must be reaching the coastal towns of Essex, Lincolnshire and Kent.
Good news for the Tories as the more fashionable Kippers are now likely to migrate back to their mother party.
Of course, the election is not for another 16 months, so national polls at the moment don't have particularly high predictive power; we can typically expect variations in party vote-share positions of 5 points or more over such a period.