Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ever so slightly the two most important measures for GE2015
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ever so slightly the two most important measures for GE2015 have edged to the Tories in March
As regulars will know my analysis of the GE 2015 outcome is mostly focused on two key polling measures – the proportion of 2010 CON voters now saying UKIP and the 2010 LD who say they’ll vote Labour.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Though with further polls, we may see that it is real but slow swing back.
Or hasn't spent 2 minutes watching Ed speak..
In the next couple of weeks we will have evidence of further growth in Q1, possibly another 0.7%, and unemployment will continue to fall, albeit at a much slower pace. The evidence that either of these are capable of moving the polls over the last year is scant. What can move things the tories' way? They are running out of opportunities.
I suspect we will be seeing a lot more of this sort of thing.
The OMS data stretches back to 1971 for hourly productivity so that's six groups of seven years, the productivity increases for each group being:
1971-1978 +18%
1978-1985 +19%
1985-1992 +20%
1992-1999 +22%
1999-2006 +19%
2006-2013 -1%
Is there anywhere else in the Western World with falling productivity ? And yet Osborne's new idea is 'full employment'.
Doubtless some cheerleader will claim that there is nothing to worry about because hourly productivity increased by 0.3% in 2013Q4. But that follows a decrease of 0.2% in Q3 and 0.3% is less than half the historic growth rate in productivity in any case.
That said, there are clearly underlying problems which arise from our relative failure in education (for the masses not the elite) and very poor levels of investment over extended periods of time. The best hope for productivity last year was the pick up in investment which grew about 8% over the year. We need a lot more of that. Gove's reforms, if successful, are a much longer term solution.
The budget did quite a lot to incentivise investment as did the previous one but arguably more should have been done sooner. It is also undeniable that our productivity would receive a tremendous boost if we dumped our 10% least productive workers on the dole as much of the EZ has. That does not strike me as a good idea but the marginal cost of subsidising the employment of those workers by in work benefits needs greater consideration.
When Osborne talks of "full employment" he means zero-hours contracts on £3-£5 an hour. It's all we're worth.
"As regulars will know my analysis of the GE 2015 outcome is mostly focused on two key polling measures – the proportion of 2010 CON voters now saying UKIP and the 2010 LD who say they’ll vote Labour."
......................................................................................
Clearly these are two measures, among many, to be factored into analysis of 2015 but what weight should we place on them 14 months from the election? It's my contention that as the election looms they will be diminishing returns for Ukip and Labour.
IMHO a much more significant factor that will determine the election will be differential turnout in the marginals and an increase in overall turnout to the benefit of the Coalition. Should we look at turnout as the greater unknown known of the coming election.
In particular a glance at historic turnout when a Labour government struggles or the possible return of a recent poor Labour government that is illuminating.
In 79 the "Winter of Discontent Labour government" saw turnout advance 3.2 points to 76% from 72.8% from Oct 74 and the election of Thatcher.
In 92 the prospect of a return of Labour under Kinnock saw turnout spike 2.4 points to 77.7% from 75.3% and the return to power of Major.
In 2010 Gordon Brown saw turnout rise 3.7 points to 65.1% from 61.4% and the formation of the Coalition.
In all cases turnout in the marginals spiked greater than the average increase.
Turnout in 2015 ?? .... 67.5% +
I am also encouraged by Gove's focus on the performance gap with poorer children giving them additional help and funding. But there is a very long way to go.
I have 3 children and 2 siblings.
1. North Sea oil is in terminal decline - possibly falling off a cliff come September
2. The City has been overhyped in the noughties and won't go back to where it was
For those of us who have been saying GO needs to address the real economy and that he hasn't, this is hardly a surprise. Welcome on board :-)
edit there was more in his original ST article. This is not as useful as I remembered. Sorry.
We undoubtedly have problems in this area but blaming a government that has been in power for less than 4 years is once again completely underestimating the scale of our problems and the solutions.
Is there a difference these days?
Sorry to delve into Scottish matters, but I was curious about this. I saw a story that was top 4 on the BBC and imagined it an April Fool, but it actually dates to the middle of 2007:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6234290.stm
Do Scots need a licence to wear a sporran?
Must admit, I sometimes copy long comments (elsewhere too) just in case they disappear.
Bahrain: I'd forgotten it was set for night time, but that does mean I'll be able to watch (well, listen to) P3 and perhaps offer a qualifying bet. I think there might be opportunity (Rosberg for pole seems an early bet, but laying Vettel for top 3 and some bets around the top 10 could be of interest).
Also, the height issue really doesn't seem to be doing Hulkenberg any harm. Either it was overblown, or he's even better than most people thought. However, Perez, who is smaller, has not had a trouble-free race yet (puncture in Oz and DNS in Malaysia) so we can't say that conclusively, yet.
Does anyone have the date?
All I'm really saying is that @another_richard should stop torturing statistics to make his point. It's unkind.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26753299
"In Australia, debate coverage is dominated by "The Worm," an electronic line that runs along the bottom of the screen controlled by a panel of floating voters. Politicians speak of the The Worm in awed tones. It can make or break them. In a 2007 debate between Kevin Rudd and John Howard there were even accusations of political skulduggery, with the "Worm Moderator" accusing Howard's ruling Liberal Party of sabotage. If there was foul play, it didn't work - Rudd went on to win."
Over here, the General Election debates also found that the Worm had a significant impact upon viewer perception. That's why it should be abolished. It's wide open to letting a die-hard supporter or loather of a given party/individual onto the panel, the mob effect and involves a very small (I think 20 or fewer) people having substantial power to alter opinions about the debate. It simply must be axed.
I strongly suspect it won't be, though. That would mean TV airheads giving up a gimmick some people like to watch and use for news clips.
Charles AR is merely teasing with statistics, to torture with statistics you need yellow boxes round them ;-)
The problem is that major Investment will take about 2-3 years to kick in. About a year or so for Boards to react to a new environment and allocate money, and about 1-2 years for machines\buildings to be built, delivered, installed and commissioned - probably longer in your industry. So if GO had started off in 2011investment would be kicking in about now. Since he hasn't it will be 2016/17. It's all out of sync hence my view we have lost a Parlt on our way to recovery.
My gut reaction is the higher the turnout the worse it is for Better Together.
"The killer finding is that the participants' own subsequent perception of the debate was influenced by the manipulated worm."
http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/live-worm-during-political-tv-debates.html
http://www.espn.co.uk/mercedes/motorsport/story/151897.html
What's more interesting is his criticism of Brawn's handling of Malaysia last year, when he (Brawn) ordered Rosberg to hold position behind Hamilton (an order duly obeyed in stark contrast to Horner's wimpish wibbling with Vettel). It does make me wonder if they've decided to openly have no team orders, unless only one driver still has a shot at the title.
At the moment, Mercedes are dominant. They've taken both poles, and from 3 finishes have been 1st, 1st and 2nd. But, nothing lasts forever. Brawn in 2009 won 6/7 of the first races, I think, but Button only just clung on. Red Bull lack horsepower but are strong aerodynamically (the reverse is true of Williams and McLaren, and also Force India [although they seem better aerodynamically compared to the other two teams]).
If Red Bull or another team catches up Mercedes could pay a price. In 2007, McLaren really should've won, but the Alonso-Hamilton battle let Raikkonen slip through the middle and claim the title by a single point.
After Bahrain there's a fortnight to China, the last of the initial fly-aways, and then a three week gap to the European season. There will probably not be any serious updates prior to Spain (first European race), but every team will be trying to improve for that and the order could be shuffled a bit.
Two interesting internals to keep an eye on? Yes.
Best price on Clegg now 6-4. Thought Paddy would move it in.
Then there will be a knashing of teeth and a wailing of the bagpipes from JackW's moat encrusted seat.
The BBC is now bigging it up, whereas they were practically mute before the first debate.
But your reference did surprise me as I had never heard of a sporran licence, and a quick check suggests that the story was seriously inaccurate in its listing of species in what was in any case a "maybe something terrible will happen" story - badger and seal in particular were not licensed in this way.
http://naturenet.net/blogs/2007/06/24/scotsmen-will-need-a-sporran-licence-no-seriously/
As a bat would be useless for a sporran (apart possibly from the fruit bats, which are hardly native to Scotland) that basically would mean that it's otters and wildcats which were given this protection, which is hardly unreasonable given the wider issues [edit: affecting those species in particular].
I fear you have, as increased turnout will undoubtedly lead to a greater NO vote. Indeed as turnout spikes above 75% as I expect we shall see differential NO turnout see the end of the Eck Empire and his likely latest miserable plan for a currency union with Sao Tome and Principe.
McARSE latest turnout projection is 79%
The plane was the highest precisience news story at the time, now it is 7 a day, so the news is slower at the moment. Also this debate is BBC rather than LBC and everyone loves a rematch so that combined with the slower news at the moment MIGHT push it slightly higher in the public conscious.
Will Farage say the EU has blood on it's hands ?
I reckon Clegg could well win this time tbh.
"unless one of the participants says something hugely damaging to his own cause." Or which can be twisted or interpreted to be so. That would then be a media story. So no wonder politicians dissemble.
See this chart.
The chart uses data from ICM Guardian polls since the general election, though it hasn't been updated since I created it a few months ago. Unfortunately, I can't work out how to get datawrapper to show meaningful dates on the x-axis, but one can clearly see the polling effects of the Lib Dem betrayal, the Omnishambles budget and the UKIP surge.
The y-axis is Labour polling percentage and the number of poll respondents for the swing voters. You can clearly see that the effect of direct Con-Lab swing voters was greater than the Lib-Lab swing voters during the peak of the effects of the Omnishambles budget.
What's particularly important about this switching is that it has changed, several times, during the course of the Parliament, while the Lib-Lab switching is only declining very gradually. It is the potential for change that we are most interested in, and I contend that this polling evidence points to direct Con-Lab swing voters as being the subset of voters who are most likely to change their minds before the election and most likely to change the eventual result.
Surely not quite that soon - there is a GE in 2015 in which there will still be Scottish constituencies*. But yes, the basic principles stand!
*edit: subject to some special interim arrangement, of course
This means that either that friendship will take the edge off the rivalry - at least off the circuit - or become even more explosive.
You have to separate the on-track rivalry with the off-track friendships - an example being Lauda and Hunt. They were rivals on track, friends off (this is one thing the film got very wrong).
Hamilton's long-standing friendship with Sutil allegedly ended when the former refused to turn up as a witness in Sutil's court case.
I do not know whether the Feb monthly summary included the first Feb poll or adjusted it for the new basis.
It is unlikely to be material in the Feb monthly summary and so the Feb and March summaries should be directly comparable.
Why doesn't yougov do a fortnightly comparison? That would be useful if it had properly adjusted subsamples.
And my word YES is full of planks .... perhaps we should offer Eck & Co some currency and barter options as time runs down with little more than five months to the vote.
My favoured currency option for cultural reasons remains a link with the Armenian Dram. Barter is more tricky but an interim barter of one swirl of the kilt to the pound would clearly offer value for money in the future "Strictly Come Bankruptcy" economic plan of the SNP.
There was some discussion yesterday about high-frequency trading and an (annual) return on investment target of 25%. Of course that is far from risk-free.
Pah! 25% ROI in a year is for wimps. Shadsy is offering you 25% in a day:
Buzzword Bingo - N Clegg v N Farage BBC Debate
'Putin' 1/4
http://sportsbeta.ladbrokes.com/British/N-Clegg-v-N-Farage-BBC-Debate/Politics-N-1z131s4Z1z0t43xZ1z141ne/
http://labourlist.org/2014/04/why-labour-could-be-the-biggest-loser-from-clegg-vs-farage-tonight/
He's wrong about this specific debate (no one will care), but right about the general concern for Labour.
"A report by the work and pensions select committee, which includes five Tory MPs, says the bedroom tax "is having an impact especially on those living in adapted accommodation, or who need an extra room as a result of their disability, and who are unlikely to be able to move house or enter work. There is evidence that many of these people are suffering financial hardship."
Well, it's a view, I suppose.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/02/lib-dem-president-withdraw-party-support-bedroom-tax
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26851564
It's somewhat like saying "Labour pulls support from Benefits Cap" only to find the report is about Diane Abbott not supporting her front bench.
Meanwhile, in the real world, in the first few months of the new policy, we have already achieved a 6% shift, well on track for the 30% reduction in the problem which the government is targeting over 5 years.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26770727
It is staggering how short-term a view people take. It will take years to clear up the welfare mess, of which the misallocation of social housing is one glaring example.
The question is, have Lab done enough for them to return to the fold or has the coalition c*cked it up enough for them to desert?
As to the first, I'm not sure. There has been no concrete example of a firm policy change plus 95% of the principals are still there so no real distance between Lab 2009 and Lab today (with the obvious exception). I don't disagree with the tactic of waiting to release a manifesto/policies but for this sub-group (Lab=>LD=>?) they need a reassuring reason why they can come back to Lab and so far I can't see it.
As to the second, the first, middle and last charge is it's the "wrong sort of recovery benefiting the few and not the many". That is (if you are a Lab-er) a hostage to fortune because just like the triple-dip and other scare stories, they might not happen and by GE2015 more people might be affected by the recovery. That said, it will take some time to wean people off a credit-fuelled lifestyle and many people will be hurting/in cold turkey for some time to come.
I'll be aggregating their polls by month, from the 2010 general election onwards to see if we're seeing a similar trend.
I'm hopeful to have this completed when my next stint as Guest Editor begins.
Chelsea's Jose Mourinho complains about another club, PSG, spending far too much money
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/apr/01/chelsea-paris-saint-germain-jose-mourinho
How unlucky can one person be?
Saharan sand is sweeping across Britain’s greediest and most materialistic region, erasing its temples of avarice and sending a stark warning to all those who would worship at the altar of Mammon.
Dr Marcus Brody, an expert in Biblical weather, said: “Like the sandstorm that consumed Tanis, it will probably last a whole year and will destroy much of London as well as Colchester, Basildon and, of course, Peterborough, the final resting place of the Ark of the Covenant.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/science-technology/south-east-finally-being-wiped-clean-by-the-wrath-of-god-2014040285317
There could even be a stirring silence from the highlands, should that turn out to be the case.
http://politicalbetting.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/constituency-betting-choosing-which.html
This is quite an undertaking, however, so please be patient with me.
I'm a simple chap. If we're going to subsidise housing, then subsidising a three-bedroom home occupied by Ms Jayne Dennis, living by herself, doesn't seem a very good use of taxpayers' money, nor fair to Mark and Marion Smith, stuck with their three children in a two-bedroom flat:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26770727
Of course I have every sympathy with Ms Dennis who has had to move, which is I'm sure disruptive and distressing for her. I have even more sympathy for Mr and Mrs Smith and the three children. Over the medium term, reforming a barmy system where we pay for rooms which are not needed, and don't provide rooms which are needed, is sensible enough, is it not?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMJPrNQxPNA
A precedent for those Lib/Con and Lib/Lab marginals in 2015?
Their faces will forever haunt me.
twitter.com/pppolitics/status/451305292970479616/photo/1
Spanish champions Barcelona have been given a 14-month transfer ban by Fifa for breaking rules on signing international players under 18.
The Catalan club cannot buy or sell players until the summer of 2015 after the world governing body imposed a transfer ban for the next two windows.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26852466
Stacie Lewis @MamaLewisBlog 13h
From TES article: Michael Gove claimed today that the Conservatives were now “the real party of social justice” driven by a “moral purpose”.
And all it took was a damn good moral thrashing from the fops to convince him of it.
Telegraph Politics @TelePolitics
Blog: Michael Gove gets a thrashing, Eton-style http://tgr.ph/1j0r2z4
Dull it certainly isn't.