politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Conservatives win a by-election whilst in government fo
Comments
-
You git, you're backing them both to win, which makes it impossible to lay them both.Morris_Dancer said:Betting post
You're all corrupting me. *sighs*
Right, I checked Ladbrokes (as I've mentioned, my accounts are really lopsided so I often bet with Ladbrokes rather than Betfair now) and have made small bets as follows:
To lose the first set and win the match, Sharapova 5.5
Halep win 2-1, 4.5
Although with my chat up lines...0 -
PollocksTheScreamingEagles said:
It sounds fishy.JackW said:@RochdalePioneers wrote :
"Labour getting nowhere near PROVES that Ed is Carp ..."
......................................................................................
Ed Miliband Will Never Be PM - Piscatorial Maximus
0 -
Mark's continued and lengthy denial of the looming largest economic crash since the creation of bronze was also a highpoint!MonikerDiCanio said:
After your preposterous prediction that the Greek economy would outperform the UK's in 2013 , I don't think we have to take your opinions very seriously, do we ?0 -
Is it ever wise to agree with the IMF?TheScreamingEagles said:Huzzah for George Osborne
George Osborne @George_Osborne 3s
IMF forecast UK to be the fastest growing major advanced economy in the world this year. Shows our #LongTermEconomicPlan is working0 -
0
-
Dr Stephen Fisher's latest 2015 GE seats projection is as follows (showing minor changes over the past week) :
Con .......... 307 seats (unchanged)
Lab .......... 286 seats ( + 1 seat)
LibDem .......29 seats ( - 1 seat)
Others ........28 seats (unchanged)
Total .........650
0 -
Survation did not find any 2013-Con>LD switchers.rcs1000 said:
I think there are a number of Conservative voters on this board - like JackW and Charles, for example - who have said they would vote LibDem in the event of a UKIP/Con alliance. I do not believe they are alone, and I would be very surprised if the LibDems did not see their vote share increase in Eastleigh from the by-election level.anotherDave said:
The Survation Eastleigh poll does not support that theory.rcs1000 said:
As an aside, I think a great many Conservatives in Eastleigh will vote LibDem to stop UKIP.HurstLlama said:
If Lib Dem voters are really anti-UKIP voters then surely they are not Lib Dem voters. They may make it harder for UKIP to win a seat but waht does that say about the LIB Dems as a party?rcs1000 said:
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.Lennon said:OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
(I thought JackW was a LD!)0 -
yes, they kept on warning Gordon Brown about his spending.philiph said:
Is it ever wise to agree with the IMF?TheScreamingEagles said:Huzzah for George Osborne
George Osborne @George_Osborne 3s
IMF forecast UK to be the fastest growing major advanced economy in the world this year. Shows our #LongTermEconomicPlan is working0 -
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 2m
Bar chart of all Great Britain by-election results since GE2010, updated for #Newark
http://t.co/CYFD8A4Zv30 -
Over 8,000 votes more than 2010 and 18% better share can hardly be called a disaster. Its about par, almost exactly in line with the polls/expectations. Only Eastleigh was better for UKIPSocrates said:
You know your spinning is a stretch when you have to use lines like "they didn't even beat their all time best ever result!"ToryJim said:
John Curtice is being spoke very highly of today. He said on this week that if UKIP got 30% it would be a "remarkable result". Now the spinners are saying that was the benchmark and failure to get it was a poor show!
Wouldnt think anything has changed for next year on the back of this. A hung parliament with UKIP getting no more than 4-5 seats. Diane JAmes looked a bit foolish when she said up to 60 was possible
0 -
Hmm it seems to have got a bit Errol Flynn at Amritsar
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/10880015/Sword-fight-at-Indias-Golden-Temple-on-raid-anniversary.html0 -
Crikey, I just unrepressed Gordon Brown's "Obama beach" moment0
-
I would vote actively against a candidate who enjoyed a Conservative/UKIP coupon. It's like going backward to Michael Howard with knobs on.rcs1000 said:
I think there are a number of Conservative voters on this board - like JackW and Charles, for example - who have said they would vote LibDem in the event of a UKIP/Con alliance. I do not believe they are alone, and I would be very surprised if the LibDems did not see their vote share increase in Eastleigh from the by-election level.anotherDave said:
The Survation Eastleigh poll does not support that theory.rcs1000 said:
As an aside, I think a great many Conservatives in Eastleigh will vote LibDem to stop UKIP.HurstLlama said:
If Lib Dem voters are really anti-UKIP voters then surely they are not Lib Dem voters. They may make it harder for UKIP to win a seat but waht does that say about the LIB Dems as a party?rcs1000 said:
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.Lennon said:OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
And what knobs they are.
0 -
Mr. Eagles, if I had to choose a pair of lays I would've gone for Sharapova and Bouchard.0
-
That is not correct , the Survation poll found 3 Conservatives out of 87 who voted in the by election changing their vote to Lib Dem at a G .EanotherDave said:
Survation did not find any 2013-Con>LD switchers.rcs1000 said:
I think there are a number of Conservative voters on this board - like JackW and Charles, for example - who have said they would vote LibDem in the event of a UKIP/Con alliance. I do not believe they are alone, and I would be very surprised if the LibDems did not see their vote share increase in Eastleigh from the by-election level.anotherDave said:
The Survation Eastleigh poll does not support that theory.rcs1000 said:
As an aside, I think a great many Conservatives in Eastleigh will vote LibDem to stop UKIP.HurstLlama said:
If Lib Dem voters are really anti-UKIP voters then surely they are not Lib Dem voters. They may make it harder for UKIP to win a seat but waht does that say about the LIB Dems as a party?rcs1000 said:
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.Lennon said:OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
(I thought JackW was a LD!)0 -
Apparantly d'Hondt favours the big parties.edmundintokyo said:
Given UKIP's apparent transfer-unfriendliness you'd think Con-Lib-Lab would be up for an evil conspiracy to change the Euro voting system to STV. They should throw that in there with the recall vote thing and present it as another way for the voters to kick out bad individual representatives. (Which it genuinely does provide, although the voters probably wouldn't use it that way.)rcs1000 said:
I don't think it says anything about the LibDems as a party. It says something about the remaining LibDem supporters.HurstLlama said:
If Lib Dem voters are really anti-UKIP voters then surely they are not Lib Dem voters. They may make it harder for UKIP to win a seat but waht does that say about the LIB Dems as a party?rcs1000 said:
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.Lennon said:OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
As an aside, I think a great many Conservatives in Eastleigh will vote LibDem to stop UKIP.
Anti-UKIP tactical voting is going to be an absolute disaster for the party.
http://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinwales/2014/05/22/the-fabulous-mr-dhondt/
0 -
I will genuflect in the prescience of the IMF from now onwards.TheScreamingEagles said:
yes, they kept on warning Gordon Brown about his spending.philiph said:
Is it ever wise to agree with the IMF?TheScreamingEagles said:Huzzah for George Osborne
George Osborne @George_Osborne 3s
IMF forecast UK to be the fastest growing major advanced economy in the world this year. Shows our #LongTermEconomicPlan is working0 -
Well they increased their vote share by almost 600%!philiph said:
However, it is a reasonable observation to apply to a party that wishes to thrust forward with the argument that we are a rapidly growing popular movement with tremendous momentum behind us.Socrates said:
You know your spinning is a stretch when you have to use lines like "they didn't even beat their all time best ever result!"ToryJim said:
By implication the expectation should be for advancement in reasonable sized steps in these early stages.
0 -
What it's shown is that you haven't understood it.TheWatcher said:Newark, and the multitude of excuses, shows us that Labour's 'One Nation' tag is complete bollocks.
It's code for being against inequality, draped in a Union Jack.
But then we know the PB Golden Rule don't we
0 -
Labour got less than 2.2% in Newbury and Winchester By-Elections in 93 an 97.GIN1138 said:Whether your Tory, Labour, UKIP, Green, Loony, etc...
One thing we can all agree on is that Lib-Dem 2.2% = LOL!0 -
I'm a Coalitionista.anotherDave said:
Survation did not find any 2013-Con>LD switchers.rcs1000 said:
I think there are a number of Conservative voters on this board - like JackW and Charles, for example - who have said they would vote LibDem in the event of a UKIP/Con alliance. I do not believe they are alone, and I would be very surprised if the LibDems did not see their vote share increase in Eastleigh from the by-election level.anotherDave said:
The Survation Eastleigh poll does not support that theory.rcs1000 said:
As an aside, I think a great many Conservatives in Eastleigh will vote LibDem to stop UKIP.HurstLlama said:
If Lib Dem voters are really anti-UKIP voters then surely they are not Lib Dem voters. They may make it harder for UKIP to win a seat but waht does that say about the LIB Dems as a party?rcs1000 said:
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.Lennon said:OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
(I thought JackW was a LD!)
Huzzah !!
0 -
Which 4 to 5 seats will UKIP win?isam said:
Over 8,000 votes more than 2010 and 18% better share can hardly be called a disaster. Its about par, almost exactly in line with the polls/expectations. Only Eastleigh was better for UKIPSocrates said:
You know your spinning is a stretch when you have to use lines like "they didn't even beat their all time best ever result!"ToryJim said:
John Curtice is being spoke very highly of today. He said on this week that if UKIP got 30% it would be a "remarkable result". Now the spinners are saying that was the benchmark and failure to get it was a poor show!
Wouldnt think anything has changed for next year on the back of this. A hung parliament with UKIP getting no more than 4-5 seats. Diane JAmes looked a bit foolish when she said up to 60 was possible
0 -
OT EU Lagarde seems to be ruling herself out of the Commission job on the grounds that she already has a job, but a lot of anti-Juncker people seem to want a woman, which they presumably think would be harder for the parliament to block.
So they need a woman with experience in a high-powered international job, familiar with the EU, with a low-key style so she doesn't eclipse the heads of government, good at communicating in English to handle the UK's various issues, yet somehow not doing anything important for the next four years.
Catherine Ashton, please call your office.0 -
Which table is that in?MarkSenior said:
That is not correct , the Survation poll found 3 Conservatives out of 87 who voted in the by election changing their vote to Lib Dem at a G .EanotherDave said:
Survation did not find any 2013-Con>LD switchers.rcs1000 said:
I think there are a number of Conservative voters on this board - like JackW and Charles, for example - who have said they would vote LibDem in the event of a UKIP/Con alliance. I do not believe they are alone, and I would be very surprised if the LibDems did not see their vote share increase in Eastleigh from the by-election level.anotherDave said:
The Survation Eastleigh poll does not support that theory.rcs1000 said:
As an aside, I think a great many Conservatives in Eastleigh will vote LibDem to stop UKIP.HurstLlama said:
If Lib Dem voters are really anti-UKIP voters then surely they are not Lib Dem voters. They may make it harder for UKIP to win a seat but waht does that say about the LIB Dems as a party?rcs1000 said:
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.Lennon said:OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
(I thought JackW was a LD!)
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Eastleigh-constituency-poll.pdf0 -
I agree - making those 5/6 odds from Paddy Power on UKIP winning <1.5 seats (i.e. either zero seats or one seat) look even tastier.rcs1000 said:
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.Lennon said:OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
0 -
The greats - Grimsby and Yarmouth, Castle Point, Thurrock and Thanet South perhapsBond_James_Bond said:
Which 4 to 5 seats will UKIP win?isam said:
Over 8,000 votes more than 2010 and 18% better share can hardly be called a disaster. Its about par, almost exactly in line with the polls/expectations. Only Eastleigh was better for UKIPSocrates said:
You know your spinning is a stretch when you have to use lines like "they didn't even beat their all time best ever result!"ToryJim said:
John Curtice is being spoke very highly of today. He said on this week that if UKIP got 30% it would be a "remarkable result". Now the spinners are saying that was the benchmark and failure to get it was a poor show!
Wouldnt think anything has changed for next year on the back of this. A hung parliament with UKIP getting no more than 4-5 seats. Diane JAmes looked a bit foolish when she said up to 60 was possible
0 -
A tag line so good, it requires a long winded and condescending explanation.Freggles said:
What it's shown is that you haven't understood it.TheWatcher said:Newark, and the multitude of excuses, shows us that Labour's 'One Nation' tag is complete bollocks.
It's code for being against inequality, draped in a Union Jack.
But then we know the PB Golden Rule don't we
What a winner!
0 -
Good catch. :-)JackW said:
I'm a Coalitionista.anotherDave said:
Survation did not find any 2013-Con>LD switchers.rcs1000 said:
I think there are a number of Conservative voters on this board - like JackW and Charles, for example - who have said they would vote LibDem in the event of a UKIP/Con alliance. I do not believe they are alone, and I would be very surprised if the LibDems did not see their vote share increase in Eastleigh from the by-election level.anotherDave said:
The Survation Eastleigh poll does not support that theory.rcs1000 said:
As an aside, I think a great many Conservatives in Eastleigh will vote LibDem to stop UKIP.HurstLlama said:
If Lib Dem voters are really anti-UKIP voters then surely they are not Lib Dem voters. They may make it harder for UKIP to win a seat but waht does that say about the LIB Dems as a party?rcs1000 said:
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.Lennon said:OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
(I thought JackW was a LD!)
Huzzah !!
0 -
anotherDave said:
Which table is that in?MarkSenior said:
That is not correct , the Survation poll found 3 Conservatives out of 87 who voted in the by election changing their vote to Lib Dem at a G .EanotherDave said:
Survation did not find any 2013-Con>LD switchers.rcs1000 said:
I think there are a number of Conservative voters on this board - like JackW and Charles, for example - who have said they would vote LibDem in the event of a UKIP/Con alliance. I do not believe they are alone, and I would be very surprised if the LibDems did not see their vote share increase in Eastleigh from the by-election level.anotherDave said:
The Survation Eastleigh poll does not support that theory.rcs1000 said:
As an aside, I think a great many Conservatives in Eastleigh will vote LibDem to stop UKIP.HurstLlama said:
If Lib Dem voters are really anti-UKIP voters then surely they are not Lib Dem voters. They may make it harder for UKIP to win a seat but waht does that say about the LIB Dems as a party?rcs1000 said:
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.Lennon said:OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
(I thought JackW was a LD!)
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Eastleigh-constituency-poll.pdf
Table 30 -
So you think Mr Miliband will scrape thru in Doncaster?dyedwoolie said:
The greats - Grimsby and Yarmouth, Castle Point, Thurrock and Thanet South perhapsBond_James_Bond said:
Which 4 to 5 seats will UKIP win?isam said:
Over 8,000 votes more than 2010 and 18% better share can hardly be called a disaster. Its about par, almost exactly in line with the polls/expectations. Only Eastleigh was better for UKIPSocrates said:
You know your spinning is a stretch when you have to use lines like "they didn't even beat their all time best ever result!"ToryJim said:
John Curtice is being spoke very highly of today. He said on this week that if UKIP got 30% it would be a "remarkable result". Now the spinners are saying that was the benchmark and failure to get it was a poor show!
Wouldnt think anything has changed for next year on the back of this. A hung parliament with UKIP getting no more than 4-5 seats. Diane JAmes looked a bit foolish when she said up to 60 was possible0 -
He will be on the list of super marginals ;-)anotherDave said:
So you think Mr Miliband will scrape thru in Doncaster?dyedwoolie said:
The greats - Grimsby and Yarmouth, Castle Point, Thurrock and Thanet South perhapsBond_James_Bond said:
Which 4 to 5 seats will UKIP win?isam said:
Over 8,000 votes more than 2010 and 18% better share can hardly be called a disaster. Its about par, almost exactly in line with the polls/expectations. Only Eastleigh was better for UKIPSocrates said:
You know your spinning is a stretch when you have to use lines like "they didn't even beat their all time best ever result!"ToryJim said:
John Curtice is being spoke very highly of today. He said on this week that if UKIP got 30% it would be a "remarkable result". Now the spinners are saying that was the benchmark and failure to get it was a poor show!
Wouldnt think anything has changed for next year on the back of this. A hung parliament with UKIP getting no more than 4-5 seats. Diane JAmes looked a bit foolish when she said up to 60 was possible
0 -
Another triumph for the former chair of Hertfordshire Health Authority?edmundintokyo said:OT EU Lagarde seems to be ruling herself out of the Commission job on the grounds that she already has a job, but a lot of anti-Juncker people seem to want a woman, which they presumably think would be harder for the parliament to block.
So they need a woman with experience in a high-powered international job, familiar with the EU, with a low-key style so she doesn't eclipse the heads of government, good at communicating in English to handle the UK's various issues, yet somehow not doing anything important for the next four years.
Catherine Ashton, please call your office.
*basks in reflected glory*
0 -
No one (no one sensible, at least) thinks this is anything other than a very good result for UKIP. It demonstrates there is probably 20-25% of the country who identify actively with UKIP and that number may grow.
Unfortunately for UKIP, I think it also demonstrated the beginning of the rise of anti-UKIP tactical voting.
If UKIP is topping out at 30% constituency vote share, and are 'transfer unfriendly', then they will really struggle to win seats.0 -
I think there will be some element of pro-UKIP anti-Labour tactical voting. In northern seats where the Tories struggle many natural Tories may feel they can stop Labour by voting UKIP. We may find a UKIP gain emerging 'unexpectedly' from a Lab/Con marginal where both parties lose support to UKIP for different reasons and from different demographics.0
-
??MarkSenior said:anotherDave said:
Which table is that in?MarkSenior said:
That is not correct , the Survation poll found 3 Conservatives out of 87 who voted in the by election changing their vote to Lib Dem at a G .EanotherDave said:
Survation did not find any 2013-Con>LD switchers.rcs1000 said:
I think there are a number of Conservative voters on this board - like JackW and Charles, for example - who have said they would vote LibDem in the event of a UKIP/Con alliance. I do not believe they are alone, and I would be very surprised if the LibDems did not see their vote share increase in Eastleigh from the by-election level.anotherDave said:
The Survation Eastleigh poll does not support that theory.rcs1000 said:
As an aside, I think a great many Conservatives in Eastleigh will vote LibDem to stop UKIP.HurstLlama said:
If Lib Dem voters are really anti-UKIP voters then surely they are not Lib Dem voters. They may make it harder for UKIP to win a seat but waht does that say about the LIB Dems as a party?rcs1000 said:
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.Lennon said:OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
(I thought JackW was a LD!)
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Eastleigh-constituency-poll.pdf
Table 3
That's 3 2013-LDs switching to Con for the general election, not 3 2013-Cons switching to LD.0 -
Channel 4 lunchtime news;
"Tory majority slashed in Newark"
How po faced!0 -
My apologies , you are correct .anotherDave said:
??MarkSenior said:anotherDave said:
Which table is that in?MarkSenior said:
That is not correct , the Survation poll found 3 Conservatives out of 87 who voted in the by election changing their vote to Lib Dem at a G .EanotherDave said:
Survation did not find any 2013-Con>LD switchers.rcs1000 said:
I think there are a number of Conservative voters on this board - like JackW and Charles, for example - who have said they would vote LibDem in the event of a UKIP/Con alliance. I do not believe they are alone, and I would be very surprised if the LibDems did not see their vote share increase in Eastleigh from the by-election level.anotherDave said:
The Survation Eastleigh poll does not support that theory.rcs1000 said:
As an aside, I think a great many Conservatives in Eastleigh will vote LibDem to stop UKIP.HurstLlama said:
If Lib Dem voters are really anti-UKIP voters then surely they are not Lib Dem voters. They may make it harder for UKIP to win a seat but waht does that say about the LIB Dems as a party?rcs1000 said:
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.Lennon said:OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
(I thought JackW was a LD!)
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Eastleigh-constituency-poll.pdf
Table 3
That's 3 2013-LDs switching to Con for the general election, not 3 2013-Cons switching to LD.0 -
From 2005philiph said:
I will genuflect in the prescience of the IMF from now onwards.TheScreamingEagles said:
yes, they kept on warning Gordon Brown about his spending.philiph said:
Is it ever wise to agree with the IMF?TheScreamingEagles said:Huzzah for George Osborne
George Osborne @George_Osborne 3s
IMF forecast UK to be the fastest growing major advanced economy in the world this year. Shows our #LongTermEconomicPlan is working
Gordon Brown launched a furious assault on the International Monetary Fund at the weekend after the Washington-based organisation threatened to dent Labour's election campaign by insisting spending cuts or tax rises were needed to cut Britain's budget deficit.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2005/apr/18/politics.ukgeneralelection20051
From 2002
IMF warns Brown over spending
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2760297/IMF-warns-Brown-over-spending.html
From 2003
Chancellor Gordon Brown has been warned by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that he risks breaking his own rules on government borrowing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3333125.stm
There are many more but those three give you a flavour.0 -
Mr. 1909, welcome to the site.
I haven't watched Channel 4 News since the clown Snow claimed not being able to report when and where Harry was in the frontlines amounted to Soviet-style censorship.0 -
Mr. Eagles, also worth pointing out the IMF were very critical of Osborne's plan, only to perform a swift volte-face.0
-
Today's Populus
Lab 35 Con 34 UKIP 14 LD 90 -
Please use his full name.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. 1909, welcome to the site.
I haven't watched Channel 4 News since the clown Snow claimed not being able to report when and where Harry was in the frontlines amounted to Soviet-style censorship.
'Left-leaning and about to topple over' Snow0 -
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 30s
% of aggregate vote at GB by-elections since GE 2010 (update for #Newark): Lab 44%, Con 18%, UKIP 13%, LD 11%
http://t.co/svsOGLOnjQ0 -
The President of the Soviet Union has arrived in Normandy ....
"I come not to annex but to praise ...."0 -
Labour surge going well thenMarkSenior said:Today's Populus
Lab 35 Con 34 UKIP 14 LD 90 -
I've just stuck £30 on that. Its a nice counterpart to the £20 @ 8-1 I've got on UKIP 2 or more seats.peter_from_putney said:
I agree - making those 5/6 odds from Paddy Power on UKIP winningrcs1000 said:
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.Lennon said:OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.0 -
New thread.0
-
Did said about turn coincide with the arrival of Mme Lagarde?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, also worth pointing out the IMF were very critical of Osborne's plan, only to perform a swift volte-face.
0 -
It's good to be all things to all men, unless you're Lib DemsTheWatcher said:
A tag line so good, it requires a long winded and condescending explanation.Freggles said:
What it's shown is that you haven't understood it.TheWatcher said:Newark, and the multitude of excuses, shows us that Labour's 'One Nation' tag is complete bollocks.
It's code for being against inequality, draped in a Union Jack.
But then we know the PB Golden Rule don't we
What a winner!0 -
peter_from_putney said:
I agree - making those 5/6 odds from Paddy Power on UKIP winningrcs1000 said:
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.Lennon said:OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
Having looked at these prices this morning the 6/4 on 0 UKIP seats with Ladbrokes looks vaguely tempting, with the option to possibly hedge on Thanet if required. My reservations would be, firstly that the Newark electorate are very different to that of some of the seaside constituencies where the kippers are strong and may not have been subject to the the same degree of immigration. Secondly, it was immediately obvious who the best party in Newark was to stop the purple peril. In seats where it is closer between the blues and reds 30 percent may be enough to win for Ukip if the collapsing Lib Dem vote is shared out equally..0 -
Im not saying they will win 4-5, i am saying thats the most they will winBond_James_Bond said:
Which 4 to 5 seats will UKIP win?isam said:
Over 8,000 votes more than 2010 and 18% better share can hardly be called a disaster. Its about par, almost exactly in line with the polls/expectations. Only Eastleigh was better for UKIPSocrates said:
You know your spinning is a stretch when you have to use lines like "they didn't even beat their all time best ever result!"ToryJim said:
John Curtice is being spoke very highly of today. He said on this week that if UKIP got 30% it would be a "remarkable result". Now the spinners are saying that was the benchmark and failure to get it was a poor show!
Wouldnt think anything has changed for next year on the back of this. A hung parliament with UKIP getting no more than 4-5 seats. Diane JAmes looked a bit foolish when she said up to 60 was possible
These are their best shots IMO
Boston & Skegness
Bromsgrove
Castle Point
Dag & Rain
Dudley North
Great Grimsby
Halesown & Rowley Regis
Morley & Outwood
Newcastle Under Lyme
Plymouth Moor View
S Bas & E Thurrock
Staffordshire Moorlands
Stoke on Trent South
Telford
Thanet North
Thanet South
Thurrock
Walsall North Lads
Walsall South
West Bromwich West
Wolverhampton NE
0 -
In Great Grimsby in 2010 UKIP polled 2,043 votes, over 8,000 votes behind the winner.dyedwoolie said:
The greats - Grimsby and Yarmouth, Castle Point, Thurrock and Thanet South perhapsBond_James_Bond said:
Which 4 to 5 seats will UKIP win?isam said:
Over 8,000 votes more than 2010 and 18% better share can hardly be called a disaster. Its about par, almost exactly in line with the polls/expectations. Only Eastleigh was better for UKIPSocrates said:
You know your spinning is a stretch when you have to use lines like "they didn't even beat their all time best ever result!"ToryJim said:
John Curtice is being spoke very highly of today. He said on this week that if UKIP got 30% it would be a "remarkable result". Now the spinners are saying that was the benchmark and failure to get it was a poor show!
Wouldnt think anything has changed for next year on the back of this. A hung parliament with UKIP getting no more than 4-5 seats. Diane JAmes looked a bit foolish when she said up to 60 was possible
In Great Yarmouth in 2010, UKIP polled 2,066 votes, over 16,000 votes behind the winner.
UKIP did not fight Castle Point in 2010.
In Thurrock UKIP polled 3,390, over 13,000 votes behind the winner.
In Thanet South UKIP polled 2,529, over 19,000 votes behind the winner.
Great Yarmouth was part of the constituency that elected UKIP's Tom Wise in 2004. Wise was jailed for expenses fraud in 2009. I'm not sure why UKIP would be popular enough there to overturn a 16,000 vote lead.
In Thurrock the Tory majority is only 92. UKIP could possibly gift this to Labour, bringing its desire for Brexit closer by securing the election of an MP bitterly opposed to it. In some way that only UKIPpers understand.
I'm struggling to understand why any of these would be a target. Your best result by poll share last time was the 6% or so in Christchurch. Although that's scant comfort, because the winner's lead over UKIP was also huge - more than 23,000 votes ahead.0 -
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 8s
#LibDems' GB by-election %-ages since GE 2010 - 9 lost deposits from 16. Only 3 polls higher than 20% #Newark
http://t.co/qMjidIWWTG0 -
Morley and Outwood? No, there will be a mix of UKIP leaning Tories and anti UKIP Tories there. Labour could improve their share of the vote.isam said:
Im not saying they will win 4-5, i am saying thats the most they will winBond_James_Bond said:
Which 4 to 5 seats will UKIP win?isam said:
Over 8,000 votes more than 2010 and 18% better share can hardly be called a disaster. Its about par, almost exactly in line with the polls/expectations. Only Eastleigh was better for UKIPSocrates said:
You know your spinning is a stretch when you have to use lines like "they didn't even beat their all time best ever result!"ToryJim said:
John Curtice is being spoke very highly of today. He said on this week that if UKIP got 30% it would be a "remarkable result". Now the spinners are saying that was the benchmark and failure to get it was a poor show!
Wouldnt think anything has changed for next year on the back of this. A hung parliament with UKIP getting no more than 4-5 seats. Diane JAmes looked a bit foolish when she said up to 60 was possible
These are their best shots IMO
Boston & Skegness
Bromsgrove
Castle Point
Dag & Rain
Dudley North
Great Grimsby
Halesown & Rowley Regis
Morley & Outwood
Newcastle Under Lyme
Plymouth Moor View
S Bas & E Thurrock
Staffordshire Moorlands
Stoke on Trent South
Telford
Thanet North
Thanet South
Thurrock
Walsall North Lads
Walsall South
West Bromwich West
Wolverhampton NE0 -
The Great Yarmouth seat not on your list, Mr. Sam? An oversight surely.isam said:
Im not saying they will win 4-5, i am saying thats the most they will winBond_James_Bond said:
Which 4 to 5 seats will UKIP win?isam said:
Over 8,000 votes more than 2010 and 18% better share can hardly be called a disaster. Its about par, almost exactly in line with the polls/expectations. Only Eastleigh was better for UKIPSocrates said:
You know your spinning is a stretch when you have to use lines like "they didn't even beat their all time best ever result!"ToryJim said:
John Curtice is being spoke very highly of today. He said on this week that if UKIP got 30% it would be a "remarkable result". Now the spinners are saying that was the benchmark and failure to get it was a poor show!
Wouldnt think anything has changed for next year on the back of this. A hung parliament with UKIP getting no more than 4-5 seats. Diane JAmes looked a bit foolish when she said up to 60 was possible
These are their best shots IMO
Boston & Skegness
Bromsgrove
Castle Point
Dag & Rain
Dudley North
Great Grimsby
Halesown & Rowley Regis
Morley & Outwood
Newcastle Under Lyme
Plymouth Moor View
S Bas & E Thurrock
Staffordshire Moorlands
Stoke on Trent South
Telford
Thanet North
Thanet South
Thurrock
Walsall North Lads
Walsall South
West Bromwich West
Wolverhampton NE
< Annecdote Alert >
I spoke to my bother last evening. He is not a natural Conservative voter being a retired London Underground train driver and, in his day, a fiery trade unionist. He now lives near Great Yarmouth. From what he told me, I should imagine that the UKIP message will go down very well indeed in that part of the world.
< /Annecdote Alert >0 -
Oh, OK - sorry for the confusion.isam said:
Im not saying they will win 4-5, i am saying thats the most they will win
These are their best shots IMO
Boston & Skegness
Bromsgrove
Castle Point
Dag & Rain
Dudley North
Great Grimsby
Halesown & Rowley Regis
Morley & Outwood
Newcastle Under Lyme
Plymouth Moor View
S Bas & E Thurrock
Staffordshire Moorlands
Stoke on Trent South
Telford
Thanet North
Thanet South
Thurrock
Walsall North Lads
Walsall South
West Bromwich West
Wolverhampton NE
As in my previous post though I'm still a bit bemused as to why any of these could be considered best shots except in a least-worst sense.
The number after each are how many votes behind the winners UKIP were in 2010.
Boston & Skegness - 17,244
Bromsgrove - 19,608
Castle Point - 19,806 (although elec calc says 0 votes, so I assume not fought)
Dag & Rain - 13,614
Dudley North - 11,007
Great Grimsby - 8,020
Halesown & Rowley Regis - 15,291
Morley & Outwood - 15,758; Ed Balls' seat saved from him by UKIP
Newcastle Under Lyme - 11,350
Plymouth Moor View - 10,657
S Bas & E Thurrock - 16,985
Staffordshire Moorlands - 16,213
Stoke on Trent South - 9,953
Telford - 12,568
Thanet North - 20,007
Thanet South - 19,514
Thurrock - 13,479
Walsall North Lads - 10,658
Walsall South - 11,007
West Bromwich West - 9,046
Wolverhampton NE - 10,826
One way in which UKIP are clearly differentiated from the others is by the fact that their "best shots" list looks a lot like a LibLabCon "no hopers" list!
Are UKIP contesting Norfolk Enchance?0 -
Peter Allen is great.TOPPING said:
Peter Allen on Radio5 in France this morning, was excellent, really from the heart. It sounded as uncomposed as I have heard him: "the boys...they were just boys...we should look at our own children and then think of them with rifles thrust into their hands...just boys..."MarqueeMark said:Watching the very emotional D-Day anniversary coverage from Normandy today, I was struck that it would have been an odd day indeed to be commenting upon a UKIP win at Newark...
If ever there is a day to feel European, today is it.
very moving.
One of the VETs on R4 this morning was pointing out that man of those boys in the graveyards of France were even younger than they are declared because they had lied about their age to sign up a year early, as he had done himself. Many would have been as young as my daughter. A really different world and a different generation.
0 -
Likewise. It would be back to the unhappy days when you agreed the economics but were frankly embarrassed about the social policies and the attitudes to those less successful than themselves.JackW said:
I would vote actively against a candidate who enjoyed a Conservative/UKIP coupon. It's like going backward to Michael Howard with knobs on.rcs1000 said:
I think there are a number of Conservative voters on this board - like JackW and Charles, for example - who have said they would vote LibDem in the event of a UKIP/Con alliance. I do not believe they are alone, and I would be very surprised if the LibDems did not see their vote share increase in Eastleigh from the by-election level.anotherDave said:
The Survation Eastleigh poll does not support that theory.rcs1000 said:
As an aside, I think a great many Conservatives in Eastleigh will vote LibDem to stop UKIP.HurstLlama said:
If Lib Dem voters are really anti-UKIP voters then surely they are not Lib Dem voters. They may make it harder for UKIP to win a seat but waht does that say about the LIB Dems as a party?rcs1000 said:
Actually, I think it was something simpler. LibDems voters are now - above all - else, anti-UKIPpers.Lennon said:OK - I'm going to be somewhat controversial here. I think that this result was good for the Lib Dems. (Not actually good, but good for MP incumbency).
If the LD vote in a no-hope seat is as low as 2.5% (and that in a seat which, whilst they were third was by no means a low vote share for them), but they are still polling 10% nationally - then they must be polling reasonably well in there incumbent seats (those voters have to be somewhere...).
(By this, I mean the remaining LibDem voters. The NOTA LibDem voters are already Kippers.)
I think their vote in Thurrock (11%), South Thanet (15%), North Thanet (19%) and other 'Kipper strongholds' is going to collapse to 2-3% levels. And a large chunk of this will seek out that party (Labour or Conservative) that is seen as most likely to stop the Kipper surge.
This is likely to make UKIP's job of securing an MP incrementally harder.
And what knobs they are.
0 -
This is why he wanted a recount - there were about half that many votes missing from the totals.OblitusSumMe said:The Independent candidate in Newark was just 45 votes short of saving his deposit.
0 -
I tend to agree with Charles where he talks about UKIP and the Tories.0
-
Oh, I remembered while I was sleeping - the help the LibDem campaign got from outside was some phone canvassing. But with so many people having 'free' minutes, that's effectively free now.0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
