politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Survation finds CON to LAB swing of 7.3% with the LDs dropp

Pulpstar said:

JackW said:

BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS ****

The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest ARSE 2015 General Election and "JackW Dozen" Projections. (Change from 10th June Projection) :

Con 312 (-3) .. Lab 274 (+3) .. LibDem 32 (+1) .. SNP 8 .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 2 (-1) .. Respect 0 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1

Conservatives 14 seats short of a majority
......................................................................................

"JackW Dozen" - 13 seats that will shape the General Election result :

Bury North - TCTC
Pudsey - TCTC
Broxtowe - Likely Lab Gain
Warwickshire North - Likely Lab Gain
Cambridge - Likely LibDem Hold
Ipswich - TCTC
Watford - TCTC
Croydon Central - Likely Con Hold
Enfield - TCTC (From Likely Con Hold)
Cornwall North - TCTC
Great Yarmouth - Likely Con Hold
Vale of Glamorgan - Likely Con Hold
Ochill and South Perthshire - TCTC

Changes From 10th June - Enfield moves from Likely Con Hold to TCTC.

TCTC - Too Close To Call - Less than 500 votes
Likely Hold/Gain - 500 - 2500 votes
Gain/Hold - Over 2500
.......................................................................................

WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division
JNN - Jacobite News Network
ARSE - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors

I'd expect Pudsey to go to Labour - how come you have it TCTC ?

JackW said:

Pulpstar said:

JackW said:

BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS ****

The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to the JNN the contents of the latest ARSE 2015 General Election and "JackW Dozen" Projections. (Change from 10th June Projection) :

Con 312 (-3) .. Lab 274 (+3) .. LibDem 32 (+1) .. SNP 8 .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. UKIP 2 (-1) .. Respect 0 .. Green 1 .. Ind 0 .. Speaker 1

Conservatives 14 seats short of a majority
......................................................................................

"JackW Dozen" - 13 seats that will shape the General Election result :

Bury North - TCTC
Pudsey - TCTC
Broxtowe - Likely Lab Gain
Warwickshire North - Likely Lab Gain
Cambridge - Likely LibDem Hold
Ipswich - TCTC
Watford - TCTC
Croydon Central - Likely Con Hold
Enfield - TCTC (From Likely Con Hold)
Cornwall North - TCTC
Great Yarmouth - Likely Con Hold
Vale of Glamorgan - Likely Con Hold
Ochill and South Perthshire - TCTC

Changes From 10th June - Enfield moves from Likely Con Hold to TCTC.

TCTC - Too Close To Call - Less than 500 votes
Likely Hold/Gain - 500 - 2500 votes
Gain/Hold - Over 2500
.......................................................................................

WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division
JNN - Jacobite News Network
ARSE - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors

I'd expect Pudsey to go to Labour - how come you have it TCTC ?

In simple terms it's what the data from my ARSE reflects, in the same fashion and method that have proved so accurate in the past.

If I might nudge you to recall this is a projection for May 2015 not now as polls and other projections reflect.

OldKingCole said:

In the event of JackW’s ARSE coming true ....and yes I know it’s an assessment of “now” not a projection ..... there’s no way I can see the LD’s getting tied up with the Tories again.

Pulpstar said:

anotherDave said:

May 2014 local election results.

Stevenage: Con 30%, Lab 36%, LD 9%, UKIP 21%, Green 2%
Milton Keynes South: Con 28%, Lab 30%, LD 12%, UKIP 22%, Green 7%
Crawley: Con 36%, Lab 40%, LD 2%, UKIP 19%, Green 1%
Reading West: Con 24%, Lab 46%, LD 12%, UKIP 6%, Green 9%

http://www.fabians.org.uk/election-2014-the-numbers/

Just put £15 on Labour Reading West @ 11-4 - Had a look back at previous elections and it does seem to be very swingy. In fact in 2001 you could regard it as a safe seat for Labour !

Those local election results do seem to be very good for Labour too there.

Richard_Nabavi said:

MikeSmithson said:

There is no way that LDs will do a S&C deal with LAB particularly if they have most seats on fewer votes.

Very interesting post, Mike.

As I've said in the past, there is a significant risk that the next GE may end up with a result where no stable government can be formed. The financial markets haven't yet woken up to this risk - in the past few months there have an increasing number of articles and analysts' research notes pointing to the political danger of GE2015, but almost always only in the context of how much of a danger Ed Miliband poses to our prosperity, not the danger of no effective government at all.

Garethofthevale said:

Pulpstar said:

anotherDave said:

May 2014 local election results.

Stevenage: Con 30%, Lab 36%, LD 9%, UKIP 21%, Green 2%
Milton Keynes South: Con 28%, Lab 30%, LD 12%, UKIP 22%, Green 7%
Crawley: Con 36%, Lab 40%, LD 2%, UKIP 19%, Green 1%
Reading West: Con 24%, Lab 46%, LD 12%, UKIP 6%, Green 9%

http://www.fabians.org.uk/election-2014-the-numbers/

Just put £15 on Labour Reading West @ 11-4 - Had a look back at previous elections and it does seem to be very swingy. In fact in 2001 you could regard it as a safe seat for Labour !

Those local election results do seem to be very good for Labour too there.

Pulpstar - just to warn you that those Fabian figures are based only on the Reading wards of Reading West and exclude the West Berkshire wards, which did not vote this year. The West Berks wards are much more friendly to the Tories. Personally I don't see Miliband being able to win over enough "Blair Tories" to take this back.

JackW said:

OldKingCole said:

See what you mean, Mr W, but I think it would be a very hard deal to negotiate. On both sides!

However, what I really hope is that neither Lab or Tories feel it appropriate to rely on the DUP!

Post election last time commentators thought the deal would be intractable, lengthy and fraught with difficulties. However as I expected both sides were extremely pragmatic and the personal relationships between the two negotiating teams were cordial.

I'm not too sure it would be much different next time, after all what's the realistic and viable alternative on those figures ?

NickPalmer said:

Hi Hopi - yes, there's an apolitical statistical point that we wouldn't dream of drawing any conclusions about something complex for which we only had a dozen or so postwar data points. The current position is actually nothing like anything we've experienced - coalition, strong fourth party, etc. - and history doesn't tell us anything very useful at all.

Socrates said:

Privatisation has meant:

- A better safety record
- A better punctuality record
- Nicer trains
- More passengers
- More investment
- Lower subsidy per passenger mile

What's not to like? Those arguing for nationalisation are basically arguing for wealthy come county commuters to be subsidised by the taxpayer so they can live more affordably in the suburbs.

Lucian_Fletcher said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm going to take the 5/1 on Jimmy

William Hill ‏@sharpeangle 3m

Next Permanent England Test Capt: 7/4 Ian Bell, 3/1 Stuart Broad, 5 James Anderson, Matt Prior, 10 Eoin Morgan, 20 Joe Root, 33 Sam Robson.


Edit: Jimmy is 8/1 with Paddy Power.

The way Jimmy bowled yesterday afternoon, that would be akin to giving Cook the captaincy now. If Cook was old. It is why I think Cook will stay. Sacking him means surely giving it to Bell as he's the only man certain to keep his place until the next Ashes. Nobody else has any form over a decent period.

Socrates said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Socrates said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

As a frequent user of rail in this country, pre and post privatisation, the changes have been undoubtedly for the better.

I think where a lot of people have issues is the prices of tickets, which compared to Europe and America, mile for mile, is a lot more expensive.

My second frequent journey is Manchester Piccadilly to London Euston, an open first class ticket costs close to £400.

Flying Manchester to London is around £100.

And that flight is an open, first class ticket, is it?

Sadly BA don't do first class on that journey.

An open standard return train ticket is close to £200

Surely a restricted standard ticket would be the fair comparison?

Pulpstar said:

How about...

Renationalise the railways
Charge the market rate for fares
Remove Gov't subsidies from the rails.
Reinvest all profits into the railways

PClipp said:

The Lib Dems must be pretty active in your area, Jack, if they offer you five Focus leaflets a week for you to decline!

But perhaps you mean they leave one in each letterbox of your Highland mansion?

Richard_Nabavi said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

What do you think the likelihood of 2015 having two general elections is ?

Very hard to say, there are lots of uncertainties. First of all there would to be a hung parliament (say 50% chance), and then we'd have to guess what the LibDems, or possibly the DUP, would do. I take Jack's point about why the LibDems should want to continue the coalition, but, even if the arithmetic makes this possible, it's not clear to me that the LibDem party would accept even if the top echelons wanted to. Equally Cameron would have an uphill struggle selling another coalition to the Conservative Party. Alternatively, we could end up with a situation where neither of Con+LD or Lab+LD has a majority, or we could end up with Lab+LD arithmetically possible. In the latter case, it's going to be a bit odd for the LibDems to enter a new coalition undoing much of what they just done, so that doesn't look an easy deal either even if Labour wanted it.

Putting all that together, the chance of a minority government must be fairly high - maybe 20% at a guess?

I don't think a minority government would be at all stable, but that doesn't mean it would collapse in 2015; it might struggle on in increasing chaos until the other parties jointly decided it was in their interests to switch off the life-support machine. When that moment would come is anyone's guess.

volcanopete said:

Far too much reliance on the bogus empiricism of SMERSH,ARSE and any number of other "systems" on this site.I am reminded of the similar snake-oil salesmen in the horse racing world selling guaranteed riches from their particular system.
In today's changed political environment it might just pay to remain an eclectic contrarian.

MikeSmithson said:

The problem with the two elections in 2015 theory is the Fixed Term Parliament Act. This effectively takes away the option that Harold Wilson had in 1974 to call a second general election in the year.

There are provisions in the act to allow a general election but that requires the cooperation of enough parties to produce a two-thirds majority agreeing to the notion. Why should they do that?

MikeSmithson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

What do you think the likelihood of 2015 having two general elections is ?

Very hard to say, there are lots of uncertainties. First of all there would to be a hung parliament (say 50% chance), and then we'd have to guess what the LibDems, or possibly the DUP, would do. I take Jack's point about why the LibDems should want to continue the coalition, but, even if the arithmetic makes this possible, it's not clear to me that the LibDem party would accept even if the top echelons wanted to. Equally Cameron would have an uphill struggle selling another coalition to the Conservative Party. Alternatively, we could end up with a situation where neither of Con+LD or Lab+LD has a majority, or we could end up with Lab+LD arithmetically possible. In the latter case, it's going to be a bit odd for the LibDems to enter a new coalition undoing much of what they just done, so that doesn't look an easy deal either even if Labour wanted it.

Putting all that together, the chance of a minority government must be fairly high - maybe 20% at a guess?

I don't think a minority government would be at all stable, but that doesn't mean it would collapse in 2015; it might struggle on in increasing chaos until the other parties jointly decided it was in their interests to switch off the life-support machine. When that moment would come is anyone's guess.

The problem with the two elections in 2015 theory is the Fixed Term Parliament Act. This effectively takes away the option that Harold Wilson had in 1974 to call a second general election in the year.

There are provisions in the act to allow a general election but that requires the cooperation of enough parties to produce a two-thirds majority agreeing to the notion. Why should they do that?

The act could be repealed but that would require enough MPs to get it though and why should opposition parties give back the power to choose election dates to the PM?

TheScreamingEagles said:

dyedwoolie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm going to take the 5/1 on Jimmy

William Hill ‏@sharpeangle 3m

Next Permanent England Test Capt: 7/4 Ian Bell, 3/1 Stuart Broad, 5 James Anderson, Matt Prior, 10 Eoin Morgan, 20 Joe Root, 33 Sam Robson.


Edit: Jimmy is 8/1 with Paddy Power.

Brave. England have had a permanent bowling captain since Bob Willis, or, if we include the summer of 4 captains, John Emburey.
Jimmy is clinging on to get Sir Ian's record and the 400 and he will hang up his boots. After Ashes 2015 I would imagine. Broad a better bet but he's a moody little Mary. Bell the continuity option, Prior the right choice.
Morgan isn't an option, he's Irish and shite at test match cricket, Root isn't secure in his slot and Sam Robson is the captain after next.

Prior's keeping has become rubbish, and his batting in the last year has been shite, and in that injury problem he's got, then he's not going to last long as a player, so deffo not captain.

Anderson's a Burnley lad, and chaps from Burnley are awesome, and good at leading, be it at cricket or running a website.

Being awesome from Burnley is an impressive achievement, considering Burnley is in Lancashire

TheScreamingEagles said:

As a frequent user of rail in this country, pre and post privatisation, the changes have been undoubtedly for the better.

I think where a lot of people have issues is the prices of tickets, which compared to Europe and America, mile for mile, is a lot more expensive.

My second frequent journey is Manchester Piccadilly to London Euston, an open first class ticket costs close to £400.

Flying Manchester to London is around £100.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Rebekah Brooks found not guilty on all charges

Coulson found guilty of phone hacking

SimonStClare said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Rebekah Brooks found not guilty on all charges

Coulson found guilty of phone hacking

Interesting - and I wonder how much has this trial cost the Tax payer?

Freggles said:

Can we talk about phone hacking now?

Socrates said:

Casino_Royale said:

Socrates said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Socrates said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

As a frequent user of rail in this country, pre and post privatisation, the changes have been undoubtedly for the better.

I think where a lot of people have issues is the prices of tickets, which compared to Europe and America, mile for mile, is a lot more expensive.

My second frequent journey is Manchester Piccadilly to London Euston, an open first class ticket costs close to £400.

Flying Manchester to London is around £100.

And that flight is an open, first class ticket, is it?

Sadly BA don't do first class on that journey.

An open standard return train ticket is close to £200

Surely a restricted standard ticket would be the fair comparison?

Only around 2-3% of passengers use such tickets, mainly business travellers. The UK has some of the most expensive tickets for 'turn-up and go' instant, long-distance travel, at peak times. However, it also has some of the cheapest for tickets booked/reserved in advance. The latter are far more heavily used than the former.

£200 is more than I'd like to pay; however, once you start adding extra journey/waiting time, parking and/or taxis to/from the airport it probably doesn't compare too unfavourably with flying. Plus, you can work through Wi-Fi and make telephone calls.

It seems to be the market operating as it should be to me.

Yes, but we're not trying to work out the typical cost of a ticket. We're comparing it to the cost of flights. Flights are almost always restricted tickets, so you should compare a restricted ticket on the rail. The fact that railways have a widely-used option to pay a slight premium above this price to have flexibility is a further argument for rail over flights.

Casino_Royale said:

Speedy said:

Its not different than survation's nationwide polls, LD falling 15% nationwide here 15.2% and hitting the zero bound, Tories falling 8.7 survation has them falling 10% nationwide, the only differences are that Labour is up more than the survation national figures and UKIP by less but its London (LAB rising 5.9% survation nationwide rising 2% and UKIP rising 15.4% and nationwide 20%).

The big problem for the LD is that any lower and they are going to hit the zero bound in so many seats that it will be difficult to keep up with the zulu strategy.

As for renationalising the railways, the problem is as always you can't have many train companies on the same line, in the 19th century train companies built their own lines many next to each other to compete but today you can't do that so its either a private monopoly or a public monopoly on a regional or national scale.

Since private monopolies always tend to misuse their position to increase prices beyond a reasonable point, the only solution is a public monopoly.

Nonsense. There is plenty of competition between rail companies on primary intercity routes (London to the North/Scotland - West Coast/East Coast/Midland/Chiltern) as well as between transport modes - road, air, bus, or not travelling at all - as well as the form where rail companies both operate on the same lines. There are lots of ways rail companies can fight to increase both their absolute passenger numbers and market share.

Even if that was not the case, there are plenty of alternative models for operating successful infrastructure assets. A regulated private sector (such as we have at the moment in gas, electricity, water, aviation and telecommunications) is an eminently workable in rail as well, and much more likely to be responsive to passenger needs and more efficient that a lumbering bureaucratic nationalised monopoly.

malcolmg said:

TGOHF said:

Carnyx said:

FPT

SeanT said:

Carnyx said:

Scott_P said:

Carnyx said:

Actually, they're quite interested in HSR between Edinburgh and Glasgow and working outwards from there.

Right, but they are going to build it at zero cost?

No, so your "savings' on high speed rail are mythical, like all the SNP fiscal plans.

You aren't listening. Dependence, we pay 1.4 billion to help London get to Brum quicker. Independence, we don't. That is absolutely independent (to coin a phrase) of what we do in Scotland.

Why the F should English taxpayers fork out for an entirely unjustified high speed railway between England and a barely populated, mainly frozen, midge infested, impossibly remote, hideously declining, blatantly hostile, repulsively socialist foreign country - i.e. independent Scotland?

What's in it for us? Nothing. That's what. As long as you are part of Britain, you get the benefits of generous, sunbathed southerners in a good mood. If you leave, you become the Faroe Islands with a bit of coal in the scuttle and a history of spitting in our faces.

I doubt Anglo-Scottish transport connections will IMPROVE in that context, unless you pay for everything and give us droit du seigneur. Again.

Classic Unionist argument, in that it completely forgets to say what happens if we vote no. Which is, we don't get a HS2 line over the border anyway for 1-2 generations, so no difference there, and we end up paying for the London-Brum line. And, with the cuts and waste, a lot less of decent railway within Scotland itself.

Classic whiner argument forgetting all the investment made in Scotland - what do us Englanders get for that apart from to and from our shooting estates quicker.

You've lost the ref - move on.

First the Bangkok bar crawler talks mince and now his cretinous little acolyte tries to justify his pathetic drunken post. You low lifes really need to take a look in the mirror.