politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Lord Ashcroft poll is out – Labour is on course for a major

@alstewitn: #RyderCup2014 Bit of a 'boo' there for @AlexSalmond before he presents the Cup. Shame, really...

Danny565 The gap was quite small on welfare, most of the policies the Tories proposed are backed by the public it is the explanation and PR which needs to change

KLE4 It depends too on how UKIP too in Heywood, Reckless is already the incumbent MP so slightly different case

kle4 said:

FrankBooth said:

tyson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Itajai said:

A majority of 62 would mean Labour winning 356 seats. Almost 100 gains. Do we really believe that?

Yes, the 2010 Lib Dem defectors and the 2010 Con to Kipper switchers makes Ed's job so much easier.

But Ed makes Ed's job so much harder.

It is almost impossible to see him as PM. Yet it's almost impossible to see the Tories surviving in power, what with UKIP eating up their votes, and the electoral bias against them.

Next year, something almost impossible must happen.

Some people last week speculated that Labour's brand is strong enough to cope with Ed being crap.

As I said, the most interesting poll this weekend was the one showing Labour comfortably holding Rotherham, and their share of the vote up!

It kinda proves that UKIP doing well in the North/with the working class is all fart and no follow through.

TSE- that is a pretty gross metaphor.
By the way, I want to put the LD switchers in context- they are Labour switch backers, and only gave their support to the LD's in the first place because Brown was hopeless and thought Cameron was non threatening. Now after a term of Tory govt, they are rock solid switch backers and a core Labour group.
The danger to Labour will be leakage to UKIP and apathy from the 29% who voted Brown last time- very few will go to the Tories.
After my disastrous predictions for the Scottish election, based solely on subjective bias, I predict that it is almost impossible for Labour to poll over 33% in a GE with numpty bumpy as leader, and therefore impossible for them to secure a majority.

I think fewer and fewer people identify with any party. I expect many of the LD switchers are left-leaning in general but not particularly pro-Labour. They will vote red to get rid of the Tories though.

I thought the LD switchers were showing as even more pro Ed M than 2010 Lab voters, which would suggest that if they were not particularly pro-Lab before when they thought they were voting Red Liberal, they are now, surely?

They're more pro-Ed than most, that's true. I'm not sure they are more pro-Labour than the party's core vote though. For a Ed Miliband's weaknesses, this is his one strength. He does appeal to LD>Lab switchers, a group generally uninterested in artifice and PR, who don't care whether someone knows how to eat a bacon sandwich - as NXMP has pointed out.

SeanT said:

Alanbrooke said:

Wow

FN win both senate seats in the Correze.

Thats like UKIP winning Doncaster and Rotherham.

The Correze is Hollande's *constituency*, isn't it?

yes, it's like Doncaster to Ed.

Sean_F said:

A vote share of 35%, this far out, seems a fairly shaky platform on which to project an overall majority. What if it drops 2-3%?

Largest party then. The Tories seem pretty unlikely to increase their share to the extent they can prevent that, given even winning the popular vote does not achieve that without a sizable lead.

(I am really going to look foolish in 2015 if Ed M is not at the least head of a minority government).

SeanT said:

Alanbrooke said:

Wow

FN win both senate seats in the Correze.

Thats like UKIP winning Doncaster and Rotherham.

The Correze is Hollande's *constituency*, isn't it?

@SeanT well done. Here is link to prove it.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/22/francois-hollande-france-election

Not sure if The photographer is a fan, or was there a hidden message?

SeanT said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SeanT said:

isam said:

SeanT said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Itajai said:

A majority of 62 would mean Labour winning 356 seats. Almost 100 gains. Do we really believe that?

Yes, the 2010 Lib Dem defectors and the 2010 Con to Kipper switchers makes Ed's job so much easier.

t UKIP doing well in the North/with the working class is all fart and no follow through.

It kinda don't

Ukip are massively on the up in the North... Anyone denying it is ignoring all evidence...

number crunchers blog showed that UKIP are eating into labours vote too, just because it isn't producing instant results, doesn't mean it isn't slowly but surely happening

18 months ago I offered 4/6 ukip under 10% to a few lucky punters on here... Ladbrokes were 1/6 at the time... They thought they were on a good thing, but the odds say different now

in terms of GE 2015, maybe not too many if any ukip gains from labour, but if you want to bet on the number in 2020 I'm happy to take you or anyone else on

they will seize support from all parties, especially Labour in the north.

Look at the betting markets over the last 18 months... Ukip to do well in any way you wish to suggest has shortened in price

If 18 months ago you'd predicted

Won euros
Scottish MEP
Two Tory defectors
Established as 3rd in polls
Odds on favourites for three parliamentary seats
13/8 to win five or more

People on here would never have had it ... But it's all true

My girlfriend - 26 years old, WWC, policewoman - says her family have never voted before. But now they ARE voting. And they're all voting UKIP.

We heard a lot of similar tales from the Yes camp just a couple of weeks ago. Colour me sceptical.

Um, the YES camp got 45% of the Scottish vote on a record-breakingly high turnout. The tales the YES camp were telling proved to be true: lots of new, old, Laboury voters were coming out for YES.

The trouble was that NO achieved an even higher turnout of old/young, rural righties and they carried the day.

But the YES camp were quite correct in the anecdata.

Turnout was noticeably lower than the indyref average in places like Glasgow and Dundee.

Indeed the 45ers should direct their ire at their countrymen who could not be bothered.

Sean_F said:

A vote share of 35%, this far out, seems a fairly shaky platform on which to project an overall majority. What if it drops 2-3%?

35% is hardly a glass ceiling for Labour, when UKIP were dropping back a month or two ago it pushed Labour into the high thirties. There's also some 2010 Labour voters to win back from "don't know", as well as a small Green vote to try and squeeze.

SeanT said:

isam said:

SeanT said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SeanT said:

isam said:

SeanT said:

isam said:

SeanT said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Itajai said:

A majority of 62 would mean Labour winning 356 seats. Almost 100 gains. Do we really believe that?

Yes, the 2010 Lib Dem defectors and the 2010 Con to Kipper switchers makes Ed's job so much easier.

t UKIP doing well in the North/with the working class is all fart and no follow through.

in terms of GE 2015, maybe not too many if any ukip gains from labour, but if you want to bet on the number in 2020 I'm happy to take you or anyone else on

they will seize support from all parties, especially Labour in the north.

If you had told me four years ago I'd be voting ukip I'd have laughed in your face


People on here would never have had it ... But it's all true

My girlfriend - 26 years old, WWC, policewoman - says her family have never voted before. But now they ARE voting. And they're all voting UKIP.

She got any single mates??!

Yeah, but they seem, mainly, to be gay men.

How important is gender to you, as compared to single status?

Gay men planning to vote kipper? I suppose Roger Helmer may appeal to the BDSM demographic.

in Vulcano, the Aeolians. Ah, dolce far niente.

I went to the Aeolians in 2012 with a 25 year old girl who was HOT!

Annoying though... Have you been to Lipari yet?

I avoided Lipari. I've done Stromboli, Panarea, Salina and now - my last island - Vulcano. The Aeolians are magnificent.

It helps that I am staying in a serious of ludicrously luxe hotels for free, courtesy of R Murdoch Esq.

My fave bit was Stromboli. They are having a once-in-a-decade eruption when the lava pours down the mountain right into the sea, like a river of furious gold. At night, under the Mediterranean stars, is is indescribably moving and beautiful, like the earth is bleeding giant orange diamonds.

What a wonderful world.

*sob*

Ah I wanted to do all that... In a less expensive way... But in a holiday dominated by rows I ended up only going to Vulcano... Lipari was pretty boring, good swerve

If it hadn't been for my "I Partridge"book I'd have been home after two days!

Thinking about it, it would probably be better for UKIP to try and develop a term for 'leaving the EU', that was more accurate and less scary sounding. After all, we wouldn't be going anywhere, or left without an army, a currency, a diplomatic service, any government departments, or any of the essential organs of a state. Something like 'resigning' from the EU, or 'cancelling our membership', or 'terminating our membership' -like it's a monthly bill we can no longer afford (which essentially it is).

PeterC said:

I just wonder whether the Reckless defection will rebound on him. Call me old fashioned but I do find it pretty ugly behaviour when a man sets out to cause maximum damage and embarrassment to his erstwhile friends and colleagues. I know that a man must do what a man must do, but I for one would never treat my own friends and colleagues like that. If Reckless loses it will serve him right IMO.

Especially when he lies about it so blatantly - and, to make it worse, in this case, he had the temerity to accuse others of dishonesty:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/28/david-cameron-ukip-mark-reckless

Swiss_Bob said:

With a lead so small I don't think I'll be taking much notice of polls until February.

There are too many undecideds. In the New Year campaigning will begin in earnest and people will only decide once they see the candidates.

Not really. If you take the latest YG, just 15% are undecided, and only 9/10% of those who voted Con/Lab last time. This weekend again, canvassing a strong Lab ward and two strong Con wards, I found most people absolutely sure how they'd vote - which is wildly different from most past elections. I didn't find a huge swing to UKIP - they were on 5-8% in the Tory wards and 2% in the Labour one.

Richard_Nabavi said:

PeterC said:

I just wonder whether the Reckless defection will rebound on him. Call me old fashioned but I do find it pretty ugly behaviour when a man sets out to cause maximum damage and embarrassment to his erstwhile friends and colleagues. I know that a man must do what a man must do, but I for one would never treat my own friends and colleagues like that. If Reckless loses it will serve him right IMO.

Especially when he lies about it so blatantly - to make it worse, in this case, he had the temerity to accuse others of dishonesty:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/28/david-cameron-ukip-mark-reckless
</blockquote

I assume you felt the same when Campbell - Bannerman defected from UKIP to the Tories though for the life of me I don't remember you criticising him.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

PeterC said:

I just wonder whether the Reckless defection will rebound on him. Call me old fashioned but I do find it pretty ugly behaviour when a man sets out to cause maximum damage and embarrassment to his erstwhile friends and colleagues. I know that a man must do what a man must do, but I for one would never treat my own friends and colleagues like that. If Reckless loses it will serve him right IMO.

Especially when he lies about it so blatantly - to make it worse, in this case, he had the temerity to accuse others of dishonesty:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/28/david-cameron-ukip-mark-reckless

Did he lie about it immediately beforehand?

isam said:

Why don't the Tories on here just copy and paste their sobs and smears from when Carswell saw sense and left and change the names. Or have they??

I thought that was done at precisely the optimum time to cause aggro? But now it seems Reckless did that.

So if someone else defects just before Cameron's big speech... Does that trump this one???

Actually there was rather little criticism of Carswell, other than to point out that the defection was counter-productive and that it was discourteous not to tell Cameron in advance. Almost no-one accused him of a lack of integrity. But then, Mark Reckless is no Carswell.

Interesting Ashcroft passage on incumbency bonus:
---------
Reviewing the results of my seat-by-seat surveys published since May, we find that while the Lib Dem vote climbs when voters in Lib Dem seats are asked to think about their local area, this is not always the case for the Conservative vote in Conservative seats. Indeed, in the last group of Conservative-held marginals I surveyed in July, the Tory vote fell on the “own constituency” question more often than it rose. So what is going on?

Much of the discussion about this subject effect seems to assume that the incumbency effect is something that just happens to a politician. But it is not – it is something he or she creates (or doesn’t). Incumbency is not so much an advantage in itself as an opportunity to build a profile, make a reputation, and achieve the things that will ultimately be rewarded on election day. I suspect new MPs, knowing they will have a battle to hold on to their often marginal seats, have in the past worked harder than most, thereby creating what has become known as the “first-time” effect. I further suspect that some have registered the existence of the phenomenon without having understood the reasons for it, and now think it will be bestowed upon them gratis by a benevolent electorate.
--------
FWIW, I'm finding the anti-politics mood is, oddly, helping me slightly, because most constituents have met me personally over the years after 18 years of weekly door-knocking, so the "All the politicians on TV are rubbish but we know you" view isn't uncommon. Because the sitting MP is a busy Minister, she hasn't had time to build up the same "We had a nice chat in our front room" rapport.

Well we know now that the mother of all marginals is St. Austell & Newquay.
Plus Simon Hughes is in real danger.

Speedy said:

Well we know now that the mother of all marginals is St. Austell & Newquay.
Plus Simon Hughes is in real danger.

I think it's a tribute to Hughes that he's still in the game. If he holds on, it would be one hell of an achievement.

JBriskin said:

The 45% will be happy - and they'll even get to keep their bedroom tax!!!!

Silly 45

tut tut briskin, have you been on the singing ginger

foxinsoxuk said:

@SeanT

I am right. It was the newly registered supposed YES voters that failed to turnout on the day, relative to other voters. Overall the turnout was high, but the DNV still largely DNV.

Can't speak for Dundee, but the turnout for Glasgow was lowest in its most affluent constituency, Kelvin. I'd imagine it would also have had the lowest number of newly registered potential voters.

Richard_Nabavi said:

isam said:

They did what they thought best, I can't see the need to criticise either

Doing what you think is best is one thing. Lying about it is another.

Don't sweat the small stuff

Richard_Tyndall said:

If by lie you mean deny he was going to do it then yes. More to the point he didn't even have the decency to surrender his seat though it had been won on a party list. Still don't remember you complaining about that.

On the first point, I don't remember (in fact to be honest I hardly even noticed his defection). If he lied as blatantly as Mark Reckless then I criticise him for that, because as you know I value integrity above all.

On the party list point, I believe I did criticise him for it.

Incidentally, I see UKIP's economic spokesman was being a bit economical with the truth, or perhaps he's not really the economic spokesman. Either way it turns out one can't believe him. Anyway the idiotic tax on bling lasted less than 48 hours.

IMO Shapps was a touch OTT today. All this talk of lying and betrayal reflects badly on both sides. Hardly smacks of confidence or water off a duck's back. Tories look wounded.

JBriskin said:

[But the YES camp were quite correct in the anecdata.]

They were asking SCOTTISH people if they were Scottish - and got 45%.

Epic fails.

Far from a fail Briskin , given it had never ever been above 30% , lots of water to go under the bridge yet , the unionists will be like ferrets in a sack and if we do not see home rule as promised then it will be game on once again very quickly. So far it is far from a defeat. SNP have quadrupled membership, now at 70K versus labour lucky to be above 10K , and Tories an also ran , Greens now approaching 2nd highest number of members. A lot to play for yet, if powers are not in place before May and lots of them then it will be fun.

Jonathan said:

IMO Shapps was a touch OTT today. All this talk of lying and betrayal reflects badly on both sides. Hardly smacks of confidence or water off a duck's back. Tories look wounded.

I think it reflects genuine anger. It's probably a good thing from a motivational point of view - I think they will fight back vigorously in Rochester & Strood.

Artist said:

Speedy said:

Well we know now that the mother of all marginals is St. Austell & Newquay.
Plus Simon Hughes is in real danger.

Labour are actually on 13% in that seat, I checked the tables as it didn't look right.

LD 36, LAB 35.

Speedy said:

Well we know now that the mother of all marginals is St. Austell & Newquay.
Plus Simon Hughes is in real danger.

The current Lib Dem MP Stephen Gilbert had not been reselected as at 20th Sept 2014. He was diagnosed with “Bell’s Palsy” in Feb, is that the reason for the delay or is he considering standing down? Unusual as LDs usually reselect very early.

JBriskin said:

I work on +/- >5 ..........

I did have some Pinot yesterday though!!!!!!!

Briskin, you going poncy, beginning to think you are a Tory

ThomasNashe said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

ThomasNashe said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

ThomasNashe said:

dr_spyn said:

Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 37s
Uh-oh. Now Grant Shapps (or his account) follows porn star, dominatrix + erotic writer on Twitter. http://www.buzzfeed.com/hannahjewell/grant-shapps-follows-at-least-one-porn-star-on-twitter#3ns9l70 …

I wonder if he is on speaking terms with the MP for Devizes, she might not be impressed.

Any idea what the seagull did to upset him? Defected to UKIP, perhaps?

He’s currently following over 27 thousand people on Twitter, a feat likely to have been accomplished with the help of a Twitter bot which rapidly follows unsuspecting Twitter users.

Of course, but it's his picture and his name (or at least one of them) that's doing the following. He's an absolute idiot.

You clearly know nothing about twitter. It is totally standard way of building a following, you will find pretty much every company does it. If he had no followers, he wouldn't be doing his job properly to promote his party.

I bet if you go and look at Labour / Labour MPs they do the same, and lets not forget about what Mr Harperson got caught doing on twitter, and that certainly wasn't a "bot".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2511016/Harriet-Harmans-MP-husband-Jack-Dromey-adds-gay-porn-Tweet-favourites.html

Maybe I don't know much about Twitter, but I do know a bit about Politics - and it's generally not a good idea for a politician to act in a way that will invite mockery.

The Labour Party Twitter feed follows 15k people, Tom Watson instance follows 11k people on twitter. You think they sat there clicking the follow button on all of those?

I bet if I take I look I can one or two interesting characters among over 25k twitter accounts.

As I say, it is absolutely standard practice if you are in online market place to use a bot to handle your follows / followers. You start it off with a list of closely connected individuals, but it will go off and try and follow people that your list follows.

I have been involved in this and grown accounts from nothing to 1000's of followers in a few weeks with no outside PR, and although picked up really good active audience, I know for a fact that our bot ended up following / accept a follow from several individuals who just tweeted pornographic material (which was a million miles away from the dry list we gave it).

UKIP should target St.Austell alright, just looked at the tables and its also the seat where Tory voters rule out UKIP the second least from all other seats.

JBriskin said:

Only in the PB sense Malky - anyway, you and your 45 have clearly got stamina so I'm putting this down as FP1

LOL, it is going to be for the long haul, only just beginning, though I would settle for home rule. I doubt the unionists will keep to their vow.

SeanT said:

foxinsoxuk said:

@SeanT

I am right. It was the newly registered supposed YES voters that failed to turnout on the day, relative to other voters. Overall the turnout was high, but the DNV still largely DNV.

FFS. Glasgow got a turnout of 75%, Dundee got a turnout of 79%.

By comparison some parts of Glasgow recorded a sub-50% turnout in the GE of 2010.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/17/scottish-independence-polling-votes-results-to-watch

So you're completely wrong in every respect. The YES canvassers were correct that people were registering to vote YES in huge and unprecedented numbers. It's just that NO voters did the same, and there are even more of them.

Shall we stop this now, Mr Pinhead MD? Good.

So 25% of Glaswegians and 21% of Dundonians stuck with DNV in a once in a generation election.

While the poll did go up in these DNV strongholds, DNVers are still a substantial minority.

It is not always a binary division. The DNV vote is higher in Council elections than National elections, and higher still in such plebiscites. Low in Euro elections too.

There will be some DNVers who vote UKIP, but also many who talk the talk, but do not walk the walk.

IOS said:

Grandiose

The fact its coming out now shows how the Tories have lost the narrative a little.

As opposed to Labour who haven't had a narrative since 2010.

I suspect Nigel Farage knows down well that his best chance of support is tory voters, not labour ones.

He is selling tory waverers a vision of an election where labour will be shattered by UKIP as well as the tories, and thus it will be OK, in that case, to vote UKIP.

Heywood and Middleton might disabuse a few of that notion.

SeanT said:

malcolmg said:

JBriskin said:

[But the YES camp were quite correct in the anecdata.]

They were asking SCOTTISH people if they were Scottish - and got 45%.

Epic fails.

Far from a fail Briskin , given it had never ever been above 30% , lots of water to go under the bridge yet , the unionists will be like ferrets in a sack and if we do not see home rule as promised then it will be game on once again very quickly. So far it is far from a defeat. SNP have quadrupled membership, now at 70K versus labour lucky to be above 10K , and Tories an also ran , Greens now approaching 2nd highest number of members. A lot to play for yet, if powers are not in place before May and lots of them then it will be fun.

Serious question: will Sturgeon put indyref in the manifesto for Holyrood 2016?

If she does I think it would be suicidal:

1. It will cause huge business uncertainty, tanking the Scottish economy (this time banks will move south before the event)

2. She will probably lose more votes than she gains (let's face it, NO won, by a margin), so damaging the SNP's chances

3. It will look deeply disrespectful to the Scottish electorate, and towards democracy, esp after Salmond said the issue was settled for a generation, either way.

4. It will look hugely premature, as the country will only have just received Home Rule (pr versions thereof)

and yet

4. She now has 70,000 members most of whom are indyref fundamentalists, so she will be under pressure to promise another vote, even tho she will know (for the reasons above) that it would be a grave political error

She has problems.

I cannot see it being in 2016 manifesto at all , unless the unionists renege and SNP make huge inroads in 2015 GE, and even then doubtful. Looking at events so far it appears unionists are determined to mess up their victory though. They have been back pedaling , fracking a perfect example. It will all depend on what powers they propose.

RodCrosby said:

Oh, stop whining about Reckless. When you are considering defection, you don't give your colleagues 6 months notice...

No, but you don't tell bare-faced lies to your friends and colleagues less than 24 hours beforehand either and timing that announcement to do maximum damage to them.

It's seen as self-serving and vindictive: you run the risk of losing both trust and respect.

Speedy said:

Artist said:

Speedy said:

Well we know now that the mother of all marginals is St. Austell & Newquay.
Plus Simon Hughes is in real danger.

Labour are actually on 13% in that seat, I checked the tables as it didn't look right.

LD 36, LAB 35.

I meant in St Austell, the report above has Labour on 25%. I think LD will hold it when tactical voting comes into play.

Casino_Royale said:

RodCrosby said:

Oh, stop whining about Reckless. When you are considering defection, you don't give your colleagues 6 months notice...

No, but you don't tell bare-faced lies to your friends and colleagues less than 24 hours beforehand either and timing that announcement to do maximum damage to them.

It's seen as self-serving and vindictive: you run the risk of losing both trust and respect.

The Tory reaction does remind me of the Black Adder Goes Forth discussion on spies


Captain Darling: So you see, Blackadder, Field Marshall Haig is most anxious to eliminate all these German spies.

General Melchett: Filthy hun weasels, fighting their dirty underhand war!

Captain Darling: And fortunately, one of our spies...

General Melchett: Splendid fellows, brave heroes risking life and limb for Blighty!

SeanT said:

ThomasNashe said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

ThomasNashe said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

ThomasNashe said:

dr_spyn said:

Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 37s
Uh-oh. Now Grant Shapps (or his account) follows porn star, dominatrix + erotic writer on Twitter. http://www.buzzfeed.com/hannahjewell/grant-shapps-follows-at-least-one-porn-star-on-twitter#3ns9l70 …

I wonder if he is on speaking terms with the MP for Devizes, she might not be impressed.

Any idea what the seagull did to upset him? Defected to UKIP, perhaps?

He’s currently following over 27 thousand people on Twitter, a feat likely to have been accomplished with the help of a Twitter bot which rapidly follows unsuspecting Twitter users.

Of course, but it's his picture and his name (or at least one of them) that's doing the following. He's an absolute idiot.

You clearly know nothing about twitter. It is totally standard way of building a following, you will find pretty much every company does it. If he had no followers, he wouldn't be doing his job properly to promote his party.

I bet if you go and look at Labour / Labour MPs they do the same, and lets not forget about what Mr Harperson got caught doing on twitter, and that certainly wasn't a "bot".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2511016/Harriet-Harmans-MP-husband-Jack-Dromey-adds-gay-porn-Tweet-favourites.html

Maybe I don't know much about Twitter, but I do know a bit about Politics - and it's generally not a good idea for a politician to act in a way that will invite mockery.

Yes. You know nothing about Twitter.

Nor do millions of older voters.

But what they would pick up from this story is 'Top Tory being sleazy'.

Grant Shapps is meant to promote the Conservative party to people who might vote for them, that may not be metropolitan 'sophisticates' as who follow Twitter.

Mr. Richard, then the media should report things more responsibly/accurately.

Yes, yes, I know that's as likely as my dog sprouting wings, but they should.