politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » UKIP hit a record 18% from YouGov in the latest daily poll
Comments
-
Just thinking about voting intentions: the rise of UKIP, the steady improvement of the Greens etc.
We may get a "PR style" breakdown in votes, next year, despite not having the voting system to match.
Anyone have markets and odds that Westminster will abolish FPTP by 2025?0 -
I bet the Germans have a word for that...TOPPING said:
Just no good at it. I think that's what Lab proved both under Kinnock and then 1997-2010. All the best will in the world, hearts in the right place, caring pseudo-democro-capitalo-socialism with NuLab characteristics but when it came down to it...useless.TheWatcher said:
Kinnochio's appearance reminds us that we really dodged a bullet when he blew the General Election in 1992.TheScreamingEagles said:Godwin's law alert Klaxon
Neil Kinnock has admitted that Labour is still seen by the public as “the incompetent party” when it comes to the economy.
He compared Chancellor George Osborne with the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels for the “big lie” that Labour was “not fit to govern”.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/neil-kinnock-accuses-osborne-of-behaving-like-goebbels-9795636.html
That is what will be going through voters' minds come May 2015.0 -
Kinnock was the Varro to Blair's Scipio AfricanusMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Watcher, maybe.
It led, ultimately, to a Blair landslide and 13 years of Labour. Disaster in the Middle East, economy a smouldering ruin, long-term cracks riven into a hitherto strong union for petty partisan advantage. Would Kinnock have been worse?
I'm too young (and not a student of recent events) to say.0 -
It's the usual UK situation - company managements think short term and prefer to spend money on cheap labour rather than on investing in training, R&D, plant and machinery. It's ever been thus.HurstLlama said:
But why, Mr. Robert? Why has productivity stagnated? Nobody in politics in government or out of it seems to accept that there is even a question that needs to be looked at let alone answered. Yet until productivity improves we as a nation ain't going to get any richer.rcs1000 said:
0 -
To answer your question: the UK. Every time.rcs1000 said:0 -
Miss Plato, I make some horrendous typos. In my WIP, I had something like "that sort of western" where 'western' clearly was a mistake and was meant to be an insult (something like whore, harlot, etc) but I have no idea what it was meant to be.
Miss Vance, do the Kippers realise that there won't be a referendum if Miliband's PM?0 -
Mr. Eagles, wash your mouth out with soap, young man!0
-
If Labour win a majority of 32% of the vote why would they abolish FPTP ?Casino_Royale said:Just thinking about voting intentions: the rise of UKIP, the steady improvement of the Greens etc.
We may get a "PR style" breakdown in votes, next year, despite not having the voting system to match.
Anyone have markets and odds that Westminster will abolish FPTP by 2025?0 -
That's a big if.TheScreamingEagles said:
If Labour win a majority of 32% of the vote why would they abolish FPTP ?Casino_Royale said:Just thinking about voting intentions: the rise of UKIP, the steady improvement of the Greens etc.
We may get a "PR style" breakdown in votes, next year, despite not having the voting system to match.
Anyone have markets and odds that Westminster will abolish FPTP by 2025?0 -
There's also the fact that a lot of existing employees work for companies for whom demand has fallen, but they expect it to pick up at some stage so haven't laid them off. That doesn't mean the individual workers aren't capable of being more productive - it's just they have less work per person at the moment.rcs1000 said:
Everyone knows why productivity has fallen, it's not a surprise:HurstLlama said:
But why, Mr. Robert? Why has productivity stagnated? Nobody in politics in government or out of it seems to accept that there is even a question that needs to be looked at let alone answered. Yet until productivity improves we as a nation ain't going to get any richer.rcs1000 said:
1. Finance and Oil & Gas, two of the most 'productive' sectors in the UK economy (in terms of units of output per worker) have declined since 2007. In the former case, it's because the banks have been in full scale retreat. While for Oil & Gas, it is the inevitable consequence of declining North Sea oil fields.
2. Our unemployment rate is falling. Because workers who are 'taken on' are the ones of who add the least incremental output (otherwise they would have been employed before), it is almost inevitable that when unemployment is falling rapidly, then measured productivity will stagnate at best. Spain's productivity went up for the same reason in reverse: if you fire the least productive workers, then productivity statistics goes up.0 -
They'll hastily bring it in when they drop to about 20% in the polls halfway through their term.TheScreamingEagles said:
If Labour win a majority of 32% of the vote why would they abolish FPTP ?Casino_Royale said:Just thinking about voting intentions: the rise of UKIP, the steady improvement of the Greens etc.
We may get a "PR style" breakdown in votes, next year, despite not having the voting system to match.
Anyone have markets and odds that Westminster will abolish FPTP by 2025?
Also they'll bring in new powers for cities whilst not giving the same to rural areas to try and hang onto as much power as possible.0 -
I explicitly say otherwise, when I state that the lower cost of Labour is leading businesses to employ more people, rather than invest in improving productivity.Socrates said:
You speak as if the jobs on offer is a fixed amount. In my experience there are often situations where you offer more jobs when you know there are willing candidates out there to take them.OblitusSumMe said:
People can't take jobs that aren't offered. The effect of both (3) and (4) is mostly seen in deflation in the cost of Labour - which leads to businesses changing the balance of employment and investment.Socrates said:
(3) Private companies effectively incentivised have done a far better job of getting people off the dole than the useless Job CentresOblitusSumMe said:
The two most likely explanations in my view are that:antifrank said:The massive drop in the unemployment rate over the last few years is an unexplained mystery. But a very welcome one.
(1) Deflation in the cost of labour has encouraged businesses to employ more workers, rather than to make investments in using their existing workers more efficiently. This helps to explain the weakness of productivity growth and the low level of business investment.
(2) Jobcentre staff have been advising people to declare as self-employed so that they fall off the unemployment figures and can claim more generous in-work benefits free of the threat of sanctions - but that most of these newly self-employed do not have a viable business, or any business, at all. This helps to explain the lack of the expected growth in income tax receipts.
There's only anecdotal evidence for (2) at the moment, and I think (1) is most likely to explain the majority of the fall in unemployment. This is very much in the realms of plausible explanations than anything definitive, though.
(4) The shift to reduced out of work benefits is putting more of a fire behind people to find jobs.
Although I don't think there's any evidence for (3) - the private businesses seem to have been even more inept than the jobcentres in some cases.
However, it's the lower cost of Labour that is driving this, which is probably at least partly a consequence of a greater willingness to work. This then suggests that Tory economic policy is unable to deliver both low unemployment and rising wages.0 -
They don't want a referendum.....because they've read the polls which say they would lose if Cameron recommended the revised terms.Morris_Dancer said:
Miss Vance, do the Kippers realise that there won't be a referendum if Miliband's PM?
If the Scots can have a Neverendum, I guess the rest of the UK is heading for one too.....
0 -
John Curtice thinks that Sunday's Survation poll, Con 31%, Lab 31%, UKIP 25%, would result in Labour winning 253 seats, Conservatives 187, UKIP 128. That's not quite proportionate, but it would be hard to see FPTP surviving, unless the Conservatives were to collapse, like the Liberals in 1924, and the contest became Labour v UKIP.Socrates said:
That's a big if.TheScreamingEagles said:
If Labour win a majority of 32% of the vote why would they abolish FPTP ?Casino_Royale said:Just thinking about voting intentions: the rise of UKIP, the steady improvement of the Greens etc.
We may get a "PR style" breakdown in votes, next year, despite not having the voting system to match.
Anyone have markets and odds that Westminster will abolish FPTP by 2025?
0 -
Not very bright, these Kippers, are they?CarlottaVance said:The prospect of people voting out would be increased under an unpopular, pro-EU Labour prime minister who has shown little interest in reform of Britain’s relationship with Brussels, one said.
The chance of people voting out would be precisely zero under an unpopular, pro-EU Labour prime minister, for the very good reason that they wouldn't be given the opportunity to vote on the matter by an unpopular, pro-EU Labour prime minister. Or even a popular one, for that matter.0 -
If the Inners thought they'd win a referendum, we'd have had one this parliament. But the Europhile parties only ever promise referendums for periods when they know they won't be in power.CarlottaVance said:
They don't want a referendum.....because they've read the polls which say they would lose if Cameron recommended the revised terms.Morris_Dancer said:
Miss Vance, do the Kippers realise that there won't be a referendum if Miliband's PM?
If the Scots can have a Neverendum, I guess the rest of the UK is heading for one too.....0 -
Kinnock was a very good leader in a lot of ways.
He dealt with a party that had seen mass defections a few years earlier.
He dealt with Militant. If he hadn't done that, it is fair to say Labour would have been unelectable for a generation.0 -
To be fair, if we were out the EU, I doubt UKIP would be campaigning for us to have a referendum so the people could choose whether to be in or not.Socrates said:
If the Inners thought they'd win a referendum, we'd have had one this parliament. But the Europhile parties only ever promise referendums for periods when they know they won't be in power.CarlottaVance said:
They don't want a referendum.....because they've read the polls which say they would lose if Cameron recommended the revised terms.Morris_Dancer said:
Miss Vance, do the Kippers realise that there won't be a referendum if Miliband's PM?
If the Scots can have a Neverendum, I guess the rest of the UK is heading for one too.....
People who want changes to the status quo want referendums. People who want the status quo to continue don't.0 -
Shame the Tories didn't deal with their right wing in a similar way and instead egged them on.TheScreamingEagles said:Kinnock was a very good leader in a lot of ways.
He dealt with a party that had seen mass defections a few years earlier.
He dealt with Militant. If he hadn't done that, it is fair to say Labour would have been unelectable for a generation.0 -
Reasons to vote Green - Caroline Lucas is Awesome.SandyRentool said:If an increase in support for the Green Party results in Labour and LibDems greening up their manifestos, then to me that is a very good thing.
In fact, if the Labour manifesto copied & pasted great chunks of the Green manifesto, that would please me even more.
http://www.reasonstovotegreen.org.uk/
Recycled juvenile organic bovine waste - looks as if they are a jump on the next leftwing bandwagon party.0 -
Do you expect Labour to be in power until 2025?TheScreamingEagles said:
If Labour win a majority of 32% of the vote why would they abolish FPTP ?Casino_Royale said:Just thinking about voting intentions: the rise of UKIP, the steady improvement of the Greens etc.
We may get a "PR style" breakdown in votes, next year, despite not having the voting system to match.
Anyone have markets and odds that Westminster will abolish FPTP by 2025?
If Labour win a majority on 32% of the vote in 2015, which is very unlikely, I'd expect both UKIP and the Greens to grow substantially in support during the 2015-2020 parliament. Labour could be polling in the low 20s within a couple of years (behind UKIP in the mid-high 20s) and the Greens on ~10%. They would lose that majority in 2020.
The Conservatives may also do a volte-face in opposition under a new leader, recognise the political landscape has permanently changed, and that the best chance the Right has in taking power in the future is in coalition with UKIP, or with orange-book Lib Dems.
I expect some Labour backbenchers would also be uncomfortable with being in a majority government in such a position. So during the 2020-2025 parliament (assuming it's hung, which I think it almost certainly would be) a bill for PR could be advanced either on a free-vote, or through a coalition of all the non-Labour opposition parties.0 -
So who will be the Conservatives' Kinnock?TheScreamingEagles said:Kinnock was a very good leader in a lot of ways.
He dealt with a party that had seen mass defections a few years earlier.
He dealt with Militant. If he hadn't done that, it is fair to say Labour would have been unelectable for a generation.
Actually, why am I asking? I know the answer - Priti Patel.0 -
There's plenty of subsidised catering in the private sector - I presume you and Socrates don't get invited to lunch at the right places or to meet the right people!Charles said:
I was thinking it's somewhat surprising that it's clearly new enough that they mention it!Socrates said:"In truth, in every Council I visit, the subsidised canteen has gone the way of the dodo and indeed I'm often told it's only because I'm an external visitor that they get refreshments at meetings."
You say this as if it's unusual in the private sector.
Councillor allowances have clearly got out of control, as have MPs wages. There's a clear conflict of having politicians vote for their own packages, but I'm not sure how you change that.
I'd probably suggest a reworking of the overall structure (one bill, covering both councillors and MPs - with regional weighting naturally - but that councillors should be seen as pretty nominal rather than being a career - say £10 per hour or something: perhaps @JohnO an say how much time per week a councillor spends, but I'm assuming it's 10 hours max in official meetings).
Going forward it should be explicitly tied - for both MPs and councillors - to national wage rates to get away from the farce of annual votes.
Get invited to a meeting at a bank in Docklands - Nomura's catering is first class and very cheap.
On the substantive - in many Councils there is a small core of effectively full-time politicians (Cabinet members) who are about and interact with senior officers on a daily basis. Then you have the vast majority of Councillors who sit on Committees but don't do much in truth apart from a) vote the right way and b) get involved in local issues.
I think it's apocryphal but I was told of a meeting at which a newly-elected Councillor stood up and started ranting about the poor quality of the Council's building maintenance service saying "at no time have they come to fix the roof of my library" at which one of the public gallery shouted out "well, why don't you get up the ladder and fix it yourself as it's your library?"
In my experience, there are two types of Councillor - those who recognise they are members of a larger body called the Council and those who see themselves as solely the representative of some of the electors of their own patch. Fortunately, the former are growing in number and the latter diminishing.
0 -
If Labour scraped 326 seats on 32% of the vote, they'd likely face massive tactical voting against their candidates the next time. That would be another incentive to introduce PR.Casino_Royale said:
Do you expect Labour to be in power until 2025?TheScreamingEagles said:
If Labour win a majority of 32% of the vote why would they abolish FPTP ?Casino_Royale said:Just thinking about voting intentions: the rise of UKIP, the steady improvement of the Greens etc.
We may get a "PR style" breakdown in votes, next year, despite not having the voting system to match.
Anyone have markets and odds that Westminster will abolish FPTP by 2025?
If Labour win a majority on 32% of the vote in 2015, which is very unlikely, I'd expect both UKIP and the Greens to grow substantially in support during the 2015-2020 parliament. Labour could be polling in the low 20s within a couple of years (behind UKIP in the mid-high 20s) and the Greens on ~10%. They would lose that majority in 2020.
The Conservatives may also do a volte-face in opposition under a new leader, recognise the political landscape has permanently changed, and that the best chance the Right has in taking power in the future is in coalition with UKIP, or with orange-book Lib Dems.
I expect some Labour backbenchers would also be uncomfortable with being in a majority government in such a position. So during the 2020-2025 parliament (assuming it's hung, which I think it almost certainly would be) a bill for PR could be advanced either on a free-vote, or through a coalition of all the non-Labour opposition parties.
0 -
When Mark Reckless defected I nearly headlined the pieceJonathan said:
Shame the Tories didn't deal with their right wing in a similar way and instead egged them on.TheScreamingEagles said:Kinnock was a very good leader in a lot of ways.
He dealt with a party that had seen mass defections a few years earlier.
He dealt with Militant. If he hadn't done that, it is fair to say Labour would have been unelectable for a generation.
"Meet Dave's own militant tendency "0 -
Sean, thanks. Do you have a link to that analysis by John?Sean_F said:
John Curtice thinks that Sunday's Survation poll, Con 31%, Lab 31%, UKIP 25%, would result in Labour winning 253 seats, Conservatives 187, UKIP 128. That's not quite proportionate, but it would be hard to see FPTP surviving, unless the Conservatives were to collapse, like the Liberals in 1924, and the contest became Labour v UKIP.Socrates said:
That's a big if.TheScreamingEagles said:
If Labour win a majority of 32% of the vote why would they abolish FPTP ?Casino_Royale said:Just thinking about voting intentions: the rise of UKIP, the steady improvement of the Greens etc.
We may get a "PR style" breakdown in votes, next year, despite not having the voting system to match.
Anyone have markets and odds that Westminster will abolish FPTP by 2025?
0 -
Thanks for the link. Yes, I agree with most of that.dr_spyn said:
Reasons to vote Green - Caroline Lucas is Awesome.SandyRentool said:If an increase in support for the Green Party results in Labour and LibDems greening up their manifestos, then to me that is a very good thing.
In fact, if the Labour manifesto copied & pasted great chunks of the Green manifesto, that would please me even more.
http://www.reasonstovotegreen.org.uk/
Recycled juvenile organic bovine waste - looks as if they are a jump on the next leftwing bandwagon party.
0 -
It's the opposite to the militant tendency. They wanted to take over the party so they could get unpopular views in the official platform. These guys want to leave the party so they can get popular views in an official platform. It is the Cameroons that have taken over a party so that their views are enacted against the views of the bulk of the party.TheScreamingEagles said:
When Mark Reckless defected I nearly headlined the pieceJonathan said:
Shame the Tories didn't deal with their right wing in a similar way and instead egged them on.TheScreamingEagles said:Kinnock was a very good leader in a lot of ways.
He dealt with a party that had seen mass defections a few years earlier.
He dealt with Militant. If he hadn't done that, it is fair to say Labour would have been unelectable for a generation.
"Meet Dave's own militant tendency "0 -
It was in the Mail on Sunday, so may be on their website.Casino_Royale said:
Sean, thanks. Do you have a link to that analysis by John?Sean_F said:
John Curtice thinks that Sunday's Survation poll, Con 31%, Lab 31%, UKIP 25%, would result in Labour winning 253 seats, Conservatives 187, UKIP 128. That's not quite proportionate, but it would be hard to see FPTP surviving, unless the Conservatives were to collapse, like the Liberals in 1924, and the contest became Labour v UKIP.Socrates said:
That's a big if.TheScreamingEagles said:
If Labour win a majority of 32% of the vote why would they abolish FPTP ?Casino_Royale said:Just thinking about voting intentions: the rise of UKIP, the steady improvement of the Greens etc.
We may get a "PR style" breakdown in votes, next year, despite not having the voting system to match.
Anyone have markets and odds that Westminster will abolish FPTP by 2025?
He cautioned that he was using the sub-samples. He said in theory, UKIP could fail to win a single seat, with 25%, but in practice, their vote had risen by far more than average in the South outside London.
0 -
Andrew Neil pointing out to the Hon Hunt that the top 10% of income tax payers are paying 60% of income tax while bottom 50% pay 10%......which as Neil points out may be a tricky proposition to go after the rich on....I also heard that the top 1% are paying 25% of income tax.....0
-
Watching Daily Politics, That Mc Veigh is a complete dunderhead.0
-
CV,
"They don't want a referendum.....because they've read the polls which say they would lose if Cameron recommended the revised terms."
You're far too sensible to believe that.
Firstly, I've not read those polls and I post on here. So I suspect that fewer than one in a thousand of the Kipper voters have done so.
Secondly, do you really think that Ukip are that desperate for a Conservative government? They see it in action now (albeit moderated by the LDs) and they're not cheering. So much of the same isn't going to excite them.
And the supposed vision of Ed kow-towing to European bigwigs isn't such a bogeyman if it produces an anti-European reaction in the UK.
Thirdly, Euro in or out is no longer the be-all and end-all, it's become a more general malaise.0 -
I hadn't thought of you as a starry-eyed dreamer, Casino! Do you really think Labour, Labour, MPs are going to be embarrassed at being in power? They're not embarrassed about an unfair advantage in constituency sizes, or being propped up by Scottish MPs in an asymmetric devolution structure, so the chances of them being embarrassed by anything which helps Labour must be zero.Casino_Royale said:I expect some Labour backbenchers would also be uncomfortable with being in a majority government in such a position.
In practice, I think your scenario is wrong. What would happen is that, against a split opposition, Labour would be re-elected in 2020, no matter how unpopular they became in the interim, and they'd happily live with any embarrassment. They might well be forced to ditch Miliband, though, as I suggested in my article a few days ago.0 -
And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?Richard_Nabavi said:
Not very bright, these Kippers, are they?CarlottaVance said:The prospect of people voting out would be increased under an unpopular, pro-EU Labour prime minister who has shown little interest in reform of Britain’s relationship with Brussels, one said.
The chance of people voting out would be precisely zero under an unpopular, pro-EU Labour prime minister, for the very good reason that they wouldn't be given the opportunity to vote on the matter by an unpopular, pro-EU Labour prime minister. Or even a popular one, for that matter.0 -
"Ending detention of asylum seekers", "anti-racism" and "free movement" should definitely be what they base their electoral campaign on.dr_spyn said:
Reasons to vote Green - Caroline Lucas is Awesome.SandyRentool said:If an increase in support for the Green Party results in Labour and LibDems greening up their manifestos, then to me that is a very good thing.
In fact, if the Labour manifesto copied & pasted great chunks of the Green manifesto, that would please me even more.
http://www.reasonstovotegreen.org.uk/
Recycled juvenile organic bovine waste - looks as if they are a jump on the next leftwing bandwagon party.0 -
Speaking as a Conservative, I too would be delighted if Labour copied & pasted great chunks of the Green manifesto into their own.SandyRentool said:If an increase in support for the Green Party results in Labour and LibDems greening up their manifestos, then to me that is a very good thing.
In fact, if the Labour manifesto copied & pasted great chunks of the Green manifesto, that would please me even more.0 -
I don't know why you're surprised. Logic suggests those with more wealth and earning more wealth will pay more tax than those on lower incomes. This is the false argument used by the wealthy when arguing for tax cuts (primarily for themselves). The argument shouldn't be "look how much tax we're paying" but "look how much we're earning in order to pay that tax".Plato said:Holy Hell 1:100?
MarqueeMark said:There was a truly astonishing statistic in an article by Ed Conway in the Times yesterday, which was so astonishing I wonder if anyone can confirm it? It is so remarkable because it shows just how dangerous - and self defeating - Ed Milband's attacks on the rich will be for a man who puts the NHS at the top of his agenda.
The figures that got my attention were these. In 1979 - after 5 years of Denis "squeeze the rich until the pips squeak" Healey the top 1% of earners paid 11% of the total tax bill.
Today that figure is 27.5%.
Over a quarter of ALL taxes (not just Income Tax - ALL taxes) paid for by just one in a hundred.
What nobody seems to have told the Leader of the Opposition is that the NHS has indeed already been privatised. But only in terms of the running costs of it being picked up by the richest in the land.
What state will the NHS be in if Miliband follows Hollande in his economic mis-management - and causes an exodus of the top earners? The NHS will be in deep trouble is what.
Flipped around, imagine how good the NHS could be if we enticed another tranche of high earner? What if that 27.5% could rise to say 35%?
As usual, Ed is 100% wrong in what he is proposing to deliver for the voters.
The biggest issue is tax avoidance - to be fair to Danny Alexander, he's done well to close some loopholes but it's an on going battle.
0 -
Yes, he was a good opposition leader and Labour party reformer. He was not a good candidate for Prime Minister. He was too emotional, and occasionally lost his self-control; he was easily provoked, leading to outbursts.TheScreamingEagles said:Kinnock was a very good leader in a lot of ways.
He dealt with a party that had seen mass defections a few years earlier.
He dealt with Militant. If he hadn't done that, it is fair to say Labour would have been unelectable for a generation.
He missed several open goals, such as the Westland affair, the Poll Tax, and totally failed to score points over the downfall of Maggie in November 1990. Several of the reforms Blair enacted post-1994 should have been enacted in 1988-1990.
He should have won in 1992. He botched it.0 -
If you want the chance to leave the EU, yes, of course. If you don't, and are happy for the progress on the economy and employment to be reversed, and don't mind ever-closer-union, then by all means vote UKIP and thus help Ed into No 10.isam said:And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?
0 -
Agreed. The idea that Labour would be embarrassed by anything that lends advantage to them over the hated Tories is absolutely laughable.Richard_Nabavi said:
I hadn't thought of you as a starry-eyed dreamer, Casino! Do you really think Labour, Labour, MPs are going to be embarrassed at being in power? They're not embarrassed about an unfair advantage in constituency sizes, or being propped up by Scottish MPs in an asymmetric devolution structure, so the chances of them being embarrassed by anything which helps Labour must be zero.Casino_Royale said:I expect some Labour backbenchers would also be uncomfortable with being in a majority government in such a position.
In practice, I think your scenario is wrong. What would happen is that, against a split opposition, Labour would be re-elected in 2020, no matter how unpopular they became in the interim, and they'd happily live with any embarrassment. They might well be forced to ditch Miliband, though, as I suggested in my article a few days ago.
Have a read on Labour List where the main opposition to EV4EL is that it is unfair that people will end up being governed by the Tories. No acknowledgement that the fact that people in England vote Tory more than anyone else should be a consideration.0 -
Given the Mail's history of manufacturing quotes, I don't think their claims over 'senior' UKIP sources are particularly reliable.0
-
Thanks. UNS calculators are approaching the end of their usefulness in accurately modelling seat scores, IMHO.Sean_F said:
It was in the Mail on Sunday, so may be on their website.Casino_Royale said:
Sean, thanks. Do you have a link to that analysis by John?Sean_F said:
John Curtice thinks that Sunday's Survation poll, Con 31%, Lab 31%, UKIP 25%, would result in Labour winning 253 seats, Conservatives 187, UKIP 128. That's not quite proportionate, but it would be hard to see FPTP surviving, unless the Conservatives were to collapse, like the Liberals in 1924, and the contest became Labour v UKIP.Socrates said:
That's a big if.TheScreamingEagles said:
If Labour win a majority of 32% of the vote why would they abolish FPTP ?Casino_Royale said:Just thinking about voting intentions: the rise of UKIP, the steady improvement of the Greens etc.
We may get a "PR style" breakdown in votes, next year, despite not having the voting system to match.
Anyone have markets and odds that Westminster will abolish FPTP by 2025?
He cautioned that he was using the sub-samples. He said in theory, UKIP could fail to win a single seat, with 25%, but in practice, their vote had risen by far more than average in the South outside London.
0 -
I've noticed quite the increase in the volume of anti-Green party posts on pb.com recently. Green party policy is broadly speaking the same now as it was ten years ago, so it's hard not to take the increased attention as a compliment.dr_spyn said:
Reasons to vote Green - Caroline Lucas is Awesome.SandyRentool said:If an increase in support for the Green Party results in Labour and LibDems greening up their manifestos, then to me that is a very good thing.
In fact, if the Labour manifesto copied & pasted great chunks of the Green manifesto, that would please me even more.
http://www.reasonstovotegreen.org.uk/
Recycled juvenile organic bovine waste - looks as if they are a jump on the next leftwing bandwagon party.
0 -
Socrates said:
"Ending detention of asylum seekers", "anti-racism" and "free movement" should definitely be what they base their electoral campaign on.dr_spyn said:
Reasons to vote Green - Caroline Lucas is Awesome.SandyRentool said:If an increase in support for the Green Party results in Labour and LibDems greening up their manifestos, then to me that is a very good thing.
In fact, if the Labour manifesto copied & pasted great chunks of the Green manifesto, that would please me even more.
http://www.reasonstovotegreen.org.uk/
Recycled juvenile organic bovine waste - looks as if they are a jump on the next leftwing bandwagon party.
There's a niche for the Green Party's policies, but no more than a niche. You could never build a mass movement on their policies.Socrates said:
"Ending detention of asylum seekers", "anti-racism" and "free movement" should definitely be what they base their electoral campaign on.dr_spyn said:
Reasons to vote Green - Caroline Lucas is Awesome.SandyRentool said:If an increase in support for the Green Party results in Labour and LibDems greening up their manifestos, then to me that is a very good thing.
In fact, if the Labour manifesto copied & pasted great chunks of the Green manifesto, that would please me even more.
http://www.reasonstovotegreen.org.uk/
Recycled juvenile organic bovine waste - looks as if they are a jump on the next leftwing bandwagon party.
0 -
LDs
"...the [2014 local elections] results represented the party’s worst local election performance since its formation in 1989.
In what has now become a standard refrain in the face of adversity, the party argued that the results showed the party’s vote could hold up better in places where they had an incumbent MP.
This was true in some places, such as Bradford West and Birmingham Yardley, but on average the drop in the Lib-Dem vote in wards located in the constituency of an incumbent Lib-Dem MP was, at 13 points, much the same as elsewhere."
http://www.ippr.org/juncture/messages-from-the-voters-the-2014-local-and-european-elections0 -
Depending on your seat, a vote for UKIP could well reduce the Labour majority. Any vote for UKIP will also mean they are more likely to hold the balance of power in the election after next, after which an EU referendum has a decent chance of actually happening.Richard_Nabavi said:
If you want the chance to leave the EU, yes, of course. If you don't, and are happy for the progress on the economy and employment to be reversed, and don't mind ever-closer-union, then by all means vote UKIP and thus help Ed into No 10.isam said:And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?
Anyway, the fact that the main argument the Tories have against UKIP is "the electoral system we lobbied hard to keep means you shouldn't vote for your preferred party" shows how intellectually bankrupt they are.0 -
I don't think they'd be embarrassed either. But, I do think tactical voting would finish off a Labour party polling under 30% in the next election.CopperSulphate said:
Agreed. The idea that Labour would be embarrassed by anything that lends advantage to them over the hated Tories is absolutely laughable.Richard_Nabavi said:
I hadn't thought of you as a starry-eyed dreamer, Casino! Do you really think Labour, Labour, MPs are going to be embarrassed at being in power? They're not embarrassed about an unfair advantage in constituency sizes, or being propped up by Scottish MPs in an asymmetric devolution structure, so the chances of them being embarrassed by anything which helps Labour must be zero.Casino_Royale said:I expect some Labour backbenchers would also be uncomfortable with being in a majority government in such a position.
In practice, I think your scenario is wrong. What would happen is that, against a split opposition, Labour would be re-elected in 2020, no matter how unpopular they became in the interim, and they'd happily live with any embarrassment. They might well be forced to ditch Miliband, though, as I suggested in my article a few days ago.
Have a read on Labour List where the main opposition to EV4EL is that it is unfair that people will end up being governed by the Tories. No acknowledgement that the fact that people in England vote Tory more than anyone else should be a consideration.
0 -
The policies may be similar to what they were ten years ago, but it is fair to say that the emphasis has changed under Natalie Bennet - much less emphasis on the green and more on the red bits of their platform.OblitusSumMe said:I've noticed quite the increase in the volume of anti-Green party posts on pb.com recently. Green party policy is broadly speaking the same now as it was ten years ago, so it's hard not to take the increased attention as a compliment.
0 -
The Greens have some good policies, land tax and citizens income spring to mind which I'm convinced will eventually be implemented.
The rest of their policies are barking of course.0 -
Well yes I think that as well, so expect them to stitch up the voting system in their favour again when they get back in.Sean_F said:
I don't think they'd be embarrassed either. But, I do think tactical voting would finish off a Labour party polling under 30% in the next election.CopperSulphate said:
Agreed. The idea that Labour would be embarrassed by anything that lends advantage to them over the hated Tories is absolutely laughable.Richard_Nabavi said:
I hadn't thought of you as a starry-eyed dreamer, Casino! Do you really think Labour, Labour, MPs are going to be embarrassed at being in power? They're not embarrassed about an unfair advantage in constituency sizes, or being propped up by Scottish MPs in an asymmetric devolution structure, so the chances of them being embarrassed by anything which helps Labour must be zero.Casino_Royale said:I expect some Labour backbenchers would also be uncomfortable with being in a majority government in such a position.
In practice, I think your scenario is wrong. What would happen is that, against a split opposition, Labour would be re-elected in 2020, no matter how unpopular they became in the interim, and they'd happily live with any embarrassment. They might well be forced to ditch Miliband, though, as I suggested in my article a few days ago.
Have a read on Labour List where the main opposition to EV4EL is that it is unfair that people will end up being governed by the Tories. No acknowledgement that the fact that people in England vote Tory more than anyone else should be a consideration.
We'll never be rid of the parasites.0 -
In a lot of working-class seats where Labour poll under 50% of the vote, then voting for UKIP is the sensible option.Socrates said:
Depending on your seat, a vote for UKIP could well reduce the Labour majority. Any vote for UKIP will also mean they are more likely to hold the balance of power in the election after next, after which an EU referendum has a decent chance of actually happening.Richard_Nabavi said:
If you want the chance to leave the EU, yes, of course. If you don't, and are happy for the progress on the economy and employment to be reversed, and don't mind ever-closer-union, then by all means vote UKIP and thus help Ed into No 10.isam said:And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?
Anyway, the fact that the main argument the Tories have against UKIP is "the electoral system we lobbied hard to keep means you shouldn't vote for your preferred party" shows how intellectually bankrupt they are.
0 -
Dear dear poor showRichard_Nabavi said:
If you want the chance to leave the EU, yes, of course. If you don't, and are happy for the progress on the economy and employment to be reversed, and don't mind ever-closer-union, then by all means vote UKIP and thus help Ed into No 10.isam said:And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?
You have to realise that David Cameron's leadership is the cause of ukips growth... I know you have convinced yourself that your logic is infallible and everyone else is crazy but the truth is that people who leave a party because they dislike what a leader does when he is in charge aren't going to vote for him again... Else they wouldn't have left
You need a new strategy
Bit disappointed in you forecasting a Tory win by 13% in Rochester but not backing it up by taking evens on them with a 5 point lead... I don't think you can be as confident in Cameron as you make out0 -
Yes. We already have some evidence for that. Several Labour MPs were uncomfortable at the prospect of entering coalition with the Lib Dems in 2010GE, and said so. There is still a substantial minority of Labour MPs who support AV, and would presumably be sympathetic to some reform of the status quo, including our very own Ed Miliband: http://labourlist.org/2011/01/labour-mps-are-they-yes-or-no-to-av-yes-92-no-132/Richard_Nabavi said:
I hadn't thought of you as a starry-eyed dreamer, Casino! Do you really think Labour, Labour, MPs are going to be embarrassed at being in power? They're not embarrassed about an unfair advantage in constituency sizes, or being propped up by Scottish MPs in an asymmetric devolution structure, so the chances of them being embarrassed by anything which helps Labour must be zero.Casino_Royale said:I expect some Labour backbenchers would also be uncomfortable with being in a majority government in such a position.
In practice, I think your scenario is wrong. What would happen is that, against a split opposition, Labour would be re-elected in 2020, no matter how unpopular they became in the interim, and they'd happily live with any embarrassment. They might well be forced to ditch Miliband, though, as I suggested in my article a few days ago.
Given that he himself supported AV, it might become very difficult for Ed to sustain the arguments for FPTP under coordinated pressure from all other parties. He would be forced to respond by the opinion polls, and wider public opinion.
Nah, I don't think my scenario is wrong. You're letting your partisan dislike of Labour get the better of you. As Sean Fear says, under such a result there would be massive tactical voting against Labour in 2020, leading to them losing their majority. I expect a Labour movement for PR would grow, similarly arguing that the best chance the Left have of taking power in future is through Labour-Green-SDP type Lib Dem coalitions, as the Tories would argue with UKIP/orange book Lib Dems. And, incidentally, that'd probably offer Labour most of what they want policy-wise anyway.
The genie is out of the bottle now. The political landscape has changed massively since 2011, for good. There is no going back.
The only question is: what kind of political reform will we get going forwards?
0 -
Ed losing it...
shouldn't be trying to shout when he is losing his voice.
0 -
Why does that patch of greyish-white move around Ed's head?0
-
CarlottaVance said:
They don't want a referendum.....because they've read the polls which say they would lose if Cameron recommended the revised terms.Morris_Dancer said:
Miss Vance, do the Kippers realise that there won't be a referendum if Miliband's PM?
If the Scots can have a Neverendum, I guess the rest of the UK is heading for one too.....
Mid term unpopular PM Cameron calls referendum. Not sure a YES vote would be a shoe in.0 -
Of course it's not. The same kind of unrealistic, anti-establishment parties, preying on an unfocused sense of insecurity, are on the rise in many countries in Western Europe, and the Tea Party in the US is similar.isam said:You have to realise that David Cameron's leadership is the cause of ukips growth...
0 -
Ipsus Mori out
At the same time, Ukip’s popularity has climbed to a record 16 per cent in the monthly Ipsos MORI survey published in tonight’s Evening Standard. It is up one point since September, following a two-point rise the previous month.
The poll shows the two biggest parties are languishing at historically low levels of public support. David Cameron’s Conservatives are down four points to 30 per cent, while Ed Miliband’s Labour are unchanged at 33. Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats are up a point to eight.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/backing-farages-ukip-is-no-longer-a-wasted-vote-poll-shows-9795884.html0 -
not remotely up to the job.
kick a man while he's down.
0 -
Dr. Spyn, best time to kick someone.0
-
Ed in purple tie...
Sounds better with a sore throat!0 -
Richard_Nabavi said:
I hadn't thought of you as a starry-eyed dreamer, Casino! Do you really think Labour, Labour, MPs are going to be embarrassed at being in power? They're not embarrassed about an unfair advantage in constituency sizes, or being propped up by Scottish MPs in an asymmetric devolution structure, so the chances of them being embarrassed by anything which helps Labour must be zero.Casino_Royale said:I expect some Labour backbenchers would also be uncomfortable with being in a majority government in such a position.
In practice, I think your scenario is wrong. What would happen is that, against a split opposition, Labour would be re-elected in 2020, no matter how unpopular they became in the interim, and they'd happily live with any embarrassment. They might well be forced to ditch Miliband, though, as I suggested in my article a few days ago.
Haha yes.
Labour were not embarrassed at all 2005-10 on 35% of the vote. Labour, the party with no shame.0 -
There's nothing unrealistic about being successful outside the European Union, reducing immigration to sensible levels, or having an English parliament.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course it's not. The same kind of unrealistic, anti-establishment parties, preying on an unfocused sense of insecurity, are on the rise in many countries in Western Europe, and the Tea Party in the US is similar.isam said:You have to realise that David Cameron's leadership is the cause of ukips growth...
0 -
Oh, and the reason they've risen across Western Europe is because centre-right parties across Western Europe have done the same selling out to the power of Brussels as David Cameron has done.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course it's not. The same kind of unrealistic, anti-establishment parties, preying on an unfocused sense of insecurity, are on the rise in many countries in Western Europe, and the Tea Party in the US is similar.isam said:You have to realise that David Cameron's leadership is the cause of ukips growth...
0 -
Guardian snap verdict:
Snap Verdict: Miliband had unearthed a good anti-Tory story, but Cameron rebutted it effectively by disowning Freud without equivocation and, generally, he smothered Miliband with a shower of statistics and slogans. An easy Cameron win.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/oct/15/cameron-and-miliband-at-pmqs-politics-live-blog#block-543e39f6e4b0cd82a095f7260 -
So that's record highs for UKIP from 3(?) pollsters now: Ipsos-MORI, YouGov, and Survation.TheScreamingEagles said:Ipsus Mori out
At the same time, Ukip’s popularity has climbed to a record 16 per cent in the monthly Ipsos MORI survey published in tonight’s Evening Standard. It is up one point since September, following a two-point rise the previous month.
The poll shows the two biggest parties are languishing at historically low levels of public support. David Cameron’s Conservatives are down four points to 30 per cent, while Ed Miliband’s Labour are unchanged at 33. Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats are up a point to eight.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/backing-farages-ukip-is-no-longer-a-wasted-vote-poll-shows-9795884.html0 -
Casino_Royale said:
Thanks. UNS calculators are approaching the end of their usefulness in accurately modelling seat scores, IMHO.Sean_F said:
It was in the Mail on Sunday, so may be on their website.Casino_Royale said:
Sean, thanks. Do you have a link to that analysis by John?Sean_F said:
John Curtice thinks that Sunday's Survation poll, Con 31%, Lab 31%, UKIP 25%, would result in Labour winning 253 seats, Conservatives 187, UKIP 128. That's not quite proportionate, but it would be hard to see FPTP surviving, unless the Conservatives were to collapse, like the Liberals in 1924, and the contest became Labour v UKIP.Socrates said:
That's a big if.TheScreamingEagles said:
If Labour win a majority of 32% of the vote why would they abolish FPTP ?Casino_Royale said:Just thinking about voting intentions: the rise of UKIP, the steady improvement of the Greens etc.
We may get a "PR style" breakdown in votes, next year, despite not having the voting system to match.
Anyone have markets and odds that Westminster will abolish FPTP by 2025?
He cautioned that he was using the sub-samples. He said in theory, UKIP could fail to win a single seat, with 25%, but in practice, their vote had risen by far more than average in the South outside London.
They were tosh in 2005 and 2010. Time for Baxter´s model to be put out of its misery.0 -
Different time, different era. The world has changed since then.Itajai said:Richard_Nabavi said:
I hadn't thought of you as a starry-eyed dreamer, Casino! Do you really think Labour, Labour, MPs are going to be embarrassed at being in power? They're not embarrassed about an unfair advantage in constituency sizes, or being propped up by Scottish MPs in an asymmetric devolution structure, so the chances of them being embarrassed by anything which helps Labour must be zero.Casino_Royale said:I expect some Labour backbenchers would also be uncomfortable with being in a majority government in such a position.
In practice, I think your scenario is wrong. What would happen is that, against a split opposition, Labour would be re-elected in 2020, no matter how unpopular they became in the interim, and they'd happily live with any embarrassment. They might well be forced to ditch Miliband, though, as I suggested in my article a few days ago.
Haha yes.
Labour were not embarrassed at all 2005-10 on 35% of the vote. Labour, the party with no shame.0 -
To be fair, the attraction of UKIP runs beyond the EU question. How Boris and the Tories more generally respond to today's idiotic proposals to try to make smoking marginally more socially unacceptable than paedophilia may be a good litmus test of they extent to which the Conservatives and their prospective next leader get the cultural divide between electorate and elected that is currently driving voters towards UKIP.Richard_Nabavi said:
If you want the chance to leave the EU, yes, of course. If you don't, and are happy for the progress on the economy and employment to be reversed, and don't mind ever-closer-union, then by all means vote UKIP and thus help Ed into No 10.isam said:And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?
0 -
I've sort of lost track of what Kippers want at this point. A while ago I thought most would be happy with the referendum that Cameron is promising, but just don't trust him to follow through. Now, though, it seems more like they'd be unhappy with even that because they don't like the idea of the renegotiation and they don't like that the three main parties would all be campaigning to stay in.
So, er, what exactly do they want? If renegotiation is on the table, then I think most people would be unhappy with not doing so, and as I understand it the polls back this up. Likewise I don't see how even an influential UKIP could prevent parties- or their members/donors- campaigning in a referendum for the result they want. Would that even be fair or democratic?0 -
Given that UKIP take disproportionately from the Tories (3:1 wasn't it). Then voting UKIP in a Labour seat is unlikely to let the Tories win it. They're also unlikely to win it themselves.Socrates said:
Depending on your seat, a vote for UKIP could well reduce the Labour majority. Any vote for UKIP will also mean they are more likely to hold the balance of power in the election after next, after which an EU referendum has a decent chance of actually happening.Richard_Nabavi said:
If you want the chance to leave the EU, yes, of course. If you don't, and are happy for the progress on the economy and employment to be reversed, and don't mind ever-closer-union, then by all means vote UKIP and thus help Ed into No 10.isam said:And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?
Anyway, the fact that the main argument the Tories have against UKIP is "the electoral system we lobbied hard to keep means you shouldn't vote for your preferred party" shows how intellectually bankrupt they are.
Voting UKIP in a Tory seat makes it more likely that Labour would win. So how does voting UKIP reduce the Labour majority, it's surely more likely to increase it. This looks like wishful thinking on your part.
Maybe there are a few seats where UKIP could win themselves rather than just affect the result but, unless they hit the mid twenties, it's unlikely to be more than a handful.
Twas the same for the LibDems, on 24% they get under 60 and they have had decades to build up a more 'lumpy' support.0 -
Side stepped the bet I see.. you don't really rate the Tories chances in RochesterRichard_Nabavi said:
Of course it's not. The same kind of unrealistic, anti-establishment parties, preying on an unfocused sense of insecurity, are on the rise in many countries in Western Europe, and the Tea Party in the US is similar.isam said:You have to realise that David Cameron's leadership is the cause of ukips growth...
Many people agreed with your explanation, and said so ... but not one person will take evens with a five point start...telling
If people think 3/1 is value Evens +5 is better
UKIP have a real chance of being able to get a referendum from whoever is PM next May if things continue to develop as they are. We wont throw in the towel and curtsy to a man who slags us all off, and whose aim is the complete opposite of ours, no matter how much it disappoints his cronies
0 -
Mr. Herdson, whilst I share your contempt for the anti-smoking nonsense, don't you mean 'acceptable'?0
-
True, although formulae that use some mix of proportional and uniform swing probably still have utility as predictors. IIRC correctly, Scotland's 2011 election was a useful test of that, with large percentage changes and a four-party system.Casino_Royale said:
Thanks. UNS calculators are approaching the end of their usefulness in accurately modelling seat scores, IMHO.Sean_F said:
It was in the Mail on Sunday, so may be on their website.Casino_Royale said:
Sean, thanks. Do you have a link to that analysis by John?Sean_F said:
John Curtice thinks that Sunday's Survation poll, Con 31%, Lab 31%, UKIP 25%, would result in Labour winning 253 seats, Conservatives 187, UKIP 128. That's not quite proportionate, but it would be hard to see FPTP surviving, unless the Conservatives were to collapse, like the Liberals in 1924, and the contest became Labour v UKIP.Socrates said:
That's a big if.TheScreamingEagles said:
If Labour win a majority of 32% of the vote why would they abolish FPTP ?Casino_Royale said:Just thinking about voting intentions: the rise of UKIP, the steady improvement of the Greens etc.
We may get a "PR style" breakdown in votes, next year, despite not having the voting system to match.
Anyone have markets and odds that Westminster will abolish FPTP by 2025?
He cautioned that he was using the sub-samples. He said in theory, UKIP could fail to win a single seat, with 25%, but in practice, their vote had risen by far more than average in the South outside London.0 -
If they hit the low 20s nationally, then it will be a lot more than a handful of seats they could win outright. Even more so if you're willing to look beyond the next election for the long term effect of your vote.logical_song said:
Given that UKIP take disproportionately from the Tories (3:1 wasn't it). Then voting UKIP in a Labour seat is unlikely to let the Tories win it. They're also unlikely to win it themselves.Socrates said:
Depending on your seat, a vote for UKIP could well reduce the Labour majority. Any vote for UKIP will also mean they are more likely to hold the balance of power in the election after next, after which an EU referendum has a decent chance of actually happening.Richard_Nabavi said:
If you want the chance to leave the EU, yes, of course. If you don't, and are happy for the progress on the economy and employment to be reversed, and don't mind ever-closer-union, then by all means vote UKIP and thus help Ed into No 10.isam said:And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?
Anyway, the fact that the main argument the Tories have against UKIP is "the electoral system we lobbied hard to keep means you shouldn't vote for your preferred party" shows how intellectually bankrupt they are.
Voting UKIP in a Tory seat makes it more likely that Labour would win. So how does voting UKIP reduce the Labour majority, it's surely more likely to increase it. This looks like wishful thinking on your part.
Maybe there are a few seats where UKIP could win themselves rather than just affect the result but, unless they hit the mid twenties, it's unlikely to be more than a handful.
Twas the same for the LibDems, on 24% they get under 60 and they have had decades to build up a more 'lumpy' support.0 -
makes it harder for them to get back up...Morris_Dancer said:Dr. Spyn, best time to kick someone.
0 -
If you don't vote for UKIP in Thurrock, Labour will gain a seat from the Torieslogical_song said:
Given that UKIP take disproportionately from the Tories (3:1 wasn't it). Then voting UKIP in a Labour seat is unlikely to let the Tories win it. They're also unlikely to win it themselves.Socrates said:
Depending on your seat, a vote for UKIP could well reduce the Labour majority. Any vote for UKIP will also mean they are more likely to hold the balance of power in the election after next, after which an EU referendum has a decent chance of actually happening.Richard_Nabavi said:
If you want the chance to leave the EU, yes, of course. If you don't, and are happy for the progress on the economy and employment to be reversed, and don't mind ever-closer-union, then by all means vote UKIP and thus help Ed into No 10.isam said:And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?
Anyway, the fact that the main argument the Tories have against UKIP is "the electoral system we lobbied hard to keep means you shouldn't vote for your preferred party" shows how intellectually bankrupt they are.
Voting UKIP in a Tory seat makes it more likely that Labour would win. So how does voting UKIP reduce the Labour majority, it's surely more likely to increase it. This looks like wishful thinking on your part.
Maybe there are a few seats where UKIP could win themselves rather than just affect the result but, unless they hit the mid twenties, it's unlikely to be more than a handful.
Twas the same for the LibDems, on 24% they get under 60 and they have had decades to build up a more 'lumpy' support.0 -
What would be the best result for UKIP?Stereotomy said:I've sort of lost track of what Kippers want at this point. A while ago I thought most would be happy with the referendum that Cameron is promising, but just don't trust him to follow through. Now, though, it seems more like they'd be unhappy with even that because they don't like the idea of the renegotiation and they don't like that the three main parties would all be campaigning to stay in.
So, er, what exactly do they want? If renegotiation is on the table, then I think most people would be unhappy with not doing so, and as I understand it the polls back this up. Likewise I don't see how even an influential UKIP could prevent parties- or their members/donors- campaigning in a referendum for the result they want. Would that even be fair or democratic?0 -
Has George Galloway defected?anotherDave said:LDs
"...the [2014 local elections] results represented the party’s worst local election performance since its formation in 1989.
In what has now become a standard refrain in the face of adversity, the party argued that the results showed the party’s vote could hold up better in places where they had an incumbent MP.
This was true in some places, such as Bradford West and Birmingham Yardley, but on average the drop in the Lib-Dem vote in wards located in the constituency of an incumbent Lib-Dem MP was, at 13 points, much the same as elsewhere."
http://www.ippr.org/juncture/messages-from-the-voters-the-2014-local-and-european-elections0 -
I don't think any of the parties can claim to be a mass movement at the moment. Their membership figures are horrendous compared to 30 or 40 years ago. Far more people are in the larger charities and environmental campaigns. Incidentally, Scottish Labour are worried Scottish Greens will have more members soon.Sean_F said:Socrates said:
"Ending detention of asylum seekers", "anti-racism" and "free movement" should definitely be what they base their electoral campaign on.dr_spyn said:
Reasons to vote Green - Caroline Lucas is Awesome.SandyRentool said:If an increase in support for the Green Party results in Labour and LibDems greening up their manifestos, then to me that is a very good thing.
In fact, if the Labour manifesto copied & pasted great chunks of the Green manifesto, that would please me even more.
http://www.reasonstovotegreen.org.uk/
Recycled juvenile organic bovine waste - looks as if they are a jump on the next leftwing bandwagon party.
There's a niche for the Green Party's policies, but no more than a niche. You could never build a mass movement on their policies.Socrates said:
"Ending detention of asylum seekers", "anti-racism" and "free movement" should definitely be what they base their electoral campaign on.dr_spyn said:
Reasons to vote Green - Caroline Lucas is Awesome.SandyRentool said:If an increase in support for the Green Party results in Labour and LibDems greening up their manifestos, then to me that is a very good thing.
In fact, if the Labour manifesto copied & pasted great chunks of the Green manifesto, that would please me even more.
http://www.reasonstovotegreen.org.uk/
Recycled juvenile organic bovine waste - looks as if they are a jump on the next leftwing bandwagon party.0 -
Carswell trying to catch the Speaker's eye......0
-
This is really they key point. I think it's almost always impossible to justify voting for a third party without taking this into account. But the effect that UKIP has been having on British politics shows how much power groups of voters can weild even without directly putting their party into government.Socrates said:Even more so if you're willing to look beyond the next election for the long term effect of your vote.
0 -
I'd be happy with any EC-ratified referendum. I just don't think it's on the cards in the next parliament in any of the plausible results.Stereotomy said:I've sort of lost track of what Kippers want at this point. A while ago I thought most would be happy with the referendum that Cameron is promising, but just don't trust him to follow through. Now, though, it seems more like they'd be unhappy with even that because they don't like the idea of the renegotiation and they don't like that the three main parties would all be campaigning to stay in.
So, er, what exactly do they want? If renegotiation is on the table, then I think most people would be unhappy with not doing so, and as I understand it the polls back this up. Likewise I don't see how even an influential UKIP could prevent parties- or their members/donors- campaigning in a referendum for the result they want. Would that even be fair or democratic?
I'd also prefer a referendum where UKIP are in a position of power and can draw attention to how the renegotiation will be a sham.0 -
Best result of what?isam said:
What would be the best result for UKIP?Stereotomy said:I've sort of lost track of what Kippers want at this point. A while ago I thought most would be happy with the referendum that Cameron is promising, but just don't trust him to follow through. Now, though, it seems more like they'd be unhappy with even that because they don't like the idea of the renegotiation and they don't like that the three main parties would all be campaigning to stay in.
So, er, what exactly do they want? If renegotiation is on the table, then I think most people would be unhappy with not doing so, and as I understand it the polls back this up. Likewise I don't see how even an influential UKIP could prevent parties- or their members/donors- campaigning in a referendum for the result they want. Would that even be fair or democratic?0 -
People on here doing forecasts using models from 2010 and before might as well be using the old "2 points for a win" scoring system in football to work out League tablesItajai said:Casino_Royale said:
Thanks. UNS calculators are approaching the end of their usefulness in accurately modelling seat scores, IMHO.Sean_F said:
It was in the Mail on Sunday, so may be on their website.Casino_Royale said:
Sean, thanks. Do you have a link to that analysis by John?Sean_F said:
John Curtice thinks that Sunday's Survation poll, Con 31%, Lab 31%, UKIP 25%, would result in Labour winning 253 seats, Conservatives 187, UKIP 128. That's not quite proportionate, but it would be hard to see FPTP surviving, unless the Conservatives were to collapse, like the Liberals in 1924, and the contest became Labour v UKIP.Socrates said:
That's a big if.TheScreamingEagles said:
If Labour win a majority of 32% of the vote why would they abolish FPTP ?Casino_Royale said:Just thinking about voting intentions: the rise of UKIP, the steady improvement of the Greens etc.
We may get a "PR style" breakdown in votes, next year, despite not having the voting system to match.
Anyone have markets and odds that Westminster will abolish FPTP by 2025?
He cautioned that he was using the sub-samples. He said in theory, UKIP could fail to win a single seat, with 25%, but in practice, their vote had risen by far more than average in the South outside London.
They were tosh in 2005 and 2010. Time for Baxter´s model to be put out of its misery.0 -
Sunil Prasannan@Sunil_P2 4m
#UKIP also first in aggregate vote for GB by-elections in 2013 - Eastleigh and South Shields: UKIP 26.5%, Lab 25.0%.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/522346349850017792/photo/1
0 -
Local rag had touching story about the Bristol Greens celebrating that they have 500 party members for the first time.0
-
True.Casino_Royale said:There's nothing unrealistic about being successful outside the European Union, reducing immigration to sensible levels, or having an English parliament.
However those are not what UKIP are selling voters. They are selling them the false prospectus of being successful outside the European Union without having to make any compromises in the deal with the European Union, for example on immigration.
Or at least it seems to be false. It's a bit hard to tell because UKIP don't have much interest in exploring what settlement with the EU we might have if we left. They just follow Alex Salmond's technique of listing a whole lot of things they don't like and a whole lot of things they do like, and saying we could have all of the latter with none of the former.
To be fair, though, they have now finally conceded the point I have been making for several years:
UKIP would not seek to remain in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) or European Economic Area (EEA) while those treaties maintain a principle of free movement of labour, which prevents the UK managing its own borders.
So that's Farage's previous nonsense about being like Norway or Switzerland blown out of the water. This does perhaps show a slight nodding towards reality.
http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people
0 -
Rubbish. You're effectively quoting 3/1 about the Con score falling within a 2.5% range.isam said:
If people think 3/1 is value Evens +5 is better
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that UKIP and the Tories end up with 80% of the vote, the only way the handicap pays and the outright doesn't is if the Tories finish between 37.5% and 40%.
0 -
Seems worth celebrating. How many are left in Labour in Bristol?dr_spyn said:Local rag had touching story about the Bristol Greens celebrating that they have 500 party members for the first time.
0 -
Speaker calls Carswell......asks a question about the Recall Bill.0
-
Carswell describes Goldsmith as his honourable friend.
0 -
Perhaps he meant Bradford East?david_herdson said:
Has George Galloway defected?anotherDave said:LDs
"...the [2014 local elections] results represented the party’s worst local election performance since its formation in 1989.
In what has now become a standard refrain in the face of adversity, the party argued that the results showed the party’s vote could hold up better in places where they had an incumbent MP.
This was true in some places, such as Bradford West and Birmingham Yardley, but on average the drop in the Lib-Dem vote in wards located in the constituency of an incumbent Lib-Dem MP was, at 13 points, much the same as elsewhere."
http://www.ippr.org/juncture/messages-from-the-voters-the-2014-local-and-european-elections
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/bradfordeast/0 -
I haven't side-stepped it, I'm still considering how it fits into my existing bets. To be clear, are you saying you are offering Evens on a 10-point UKIP lead (I think you originally said UKIP -5 Tory +5) or a 5-point UKIP lead?isam said:Side stepped the bet I see.. you don't really rate the Tories chances in Rochester
Many people agreed with your explanation, and said so ... but not one person will take evens with a five point start...telling
If people think 3/1 is value Evens +5 is better0 -
Say, it's a seat which Labour won on 40-45% last time, with mostly white working class voters in the electorate. Places like Grimsby, Rother Valley, Don Valley, Heywood & Middleton, Dudley North, Plymouth Moor View. If the Conservative vote collapses to UKIP, at the same time as UKIP pulling some votes away from Labour and the Lib Dems, that makes a Labour loss more, not less, likely.logical_song said:
Given that UKIP take disproportionately from the Tories (3:1 wasn't it). Then voting UKIP in a Labour seat is unlikely to let the Tories win it. They're also unlikely to win it themselves.Socrates said:
Depending on your seat, a vote for UKIP could well reduce the Labour majority. Any vote for UKIP will also mean they are more likely to hold the balance of power in the election after next, after which an EU referendum has a decent chance of actually happening.Richard_Nabavi said:
If you want the chance to leave the EU, yes, of course. If you don't, and are happy for the progress on the economy and employment to be reversed, and don't mind ever-closer-union, then by all means vote UKIP and thus help Ed into No 10.isam said:And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?
Anyway, the fact that the main argument the Tories have against UKIP is "the electoral system we lobbied hard to keep means you shouldn't vote for your preferred party" shows how intellectually bankrupt they are.
Voting UKIP in a Tory seat makes it more likely that Labour would win. So how does voting UKIP reduce the Labour majority, it's surely more likely to increase it. This looks like wishful thinking on your part.
Maybe there are a few seats where UKIP could win themselves rather than just affect the result but, unless they hit the mid twenties, it's unlikely to be more than a handful.
Twas the same for the LibDems, on 24% they get under 60 and they have had decades to build up a more 'lumpy' support.
0 -
Cameron not addressing issue of energy prices for energy intensive users - legacy of crap energy policies from Labour. If Scunthorpe closes then what, blame The Greens, Ed Miliband and the other windmill lovers.0
-
I never offered UKIP -10!!!Richard_Nabavi said:
I haven't side-stepped it, I'm still considering how it fits into my existing bets. To be clear, are you saying you are offering Evens on a 10-point UKIP lead (I think you originally said UKIP -5 Tory +5) or a 5-point UKIP lead?isam said:Side stepped the bet I see.. you don't really rate the Tories chances in Rochester
Many people agreed with your explanation, and said so ... but not one person will take evens with a five point start...telling
If people think 3/1 is value Evens +5 is better
You get Tories with a 5 point start ( I take the other side which is UKIP giving up 5 points)0 -
Do you have the numbers for the whole Parliament?Sunil_Prasannan said:Sunil Prasannan@Sunil_P2 4m
#UKIP also first in aggregate vote for GB by-elections in 2013 - Eastleigh and South Shields: UKIP 26.5%, Lab 25.0%.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/522346349850017792/photo/1
0 -
How's this for meteorological innuendo? I assume he'll be mentioning his own AGW for her next.
Bill Turnbull, BBC Breakfast presenter, started innuendo-laden exchange with weather presenter dressed in figure hugging dress as he asked about her 'tightly packed isobars'
0 -
Kevin Maguire tweets: Sounds like Lord Freud is about to halt the fall in unemployment by losing his job. No 10 demanding an explanation from him0
