politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Polling analysis: UKIP’s hurting CON even more in the margi

Better start getting used to seeing Ed's goofy head everywhere.

When are we going to get some Scotland specific polling - anyone know ?

It's a big old piece of the jigsaw !

On a technical point - aren't these a different set of marginals to those surveyed in August? In other words the difference may be due to the passing of time, but it might instead be due to the fact that these are a different set of seats, with different characteristics. Or am I missing something?

FPT - it's not about *preferring* the uneducated to lead our country to the educated. That's missing the point. It's about the educated recognising they are in a privileged position and have a duty to listen to, understand and represent the balance of opinion across the whole country, rather than just amongst themselves.

That's democracy. If you don't do it, you ain't going to get re-elected.

One example that needs no introduction: Margaret Thatcher. She held a degree in Chemistry, and in Law, and was by any stretch of the imagination educated and intelligent.

However, she was never part of the metropolitan elite. In many respects, she was an outsider for almost her whole term in office.

In fact, I'd argue, she was the first UKIP PM. Discuss.

I see bigger major titties in the thread header!! Have I gone sex mad???

Casino_Royale said:

FPT - it's not about *preferring* the uneducated to lead our country to the educated. That's missing the point. It's about the educated recognising they are in a privileged position and have a duty to listen to, understand and represent the balance of opinion across the whole country, rather than just amongst themselves.

That's democracy. If you don't do it, you ain't going to get re-elected.

One example that needs no introduction: Margaret Thatcher. She held a degree in Chemistry, and in Law, and was by any stretch of the imagination educated and intelligent.

However, she was never part of the metropolitan elite. In many respects, she was an outsider for almost her whole term in office.

In fact, I'd argue, she was the first UKIP PM. Discuss.

Certainly better than any of the three musketeers leading any of the three main Westminster parties right now.

Casino_Royale said:

FPT - it's not about *preferring* the uneducated to lead our country to the educated. That's missing the point. It's about the educated recognising they are in a privileged position and have a duty to listen to, understand and represent the balance of opinion across the whole country, rather than just amongst themselves.

That's democracy. If you don't do it, you ain't going to get re-elected.

One example that needs no introduction: Margaret Thatcher. She held a degree in Chemistry, and in Law, and was by any stretch of the imagination educated and intelligent.

However, she was never part of the metropolitan elite. In many respects, she was an outsider for almost her whole term in office.

In fact, I'd argue, she was the first UKIP PM. Discuss.

Margaret Thatcher signed the Single European Act.

She helped set up the way for thousands of Europeans to come over here to live and work.

First Kipper PM? Lol she'd be charactised as an out of touch Europhile with ordinary Britons.

O/T I knew this was coming and alluded to it the other day.

The human toll of the crisis gripping prisons in England and Wales is exposed with new figures obtained by the Guardian revealing that 125 prisoners have killed themselves in 20 months – an average of more than six a month.

For the first time the Guardian has identified the individuals behind the statistics that show suicide is at its highest rate in prisons for nine years, and there is no sign that the scale of the tragedy is being checked.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/17/-sp-inmate-suicide-figures-reveal-human-toll-prison-crisis

If UKIP declines in Tory /Lab battlegrounds and UKIP is currently taking more Con than Labour voters ,we should see gap between Labour and Cons narrowing

SimonStClare said:

Still baffled by the 8.3% of Lib Dem>UKiP switchers, the parties are virtually polar opposites?

NOTA vote.

Pulpstar said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

isam said:

I see bigger major titties in the thread header!! Have I gone sex mad???

Dunno, but calm yourself down and back The Romford Pele in the 3.50 at Cheltenham.

Don't normally give horsey tips on here these days, but I thought the name might appeal to you as much as the form.

Taken 2-1 with Boyle, lets hope he runs well

Whatever happens today he will stay on my horses to follow list for the season.

OblitusSumMe said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Kippers putting Ed Miliband into No10.

It's almost like they don't want that referendum.

I'm not even a UKIP supporter and I'm tired of that anti-democratic rubbish.

In the latest Ashcroft National Poll the Conservatives have 28% support and UKIP 19%. That is to say that UKIP support is more than two-thirds of Conservative support. It is arrogance of the highest order to demand that UKIP liquidate itself with those respective levels of support.

It will be the FPTP electoral system that Conservatives fight to defend that will put Ed Miliband into Number 10. FPTP will give Labour at least 100 extra MPs compared to STV in the next Parliament, and possibly even more when you consider that many Labour voters are reluctant tactical voters. You will have only yourselves to blame.

With some form of PR, say STV, there would be a clear majority in the Commons for an in/out Referendum on EU membership. The only question would be whether to hold it as soon as possible - as I assume most kippers and some Tories would prefer - or whether to wait for Cameron's fabled renegotiation in 2017.

Well said !

Sunil Prasannan ‏@Sunil_P2 6m

The rise of #UKIP part 1: vote shares at GB Westminster by-elections since GE 2010 - won Clacton, runners-up 8 times

https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/523094299005956097

isam said:

SimonStClare said:

Still baffled by the 8.3% of Lib Dem>UKiP switchers, the parties are virtually polar opposites?

Protest vote / NOTA

I don't doubt there's an element of that in ukip votes, it's just getting the Lib Dems to admit that was part of theirs

Hmm - that would certainly make a little more sense – but then they’re an odd bunch... ; )

@Pulpstar – cheers.

Casino_Royale said:

...One example that needs no introduction: Margaret Thatcher. She held a degree in Chemistry, and in Law, and was by any stretch of the imagination educated and intelligent. However, she was never part of the metropolitan elite. In many respects, she was an outsider for almost her whole term in office.
In fact, I'd argue, she was the first UKIP PM. Discuss.

Thatcher was closest to a classical Liberal. The UKIP of GE2010 she was close to but she would regard the UKIP of autumn 2014 as Socialist.

TheScreamingEagles said:

OblitusSumMe said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Kippers putting Ed Miliband into No10.

It's almost like they don't want that referendum.

I'm not even a UKIP supporter and I'm tired of that anti-democratic rubbish.

In the latest Ashcroft National Poll the Conservatives have 28% support and UKIP 19%. That is to say that UKIP support is more than two-thirds of Conservative support. It is arrogance of the highest order to demand that UKIP liquidate itself with those respective levels of support.

It will be the FPTP electoral system that Conservatives fight to defend that will put Ed Miliband into Number 10. FPTP will give Labour at least 100 extra MPs compared to STV in the next Parliament, and possibly even more when you consider that many Labour voters are reluctant tactical voters. You will have only yourselves to blame.

With some form of PR, say STV, there would be a clear majority in the Commons for an in/out Referendum on EU membership. The only question would be whether to hold it as soon as possible - as I assume most kippers and some Tories would prefer - or whether to wait for Cameron's fabled renegotiation in 2017.

I voted against AV. I agree with Nick that it is a miserable little compromise.

I'm a fan of STV (probably multi member)

Biggus Nickus?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Discuss.

Margaret Thatcher signed the Single European Act.

First Kipper PM? Lol she'd be charactised as an out of touch Europhile with ordinary Britons.

I was counting the seconds until someone posted the 'Single European Act'. This is nonsense.

She spent months pursuing the UK rebate with the EU when she came to office. Even at that time, as early as 1980, she wanted far-reaching reform of European institutions, including the Common Agricultural Policy:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n11/david-runciman/rat-a-tat-a-tat-a-tat-a-tat

She signed the SEA act, with strong encouragement from her pro-European cabinet members, because she favoured the deregulation and trade advantages of it. But quickly regretted it after she signed it and saw the direction the EEC was taking.

During her term in office in 1986, she backed the US bid for Westland, over the European bid, angering Heseltine which indirectly led to her downfall four years later.

In 1988, she made her controversial Bruges speech, attacking the principles of closer European integration.

Her acquiescence to the ERM whilst in office, was a sign of her weakness in the late 1980s. Once Lawson backed it, she could oppose it no longer.

In 1990, whilst still PM, she attacked the idea of a European superstate - her "No No No!" speech. Arguably, this hastened her final downfall.

After she left office, she came to the view that Britain should leave the EU (post-Maastrict) but her advisors advised her to stay silent. This is nearly 20 years before it became 'fashionable' to do so:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/charles-moore/2013/05/after-leaving-office-margaret-thatcher-believed-britain-should-leave-the-eu/

She called for fundamental renegotiation of the UK's relationship with the EU in Statecraft in 2002, including common agricultural, fisheries, foreign and defence policies

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11598879

She was also pro-capital punishment, resisted the hunger-strikers, pro-military response to the Falklands, didn't want to hand back Hong Kong, tough on immigration (recognising people's fears of being "swamped") unashamedly pro-council house sales, and wanted privatisation to benefit the average man on the street. At the end, she was an overt red-blooded Eurosceptic.

All at a time when a majority of her cabinet either had grave reservations, or opposed those things. She suffered anti-bourgoiese snobbery from within her own party, a large chunk of the civil service, and from the left-leaning arts establishment - throughout her whole time in office.

She always talked about 'our people'; she did not mean the Tory or metropolitan elite. Throughout her whole time in office, she saw herself as an outsider. And in many ways, she was.

In what way was she not the first UKIP leader?

The national union of students wouldn't pass a motion to condemn the Islamic state but they did pass a motion to oppose UKIP.


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/willardfoxton2/100014284/beyond-parody-national-union-of-students-wont-condemn-the-islamic-state/

http://www.nusconnect.org.uk/blogs/blog/danielstevens/2014/05/20/NUS-is-right-to-have-passed-policy-to-Oppose-UKIP/

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

FPT - it's not about *preferring* the uneducated to lead our country to the educated. That's missing the point. It's about the educated recognising they are in a privileged position and have a duty to listen to, understand and represent the balance of opinion across the whole country, rather than just amongst themselves.

That's democracy. If you don't do it, you ain't going to get re-elected.

One example that needs no introduction: Margaret Thatcher. She held a degree in Chemistry, and in Law, and was by any stretch of the imagination educated and intelligent.

However, she was never part of the metropolitan elite. In many respects, she was an outsider for almost her whole term in office.

In fact, I'd argue, she was the first UKIP PM. Discuss.

Margaret Thatcher signed the Single European Act.

She helped set up the way for thousands of Europeans to come over here to live and work.

First Kipper PM? Lol she'd be charactised as an out of touch Europhile with ordinary Britons.

Relevant:

http://twitpic.com/dolui4

isam said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

isam said:

I see bigger major titties in the thread header!! Have I gone sex mad???

Dunno, but calm yourself down and back The Romford Pele in the 3.50 at Cheltenham.

Don't normally give horsey tips on here these days, but I thought the name might appeal to you as much as the form.

Thanks! If I may name drop, I am on first name terms w the actual Romford Pele, he goes to my gym!

You'd better back it twice!

Re: AV/STV. I'm moving towards Nick Palmer's idea of PR open list. Probably slightly larger constituencies of 5-6 members each.

For instance, I could easily see Surrey Inner and Surrey Outer being created, each with 5-6 MPs. The main cities could easily work as one constituency: Bristol, Manchester and Leeds.

Wherever possible, they would try to match traditional county and city metropolitan boundaries.

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

Discuss.

Margaret Thatcher signed the Single European Act.

First Kipper PM? Lol she'd be charactised as an out of touch Europhile with ordinary Britons.

I was counting the seconds until someone posted the 'Single European Act'. This is nonsense.

In what way was she not the first UKIP leader?

You mean you were counting the seconds until someone brought in the facts?

Given Kippers and others heap opprobrium on those Brits that favoured British membership of the Single Currency, what do you think they would have said about the person who signed us up the Single European Act.

She's a lazy out of touch Oxbridge lady who doesn't know what treaties she was signing.

See Grandiose's link below to see where a modern Thatcher would be.

Grandiose said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

FPT - it's not about *preferring* the uneducated to lead our country to the educated. That's missing the point. It's about the educated recognising they are in a privileged position and have a duty to listen to, understand and represent the balance of opinion across the whole country, rather than just amongst themselves.

That's democracy. If you don't do it, you ain't going to get re-elected.

One example that needs no introduction: Margaret Thatcher. She held a degree in Chemistry, and in Law, and was by any stretch of the imagination educated and intelligent.

However, she was never part of the metropolitan elite. In many respects, she was an outsider for almost her whole term in office.

In fact, I'd argue, she was the first UKIP PM. Discuss.

Margaret Thatcher signed the Single European Act.

She helped set up the way for thousands of Europeans to come over here to live and work.

First Kipper PM? Lol she'd be charactised as an out of touch Europhile with ordinary Britons.

Relevant:

http://twitpic.com/dolui4

I've pondered that for ages, I'm still not sure where I'd belong.

I'd probably be a Liberal, but can see me being a National too.

Plato said:

Fingers crossed this isn't part of a wider wave. We used to see it in recruitment agency business about 4 months before it became obvious elsewhere.

Decisions slow right down/quietly put on hold, contracts ended, work left undone unless truly essential, even temps who were part of the furniture in some client offices were finally dropped.

Training is definitely in the Nice To Have space that's culled early. Along with marketing spending IME.

Beverley_C said:

HurstLlama said:

You are not the first small business owner that I have heard this from in recent weeks. Training is an area that gets cut very early when things start to look dicey and a chum's training company has had a batch of programmes cancelled. Of course it may be just down to ordinary business fluctuations, but it may not be.

One of my ex-customers ran a very successful nationwide training scheme for many years, but he has basically cut it in half, sold off one part to a larger firm and kept a part of the business that he can mange by himself. All of his 10 staff are gone. Bookings just stopped.

HurstLlama said:

Going into a downturn with a £100bn p.a. deficit, more than £1tn debt and an unreformed banking sector could be interesting. Let us hope and pray it doesn't come to that.

I agree Mr Llama. Let us hope that it is a temporary blip.

Of course it could be businesses putting things on hold until after the General Election - so just a pause.

Scott_P said:

@GuidoFawkes: Slotted UKIP Candidate’s Surprise at Sudden Sacking http://t.co/L8BH2xhR5j

Stephen Metcalfe to defect?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_P said:

@GuidoFawkes: Slotted UKIP Candidate’s Surprise at Sudden Sacking http://t.co/L8BH2xhR5j

Stephen Metcalfe to defect?

I am not Kerry Smith!

But I mentioned this yesterday when we were discussing betting on this seat...

It's nothing to do with last nights result, and it's not a defection

weejonnie said:

rogerh said:

If UKIP declines in Tory /Lab battlegrounds and UKIP is currently taking more Con than Labour voters ,we should see gap between Labour and Cons narrowing

However looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election it appears that the recent increase in UKIP rating has resulted in Labour falling more than The Conservative Party in the polls. So the first derivative is worse for Labour. (d/dt(UKIP) = -(d/dt(Labour))

Yes. This is the problem of looking at moves of 2010 voters. A 2010 Con voter might have been a 2013 Lab voter, before becoming a 2014 UKIP voter.

Grandiose said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_P said:

@GuidoFawkes: Slotted UKIP Candidate’s Surprise at Sudden Sacking http://t.co/L8BH2xhR5j

Stephen Metcalfe to defect?

The others have been well handled. That would be poor...

Ahem, Roger Lord.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Grandiose said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_P said:

@GuidoFawkes: Slotted UKIP Candidate’s Surprise at Sudden Sacking http://t.co/L8BH2xhR5j

Stephen Metcalfe to defect?

The others have been well handled. That would be poor...

Ahem, Roger Lord.

Yeah, but they didn't actually deselect him...

"Indian-born UKIP candidate predicts defeat for IDS":

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/rbnews/11540244.Indian_born_Ukip_candidate_predicts_defeat_for_Iain_Duncan_Smith/

OffTopic - For those interested in the technical side of the Lockheed Martin fusion story, discussed here yesterday:
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/home/blog/keeping-our-cool-about-compact-fusion/1019367.article?cmpid=tenews_605752

Scott_P said:

Grandiose said:

Yeah, but they didn't actually deselect him...

He is no longer the candidate...

He was never the by-election candidate. Therefore he wasn't deselected for anything until after.

Obviously that was a mistake, because he felt he'd been deselected. But it's rather different from actually deselecting the 2015 candidate.

Pulpstar said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_P said:

@GuidoFawkes: Slotted UKIP Candidate’s Surprise at Sudden Sacking http://t.co/L8BH2xhR5j

Stephen Metcalfe to defect?

I am not Kerry Smith!

But I mentioned this yesterday when we were discussing betting on this seat...

It's nothing to do with last nights result, and it's not a defection

isam said:

A bit of inside info, I think the candidate will be a bit less Ukip than we are used to..

Hmm !

Its three stops on the train from me.. can you imagine I am selected!!!

Plus I am on at 20/1!!!!

An all time coup!

Grandiose said:

Obviously that was a mistake, because he felt he'd been deselected. But it's rather different from actually deselecting the 2015 candidate.

He was the 2015 candidate.

Now he is not the 2015 candidate.

Looks like a deselection. Smells like a deselection.

Sean_F said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_P said:

@GuidoFawkes: Slotted UKIP Candidate’s Surprise at Sudden Sacking http://t.co/L8BH2xhR5j

Stephen Metcalfe to defect?

I am not Kerry Smith!

But I mentioned this yesterday when we were discussing betting on this seat...

It's nothing to do with last nights result, and it's not a defection

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_P said:

@GuidoFawkes: Slotted UKIP Candidate’s Surprise at Sudden Sacking http://t.co/L8BH2xhR5j

Stephen Metcalfe to defect?

I am not Kerry Smith!

But I mentioned this yesterday when we were discussing betting on this seat...

It's nothing to do with last nights result, and it's not a defection

I know Mr. Smith of old. This is a very good decision on UKIP's part.

Vanilla emails..

Sean_F said:

I think there's very little doubt that Margaret Thatcher, were she alive today, would be in favour of withdrawal from the EU, as presently constituted.

True. But not UKIPs growing list of socialist policies.

chestnut said:

Most of Ashcroft's polling was done early/mid September.

Since then, Tories flat, Kippers and Libs up, Labour down.

There are a few probable holds in there now that were narrow Labour leads four/five weeks ago.

But the boost for UKIP helps LAB not CON. That's the whole point. It is the differential switch that is so damaging to the Tories.

For every LAB vote that is going to UKIP there are two CON ones.

There are a few probable holds in there now that were narrow Labour leads four/five weeks ago.

Indeed, and Ashcroft does tend to over state labour slightly, if H&M is any yardstick.

The tories on 31 with YG when UKIP are on 18 isn't the end of the world for Dave.

JosiasJessop said:

logical_song said:

OffTopic - For those interested in the technical side of the Lockheed Martin fusion story, discussed here yesterday:
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/home/blog/keeping-our-cool-about-compact-fusion/1019367.article?cmpid=tenews_605752

Glad to see you read theengineer too!

If Dr Thomas McGuire has spoken out of turn or told untruths, then expect him not to be a project lead at LM for much longer. This sort of thing can cause problems for a listed company's share price.

But a few things make me think this is not the case:

1) He's spoken about it before, at Google's 'Solve for X' conference in Feb 2013;
2) They have a product page for it on their main website: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html
3) LM Skunkworks have been officially known to be working on such things for a few years now.

It seems fair to think that they're onto something. I can't see McGuire releasing information like this without prior permission of his Skunkwork and LM bosses, especially for a second time.

But your caution may be right. Or perhaps, just perhaps, some darned good scientists and engineers have found a way forward ...

Well the world could do with some good news after Ebola, the economy and UKIP (Only joking ;-))

Eastwinger said:

MikeSmithson said:

chestnut said:

Most of Ashcroft's polling was done early/mid September.

Since then, Tories flat, Kippers and Libs up, Labour down.

There are a few probable holds in there now that were narrow Labour leads four/five weeks ago.

But the boost for UKIP helps LAB not CON. That's the whole point. It is the differential switch that is so damaging to the Tories.

For every LAB vote that is going to UKIP there are two CON ones.

Yet Labours lead continues to decline.

Small sample but the Lib Dem uptick cant be good for Labour can it?

So as UKIP go up, they take more Labour than Cons (Ratio now 1:2 from 1:3?) But Lab are losing to LDs as well meaning Lab vs Con is tighter

Lennon said:

MikeSmithson said:

chestnut said:

Most of Ashcroft's polling was done early/mid September.

Since then, Tories flat, Kippers and Libs up, Labour down.

There are a few probable holds in there now that were narrow Labour leads four/five weeks ago.

But the boost for UKIP helps LAB not CON. That's the whole point. It is the differential switch that is so damaging to the Tories.

For every LAB vote that is going to UKIP there are two CON ones.

Mike, I normally agree with you - but I am struggling to see where you get this from. For every UKIP vote currently, historically 1 has been Lab and 2 have been Con. That is what has got UKIP to the level at which they are at. However, it doesn't follow that every 3 incremental UKIP votes are coming in the same proportion from historic voters.

True. But the trend suggest that this is continuing.

I don't focus on national polls but on the marginals polling which is far more significant.

What happens in the non-marginals is irrelevant.

Casino_Royale said:

there is a good argument to be made that Margaret Thatcher ("our" great leader) was the 1st UKIP Prime Minister.

Wishful revisionism and whataboutery is not a good argument.

isam said:

Eastwinger said:

MikeSmithson said:

chestnut said:

Most of Ashcroft's polling was done early/mid September.

Since then, Tories flat, Kippers and Libs up, Labour down.

There are a few probable holds in there now that were narrow Labour leads four/five weeks ago.

But the boost for UKIP helps LAB not CON. That's the whole point. It is the differential switch that is so damaging to the Tories.

For every LAB vote that is going to UKIP there are two CON ones.

Yet Labours lead continues to decline.

Small sample but the Lib Dem uptick cant be good for Labour can it?

So as UKIP go up, they take more Labour than Cons (Ratio now 1:2 from 1:3?) But Lab are losing to LDs as well meaning Lab vs Con is tighter

Lab obviously losing to someone else Lab / Con gap would be increasing, but it isn't.

JosiasJessop and logical song

If we really are into a world of fusion reactors in 10 years time, oil and gas prices are going to drop through the floor.

MikeSmithson said:

Lennon said:

MikeSmithson said:

chestnut said:

Most of Ashcroft's polling was done early/mid September.

Since then, Tories flat, Kippers and Libs up, Labour down.

There are a few probable holds in there now that were narrow Labour leads four/five weeks ago.

But the boost for UKIP helps LAB not CON. That's the whole point. It is the differential switch that is so damaging to the Tories.

For every LAB vote that is going to UKIP there are two CON ones.

Mike, I normally agree with you - but I am struggling to see where you get this from. For every UKIP vote currently, historically 1 has been Lab and 2 have been Con. That is what has got UKIP to the level at which they are at. However, it doesn't follow that every 3 incremental UKIP votes are coming in the same proportion from historic voters.

True. But the trend suggest that this is continuing.

I don't focus on national polls but on the marginals polling which is far more significant.

What happens in the non-marginals is irrelevant.

One of the great gifts of the UKIP surge, is it changes which seats are marginal/safe.

Heywood and Middleton is a safe Labour seat on 2010 numbers. Now it's not.
Clacton is a safe Conservative seat on 2010 numbers. Now it's not.