politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Stephen Fisher’s latest GE15 forecast is right LAB coul
We’ve been here before and we’ll be here many times in the next six months – the way that on national vote shares at least the “system” seems to favour LAB so much.
Comments
-
I wonder if an SNP surge in Scotland (in votes, but not seats) will reduce or amplify this effect?0
-
FPT - For Scrapheap
Bobby Sol may have cost me nearly £300.
From Yesterday
Football betting tip.
Backing Spurs to win against City tomorrow.
However Spurs got the dockside hooker treatment when they played the big sides last year.
So also had a punt on there being over 5.5 goals at 9/1.
http://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/premier-league/man-city-v-tottenham/total-goals
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/438566/#Comment_438566
0 -
Bobby Sol and the Spurs defence = Labour's front bench.0
-
0
-
"I don’t rule out at GE15 some LAB switching to CON to stop UKIP in certain seats."
According to ComRes, Labour supporters prefer UKIP to the Conservatives.
current-Labour
Conservative Party: +4% / -76% (-72)
UKIP: +12% / -58% (-46)
2010 Labour
Conservative Party: +8% / -71% (-63)
UKIP: +18% / -55% (-37)
http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/IoS_SM_Political_Poll_28th_September_2014_8723.pdf0 -
TSE = you must rank Bobby Sol right along with Reckless now...
Hadn't see your post from y'day.... 4-1 is progress for Spurs...0 -
Re: tactical voting
ComRes have a good question on this tonight/tomorrow.
"We have also repeated a question from two years ago asking people what other parties they would “seriously consider” voting for, apart from their first choice."
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2014/10/18/poll-alert-48/0 -
Stephen Fisher is now fishing in new territorial waters.
We now know that such an outcome, as he espouses above, is not going to happen.
If Mike Smithson thinks it will, I'll bet him £100 even it wont.0 -
For their missed penaltiesScrapheap_as_was said:TSE = you must rank Bobby Sol right along with Reckless now...
Hadn't see your post from y'day.... 4-1 is progress for Spurs...
Aguero = Carswell
Bobby Sol = Reckless0 -
Mind you, 298 seats wouldn't necessarily be a victory if they couldn't force Cameron out of No 10. Lab+LD would be just about viable (329 seats, so an effective majority of about a dozen once you add in Sinn Fein abstentions and the Speaker), but it would be absolutely knife-edge and put the EV4EL centre-stage from day 1.
FWIW, If the Tories couldn't form a majority government even with LD or UKIP support, I'd expect Cameron to resign as PM but that's a different matter.0 -
You're misrepresenting/misreading the question.anotherDave said:"I don’t rule out at GE15 some LAB switching to CON to stop UKIP in certain seats."
According to ComRes, Labour supporters prefer UKIP to the Conservatives.
current-Labour
Conservative Party: +4% / -76% (-72)
UKIP: +12% / -58% (-46)
2010 Labour
Conservative Party: +8% / -71% (-63)
UKIP: +18% / -55% (-37)
http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/IoS_SM_Political_Poll_28th_September_2014_8723.pdf
The question was
Please indicate whether you have a favourable or unfavourable view of each of the following.
Now I can understand why Labour supporters have a favourable view on a party that is perceived to be damaging the Tory party.
This is why the Ipsos-Mori questions are much superior to ComRes' questions on this topic.0 -
That projection looks short in terms of Others. How does that 30 break down? 18 NI so 12 GB. 6 SNP, 3 Plaid, 2 UKIP 1 Green? Strikes me as a bit mean to both the SNP and UKIP.0
-
??????????????????TheScreamingEagles said:
You're misrepresenting/misreading the question.anotherDave said:"I don’t rule out at GE15 some LAB switching to CON to stop UKIP in certain seats."
According to ComRes, Labour supporters prefer UKIP to the Conservatives.
current-Labour
Conservative Party: +4% / -76% (-72)
UKIP: +12% / -58% (-46)
2010 Labour
Conservative Party: +8% / -71% (-63)
UKIP: +18% / -55% (-37)
http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/IoS_SM_Political_Poll_28th_September_2014_8723.pdf
The question was
Please indicate whether you have a favourable or unfavourable view of each of the following.
Now I can understand why Labour supporters have a favourable view on a party that is perceived to be damaging the Tory party.
This is why the Ipsos-Mori questions are much superior to ComRes' questions on this topic.
The point is that current-Labour supporters would be more likely to vote UKIP than Conservative, in a perceived Con vs UKIP marginal.
Even your blinkered interpretation supports that.0 -
You said According to ComRes, Labour supporters prefer UKIP to the ConservativesanotherDave said:
??????????????????TheScreamingEagles said:
You're misrepresenting/misreading the question.anotherDave said:"I don’t rule out at GE15 some LAB switching to CON to stop UKIP in certain seats."
According to ComRes, Labour supporters prefer UKIP to the Conservatives.
current-Labour
Conservative Party: +4% / -76% (-72)
UKIP: +12% / -58% (-46)
2010 Labour
Conservative Party: +8% / -71% (-63)
UKIP: +18% / -55% (-37)
http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/IoS_SM_Political_Poll_28th_September_2014_8723.pdf
The question was
Please indicate whether you have a favourable or unfavourable view of each of the following.
Now I can understand why Labour supporters have a favourable view on a party that is perceived to be damaging the Tory party.
This is why the Ipsos-Mori questions are much superior to ComRes' questions on this topic.
The point is that current-Labour supporters would be more likely to vote UKIP than Conservative, in a perceived Con vs UKIP marginal.
Even your blinkered interpretation supports that.
I say you can't interpret the question/data that way, as the question was asking something else.0 -
Yes. And you agreed with me.TheScreamingEagles said:
You said According to ComRes, Labour supporters prefer UKIP to the ConservativesanotherDave said:
??????????????????TheScreamingEagles said:
You're misrepresenting/misreading the question.anotherDave said:"I don’t rule out at GE15 some LAB switching to CON to stop UKIP in certain seats."
According to ComRes, Labour supporters prefer UKIP to the Conservatives.
current-Labour
Conservative Party: +4% / -76% (-72)
UKIP: +12% / -58% (-46)
2010 Labour
Conservative Party: +8% / -71% (-63)
UKIP: +18% / -55% (-37)
http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/IoS_SM_Political_Poll_28th_September_2014_8723.pdf
The question was
Please indicate whether you have a favourable or unfavourable view of each of the following.
Now I can understand why Labour supporters have a favourable view on a party that is perceived to be damaging the Tory party.
This is why the Ipsos-Mori questions are much superior to ComRes' questions on this topic.
The point is that current-Labour supporters would be more likely to vote UKIP than Conservative, in a perceived Con vs UKIP marginal.
Even your blinkered interpretation supports that.
I say you can't interpret the question/data that way, as the question was asking someone else.
" I can understand why Labour supporters have a favourable view on a party that is perceived to be damaging the Tory party."
0 -
Seems plausible.0
-
The first thing I notice about Fisher's projection is that he estimates a 57% chance of a hung Parliament.
If that is right, the odds of NOM [No Overall Majority] should be about 8/11. Betfair has it about evens.
Bit of a bargain, if Fisher is right.0 -
The Conservatives are currently selecting the replacement for Hague in Richmond(Yorks). North East BBC reporter believes the result is expected at around 5 PM0
-
And possibly Green too, David.david_herdson said:That projection looks short in terms of Others. How does that 30 break down? 18 NI so 12 GB. 6 SNP, 3 Plaid, 2 UKIP 1 Green? Strikes me as a bit mean to both the SNP and UKIP.
I make them favorites to hold Brighton, and in with a shout in at least two others.
0 -
No, but they might not back UKIP, which is the bit you were contesting in your original post.anotherDave said:
Yes. And you agreed with me.TheScreamingEagles said:
You said According to ComRes, Labour supporters prefer UKIP to the ConservativesanotherDave said:
??????????????????TheScreamingEagles said:
You're misrepresenting/misreading the question.anotherDave said:"I don’t rule out at GE15 some LAB switching to CON to stop UKIP in certain seats."
According to ComRes, Labour supporters prefer UKIP to the Conservatives.
current-Labour
Conservative Party: +4% / -76% (-72)
UKIP: +12% / -58% (-46)
2010 Labour
Conservative Party: +8% / -71% (-63)
UKIP: +18% / -55% (-37)
http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/IoS_SM_Political_Poll_28th_September_2014_8723.pdf
The question was
Please indicate whether you have a favourable or unfavourable view of each of the following.
Now I can understand why Labour supporters have a favourable view on a party that is perceived to be damaging the Tory party.
This is why the Ipsos-Mori questions are much superior to ComRes' questions on this topic.
The point is that current-Labour supporters would be more likely to vote UKIP than Conservative, in a perceived Con vs UKIP marginal.
Even your blinkered interpretation supports that.
I say you can't interpret the question/data that way, as the question was asking someone else.
" I can understand why Labour supporters have a favourable view on a party that is perceived to be damaging the Tory party."
Labour supporters may back the Tories to stop UKIP getting in, I think they may very well, the way other pollsters seem to back up the views that Labour supporters view Kippers and their candidates as being racist/more offensive than other candidates.
Also the voters think UKIP are the most extreme and least fit to govern party, including Labour supporters.0 -
You can see the SNP picking up some seats from the Lib Dems, so definitely mean.david_herdson said:That projection looks short in terms of Others. How does that 30 break down? 18 NI so 12 GB. 6 SNP, 3 Plaid, 2 UKIP 1 Green? Strikes me as a bit mean to both the SNP and UKIP.
Hopefully the Lord A poll on Lab held seats in Scotland will tell us more soon.0 -
We're getting a ComRes tonight, and they are looking at the UKIP/Prompting effect
We have asked people how they intend to vote, and carried out an experiment to test the effect of prompting for UKIP. Survation is the only pollster that reminds respondents about UKIP in its standard voting-intention question.
This produces higher scores for the party (on Sunday Survation put UKIP on 25 per cent – the average of other pollsters is 16 per cent), but most pollsters think that the unprompted score has been more accurate in the past. We wanted to find out how much difference the prompt makes.
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2014/10/18/poll-alert-48/0 -
This is nonsense.TheScreamingEagles said:
No, but they might not back UKIP, which is the bit you were contesting in your original post.anotherDave said:
Yes. And you agreed with me.TheScreamingEagles said:
You said According to ComRes, Labour supporters prefer UKIP to the ConservativesanotherDave said:
??????????????????TheScreamingEagles said:
You're misrepresenting/misreading the question.anotherDave said:"I don’t rule out at GE15 some LAB switching to CON to stop UKIP in certain seats."
According to ComRes, Labour supporters prefer UKIP to the Conservatives.
current-Labour
Conservative Party: +4% / -76% (-72)
UKIP: +12% / -58% (-46)
2010 Labour
Conservative Party: +8% / -71% (-63)
UKIP: +18% / -55% (-37)
http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/IoS_SM_Political_Poll_28th_September_2014_8723.pdf
The question was
Please indicate whether you have a favourable or unfavourable view of each of the following.
Now I can understand why Labour supporters have a favourable view on a party that is perceived to be damaging the Tory party.
This is why the Ipsos-Mori questions are much superior to ComRes' questions on this topic.
The point is that current-Labour supporters would be more likely to vote UKIP than Conservative, in a perceived Con vs UKIP marginal.
Even your blinkered interpretation supports that.
I say you can't interpret the question/data that way, as the question was asking someone else.
" I can understand why Labour supporters have a favourable view on a party that is perceived to be damaging the Tory party."
Labour supporters may back the Tories to stop UKIP getting in, I think they may very well, the way other pollsters seem to back up the views that Labour supporters view Kippers and their candidates as being racist/more offensive than other candidates.
Also the voters think UKIP are the most extreme and least fit to govern party, including Labour supporters.
You are suggesting that Labour voters like UKIP because they damage the Conservative Party, but that they would vote Conservative rather than UKIP?
Tosh.
Regardless. ComRes will be asking a specific "what other parties they would “seriously consider” voting for, apart from their first choice" in their poll this evening.
------
There has not been any poll that asked voters how "extreme" they thought each party was, so there is no comparable data. A poll that just asks if 'UKIP are extreme" is of no use in a "would labour voters support Con vs UKIP question."0 -
FPT @OblitusSumMe
Yes, STV is a bit manipulable (if you are daft enough to leave the boundaries to the politicians). The famous "Tullymander" in Ireland was such an attempt. Draw odd-numbered constituencies (3-seaters) where you are strong and even-numbered (4-seaters) where you are weak. The object being to "lose" nowhere! [you either win 2-1 or draw 2-2] It backfired actually, when the swing against Tully's party was greater than expected.
PR^2 would avoid this, while having a similar constituency structure to STV, as the national vote totals are what count under the system. The Boundary Commission could get on with the job of designing constituencies which better reflect actual communities, and the relatively uncontroversial question of whether Liverpool deserves 4 or 5 seats, etc., safe in the knowledge that their decisions could have no bearing on the national outcome with respect to parties. Electoral Bias would be removed, tactical voting should cease [no reason to vote tactically], Labour (and others) would need to get their votes out from Lands End to John'O'Groats, and there could even be a little bit of flexibility on the question of malapportionment (keeping the island constituencies and perhaps one or two others as over/underrepresented single-member) since it won't alter the overall result.0 -
Unfortunately the new Scotland poll figures, giving an astonishing 21% swing from Labour to the SNP and a 13% swing from Labour to the Tories in Scotland mean these figures are now outdated, it is looking increasingly possible the SNP and UKIP could hold the balance of power on present numbers0
-
Yes there has.anotherDave said:
This is nonsense.TheScreamingEagles said:
s.anotherDave said:
Yes. And you agreed with me.TheScreamingEagles said:
You said According to ComRes, Labour supporters prefer UKIP to the ConservativesanotherDave said:
??????????????????TheScreamingEagles said:
You're misrepresenting/misreading the question.anotherDave said:"I don’t rule out at GE15 some LAB switching to CON to stop UKIP in certain seats."
According to ComRes, Labour supporters prefer UKIP to the Conservatives.
current-Labour
Conservative Party: +4% / -76% (-72)
UKIP: +12% / -58% (-46)
2010 Labour
Conservative Party: +8% / -71% (-63)
UKIP: +18% / -55% (-37)
http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/IoS_SM_Political_Poll_28th_September_2014_8723.pdf
The question was
Please indicate whether you have a favourable or unfavourable view of each of the following.
Now I can understand why Labour supporters have a favourable view on a party that is perceived to be damaging the Tory party.
This is why the Ipsos-Mori questions are much superior to ComRes' questions on this topic.
The point is that current-Labour supporters would be more likely to vote UKIP than Conservative, in a perceived Con vs UKIP marginal.
Even your blinkered interpretation supports that.
I say you can't interpret the question/data that way, as the question was asking someone else.
" I can understand why Labour supporters have a favourable view on a party that is perceived to be damaging the Tory party."
You are suggesting that Labour voters like UKIP because they damage the Conservative Party, but that they would vote Conservative rather than UKIP?
Tosh.
Regardless. ComRes will be asking a specific "what other parties they would “seriously consider” voting for, apart from their first choice" in their poll this evening.
------
There has not been any poll that asked voters how "extreme" they thought each party was, so there is no comparable data. A poll that just asks if 'UKIP are extreme" is of no use in a "would labour voters support Con vs UKIP question."
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/09/22/the-polling-says-ukip-are-the-most-extreme-and-the-least-fit-to-govern-party/
Does it hurt to be always this wrong?0 -
You, TSE, will start pissing his knickers, if ComRes poll UKIP at 25 or above points this evening, after prompting for UKIP. Of course it also depends if and how the questions are slanted in UKIPs direction; or not.TheScreamingEagles said:We're getting a ComRes tonight, and they are looking at the UKIP/Prompting effect
We have asked people how they intend to vote, and carried out an experiment to test the effect of prompting for UKIP. Survation is the only pollster that reminds respondents about UKIP in its standard voting-intention question.
This produces higher scores for the party (on Sunday Survation put UKIP on 25 per cent – the average of other pollsters is 16 per cent), but most pollsters think that the unprompted score has been more accurate in the past. We wanted to find out how much difference the prompt makes.
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2014/10/18/poll-alert-48/0 -
Good afternoon, everyone.
Next election remains very hard to call. Whilst UKIP's on the up, they should beware Nemesis.0 -
Her Majesty could be put on the spot if it is like 1974. Who does she send for?
FWIW, David Herdson is correct. Whichever of the big two Parties has the nerve to put PR into their manifesto will be the game changer (but neither will I suspect). Welcome to fruit machine politics! Multi party democracy with FPTP.0 -
"Will you be voting for that nice Nigel Farage and his brave, loyal, British stalwarts in UKIP?"MikeK said:
You, TSE, will start pissing his knickers, if ComRes poll UKIP at 25 or above points this evening, after prompting for UKIP. Of course it also depends if and how the questions are slanted in UKIPs direction; or not.TheScreamingEagles said:We're getting a ComRes tonight, and they are looking at the UKIP/Prompting effect
We have asked people how they intend to vote, and carried out an experiment to test the effect of prompting for UKIP. Survation is the only pollster that reminds respondents about UKIP in its standard voting-intention question.
This produces higher scores for the party (on Sunday Survation put UKIP on 25 per cent – the average of other pollsters is 16 per cent), but most pollsters think that the unprompted score has been more accurate in the past. We wanted to find out how much difference the prompt makes.
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2014/10/18/poll-alert-48/
Should do it.0 -
We need one of the Queen's advisers to write a letter to the Times PDQAJK said:Her Majesty could be put on the spot if it is like 1974. Who does she send for?
FWIW, David Herdson is correct. Whichever of the big two Parties has the nerve to put PR into their manifesto will be the game changer (but neither will I suspect). Welcome to fruit machine politics! Multi party democracy with FPTP.
That's how constitutional precedent is set in this country.0 -
Let's wait for some actual Scottish polling over a series of polls, before leaping to conclusions. I suspect there is a lot of volatility in Scotland at the moment and, while I'd love to see SLab consigned to oblivion, I'm making no assumptions at the moment.HYUFD said:Unfortunately the new Scotland poll figures, giving an astonishing 21% swing from Labour to the SNP and a 13% swing from Labour to the Tories in Scotland mean these figures are now outdated, it is looking increasingly possible the SNP and UKIP could hold the balance of power on present numbers
0 -
OK, you get a point for that one.TheScreamingEagles said:
Yes there has.anotherDave said:
This is nonsense.TheScreamingEagles said:
s.anotherDave said:
Yes. And you agreed with me.TheScreamingEagles said:
You said According to ComRes, Labour supporters prefer UKIP to the ConservativesanotherDave said:
??????????????????TheScreamingEagles said:
You're misrepresenting/misreading the question.anotherDave said:"I don’t rule out at GE15 some LAB switching to CON to stop UKIP in certain seats."
According to ComRes, Labour supporters prefer UKIP to the Conservatives.
current-Labour
Conservative Party: +4% / -76% (-72)
UKIP: +12% / -58% (-46)
2010 Labour
Conservative Party: +8% / -71% (-63)
UKIP: +18% / -55% (-37)
http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/IoS_SM_Political_Poll_28th_September_2014_8723.pdf
The question was
Please indicate whether you have a favourable or unfavourable view of each of the following.
Now I can understand why Labour supporters have a favourable view on a party that is perceived to be damaging the Tory party.
This is why the Ipsos-Mori questions are much superior to ComRes' questions on this topic.
The point is that current-Labour supporters would be more likely to vote UKIP than Conservative, in a perceived Con vs UKIP marginal.
Even your blinkered interpretation supports that.
I say you can't interpret the question/data that way, as the question was asking someone else.
" I can understand why Labour supporters have a favourable view on a party that is perceived to be damaging the Tory party."
You are suggesting that Labour voters like UKIP because they damage the Conservative Party, but that they would vote Conservative rather than UKIP?
Tosh.
Regardless. ComRes will be asking a specific "what other parties they would “seriously consider” voting for, apart from their first choice" in their poll this evening.
------
There has not been any poll that asked voters how "extreme" they thought each party was, so there is no comparable data. A poll that just asks if 'UKIP are extreme" is of no use in a "would labour voters support Con vs UKIP question."
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/09/22/the-polling-says-ukip-are-the-most-extreme-and-the-least-fit-to-govern-party/
Does it hurt to be always this wrong?
On the more relevant question: which way would they vote? We'll have to wait for ComRes' poll this evening: 'what other parties they would “seriously consider” voting for, apart from their first choice'0 -
Anyone who thinks that Labour voters would vote Conservative at a GE in a seat where only Conservative or UKIP can win
or thinks that Conservative voters would vote Labour in a seat only Labour or UKIP can win
In other words, would rather their preferred party was not in power nationally than vote UKIP
...is utterly insane and I very much doubt there are enough of them to worry about factoring in to any betting considerations
If you live in Thurrock and want David Cameron as PM, you vote UKIP
If you live in Thanet South and want Ed Miliband as PM you vote UKIP0 -
I asked you previously but don't think I was around for the response: does PR^2 work with a top-up system of non-constituency MPs?RodCrosby said:FPT @OblitusSumMe
Yes, STV is a bit manipulable (if you are daft enough to leave the boundaries to the politicians). The famous "Tullymander" in Ireland was such an attempt. Draw odd-numbered constituencies (3-seaters) where you are strong and even-numbered (4-seaters) where you are weak. The object being to "lose" nowhere! [you either win 2-1 or draw 2-2] It backfired actually, when the swing against Tully's party was greater than expected.
PR^2 would avoid this, while having a similar constituency structure to STV, as the national vote totals are what count under the system. The Boundary Commission could get on with the job of designing constituencies which better reflect actual communities, and the relatively uncontroversial question of whether Liverpool deserves 4 or 5 seats, etc., safe in the knowledge that their decisions could have no bearing on the national outcome with respect to parties. Electoral Bias would be removed, tactical voting should cease [no reason to vote tactically], Labour (and others) would need to get their votes out from Lands End to John'O'Groats, and there could even be a little bit of flexibility on the question of malapportionment (keeping the island constituencies and perhaps one or two others as over/underrepresented single-member) since it won't alter the overall result.0 -
There should be a PB rule that any conversation over a certain number of replies makes both people look silly.TheScreamingEagles said:
Yes there has.
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/09/22/the-polling-says-ukip-are-the-most-extreme-and-the-least-fit-to-govern-party/
Does it hurt to be always this wrong?
Here's the reality:
Some Labour supporters prefer UKIP over the Conservatives
Some Labour supporters prefer the Conservatives over UKIP
Some Conservative supporters prefer UKIP over Labour
Some Conservative supporters prefer Labour over UKIP
Some UKIP supporters prefer the Labour over the Conservatives
Some UKIP supporters prefer the Conservatives over Labour.
The varying percentages will be influenced by various factors including political views, socioeconomic background and geographic location.
0 -
Oldnat Indeed, we must await tonight's polls with interest and the details tomorrow!0
-
The Warlock? Do you see Farage as the Torquemada character then?Morris_Dancer said:Good afternoon, everyone.
Next election remains very hard to call. Whilst UKIP's on the up, they should beware Nemesis.
(For all you confused normal people out there I am talking classic 2000AD characters)0 -
"Her Majesty could be put on the spot if it is like 1974. Who does she send for?"
Well, she's hardly likely to send for her mate Dave, if she can avoid it.
Those weekly meetings must a tad awkward these days.0 -
I don’t rule out at GE15 some LAB switching to CON to stop UKIP in certain seats.
He does try doesn't he? I suspect a much larger group of Tories will vote UKIP in the north to stop Labour (and if seats can be won on less than 30% we could see some UKIP shocks there) and a much larger group of Labour voters down south will vote UKIP to stop the Tories and their bedfellows the Libdems.
Whats clear is that in the seats that matter, the Lab-Tory marginals, a tactical vote against UKIP will also be a vote against a voter's party of preference. However, elesewhere, particularly where UKIP are challenging the Tories given how the Tories have banged on and on and on about the puerile 'Vote UKIP get Labour' mantra, I'm sure most Labour activists and voters will have got the message loud and clear and will act accordingly where appropriate.0 -
PS Of course you could just vote for the Party you like most, I don't think that's wrong even if tactically it doesn't make sense.. but to actually vote for the party you DONT want to be in power, and that vote makes it more likely that they will be, is crazy, and wont happen much if at allisam said:Anyone who thinks that Labour voters would vote Conservative at a GE in a seat where only Conservative or UKIP can win
or thinks that Conservative voters would vote Labour in a seat only Labour or UKIP can win
In other words, would rather their preferred party was not in power nationally than vote UKIP
...is utterly insane and I very much doubt there are enough of them to worry about factoring in to any betting considerations
If you live in Thurrock and want David Cameron as PM, you vote UKIP
If you live in Thanet South and want Ed Miliband as PM you vote UKIP0 -
Just a bit!Peter_the_Punter said:"Her Majesty could be put on the spot if it is like 1974. Who does she send for?"
Well, she's hardly likely to send for her mate Dave, if she can avoid it.
Those weekly meetings must a tad awkward these days.
Cant believe more wasn't made of his ungentlemanly goofs... can you IMAGINE if it were Ed???
Labour should be making more of that, not synthetic outrage about Lord Freud0 -
There are no Scotland poll figures showing anything of the sort . You are Stuart Dickson posting under a different name .HYUFD said:Unfortunately the new Scotland poll figures, giving an astonishing 21% swing from Labour to the SNP and a 13% swing from Labour to the Tories in Scotland mean these figures are now outdated, it is looking increasingly possible the SNP and UKIP could hold the balance of power on present numbers
0 -
Mr. Tyndall, afraid I have no knowledge of this 2000AD business.
I was referring to the daughter of Nyx.0 -
That proves nothing because your argument is predicated on people believing UKIP will be in a position to govern and virtually no one believes UKIP can win a majority. So voting UKIP and having a few Kippers in Westminster (and as a result likely causing more chaos amongst Tory wets) is a price I suspect most core Labour voters would suffer to see the Tories defeatedTheScreamingEagles said:
Yes there has.anotherDave said:
This is nonsense.TheScreamingEagles said:
s.anotherDave said:
Yes. And you agreed with me.TheScreamingEagles said:
You said According to ComRes, Labour supporters prefer UKIP to the ConservativesanotherDave said:
??????????????????TheScreamingEagles said:
You're misrepresenting/misreading the question.anotherDave said:"I don’t rule out at GE15 some LAB switching to CON to stop UKIP in certain seats."
According to ComRes, Labour supporters prefer UKIP to the Conservatives.
current-Labour
Conservative Party: +4% / -76% (-72)
UKIP: +12% / -58% (-46)
2010 Labour
Conservative Party: +8% / -71% (-63)
UKIP: +18% / -55% (-37)
http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/IoS_SM_Political_Poll_28th_September_2014_8723.pdf
The question was
Now I can understand why Labour supporters have a favourable view on a party that is perceived to be damaging the Tory party.
This is why the Ipsos-Mori questions are much superior to ComRes' questions on this topic.
The point is that current-Labour supporters would be more likely to vote UKIP than Conservative, in a perceived Con vs UKIP marginal.
Even your blinkered interpretation supports that.
I say you can't interpret the question/data that way, as the question was asking someone else.
" I can understand why Labour supporters have a favourable view on a party that is perceived to be damaging the Tory party."
You are suggesting that Labour voters like UKIP because they damage the Conservative Party, but that they would vote Conservative rather than UKIP?
Tosh.
Regardless. ComRes will be asking a specific "what other parties they would “seriously consider” voting for, apart from their first choice" in their poll this evening.
------
There has not been any poll that asked voters how "extreme" they thought each party was, so there is no comparable data. A poll that just asks if 'UKIP are extreme" is of no use in a "would labour voters support Con vs UKIP question."
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/09/22/the-polling-says-ukip-are-the-most-extreme-and-the-least-fit-to-govern-party/
Does it hurt to be always this wrong?0 -
I think Madge would be able to cope with Camerons goof..She has had to deal with Labour PM's when she knows most of the party would like to kick her out of Buck house.0
-
Either that or this is an implicit agreement from @TSE that voting for UKIP isn't a protest votemanofkent2014 said:
That proves nothing because your argument is predicated on people believing UKIP will be in a position to govern and virtually no one believes UKIP can win a majority. So voting UKIP and having a few Kippers in Westminster is a price I suspect most core Labour voters would suffer to see the Tories defeatedTheScreamingEagles said:
Yes there has.anotherDave said:
This is nonsense.TheScreamingEagles said:
s.anotherDave said:
Yes. And you agreed with me.TheScreamingEagles said:
You said According to ComRes, Labour supporters prefer UKIP to the ConservativesanotherDave said:
??????????????????TheScreamingEagles said:
You're misrepresenting/misreading the question.anotherDave said:"I don’t rule out at GE15 some LAB switching to CON to stop UKIP in certain seats."
According to ComRes, Labour supporters prefer UKIP to the Conservatives.
current-Labour
Conservative Party: +4% / -76% (-72)
UKIP: +12% / -58% (-46)
2010 Labour
Conservative Party: +8% / -71% (-63)
UKIP: +18% / -55% (-37)
http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/IoS_SM_Political_Poll_28th_September_2014_8723.pdf
The question was
Please indicate whether you have a favourable or unfavourable view of each of the following.
Now I can understand why Labour supporters have a favourable view on a party that is perceived to be damaging the Tory party.
This is why the Ipsos-Mori questions are much superior to ComRes' questions on this topic.
The point is that current-Labour supporters would be more likely to vote UKIP than Conservative, in a perceived Con vs UKIP marginal.
Even your blinkered interpretation supports that.
I say you can't interpret the question/data that way, as the question was asking someone else.
You are suggesting that Labour voters like UKIP because they damage the Conservative Party, but that they would vote Conservative rather than UKIP?
Tosh.
------
There has not been any poll that asked voters how "extreme" they thought each party was, so there is no comparable data. A poll that just asks if 'UKIP are extreme" is of no use in a "would labour voters support Con vs UKIP question."
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/09/22/the-polling-says-ukip-are-the-most-extreme-and-the-least-fit-to-govern-party/
Does it hurt to be always this wrong?
Can't be both
0 -
RodCrosby said:Socrates said:
I asked you previously but don't think I was around for the response: does PR^2 work with a top-up system of non-constituency MPs?
examples
Sefton PR^2 constituency (3 seats) 2010, quotas
Con 1.07
Lab 1.55
LD 1.13
Three parties all have a quota, so all seats are filled, 1 for each party. If these parties ran more than one candidate, the second preferences of voters for eliminated parties could come into play to decide which would be elected. 1 seat would be deducted from the national totals for the three parties.
Bolton PR^2 constituency (3 seats) 2010, quotas
Con 1.35
Lab 1.75
LD 0.62
Two parties have a quota, with one seat indeterminate at this point. After comparing the relative performance of the parties across constituencies, Labour would probably get a second seat. Proceed with 1,2,3 to discriminate between candidates, as necessary.
Note that the Tories would win seats in areas they didn't under FPTP, and there would be counter-examples for Labour.
Taking England 2010 as an example.
Entitlement PR^2
Con 283
Lab 142
LD 106
UKIP 2
Quotas obtained across the constituencies (seats remaining to be assigned)
Con 184 (99)
Lab 106 (36)
LD 52 (54)
UKIP 0 (2)
To assign the remainders you could start with the smallest party (UKIP) and scan the (unfilled) constituencies to find its two best results, giving it seats there, and so on in order of size. Or you could use Buhagiar's Priority Queue, or some other method...
The PR^2 would be performed separately in the 4 nations, giving an overall UK (2010) result of:-
Con 302 (inc. 2 UCUNF)
Lab 201
LD 119
SNP 8
SF 7
DUP 6
SDLP 3
PC 2
UKIP 2
I hope you can see from my examples that the implementation of PR^2 I have designed is intended to avoid:-
i) two classes of MP, constituency and list (top-ups)
ii) the confusing 2 votes, one for the constituency, one for the list
iii) lists altogether
although it would be perfectly possible to have a PR^2 system which included these, or a list only system (shudder), or various other electoral paraphernalia...0 -
Looks like another Con-Lib coalition then from these figures.0
-
Now having dealt with the silliness what I was going to post about is how Labour are bangin on and on and on about the NHS to the point where its starting to look like Miliband is not only adopting a disastrous 35% strategy but he is also turning his party into a single issue pressure group.
Unsurprising in many ways as he has nothing worth listening to on virtually every other area but what a demonstration of the Misfit's impotency. I'd long though that it would be the Tories on the run at the next election but if this keeps up I can see UKIp making major inroads into Labour's core seats. The NHS may be somewhat of a sacred cow but after the likes of Mid Staffs it's clear that the poor beast may well have contracted BSE. The NHS is not the issue for the Misfit to bet the House on. I don't think any single issue is this time around.......0 -
I should add that the possibility remains that the Greens, Galloway, the KHHC guy and Hermon would have also won seats via the local quota method under PR^2, even though they were too small to benefit from the national formula. Just happens they didn't in my simulation.0
-
They may be targeting cat owners too...manofkent2014 said:Now having dealt with the silliness what I was going to post about is how Labour are bangin on and on and on about the NHS to the point where its starting to look like Miliband is not only adopting a disastrous 35% strategy but he is also turning his party into a single issue pressure group.
Growing questions are being asked about the role of Tim Livesey, who as chief of staff has yet to instil fear — and in some cases respect — in the party.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4240425.ece
One Labour source said of Mr Livesey: “For someone to arrive in that job not knowing anything about the Labour party and the way politicians work, having never worked in parliament either, is quite a massive disadvantage. I don’t think he’s ever overcome it. Also, I think he’s a massive pussy.”0 -
Yes. With Fisher as Prime Minister and Rod Crosby as his Deputy.rottenborough said:Looks like another Con-Lib coalition then from these figures.
In fact, Fisher is being positively a Labour supporter suggesting the chance of a Tory majority at 19% whereas Rod Crosby has no such qualms. He puts Tory chances at 99.99%. The 0.01% fell off when the 293,876,321st simulation failed when the lights went out !0 -
What Labour & Con voters think of the other party and UKIP:
Con voters:
Extreme:
Lab: 18
UKIP: 65
Fit to Govern
Lab: 18
UKIP: 9
Lab Voters
Extreme:
Con: 37
UKIP: 84
Fit to Govern
Con: 35
UKIP: 9
They're really going to vote tactically for a party they consider 'extreme' and not 'fit to govern'?
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/political-monitor-sep-2014-party-image-tables.pdf0 -
When did they let you out ?HYUFD said:Unfortunately the new Scotland poll figures, giving an astonishing 21% swing from Labour to the SNP and a 13% swing from Labour to the Tories in Scotland mean these figures are now outdated, it is looking increasingly possible the SNP and UKIP could hold the balance of power on present numbers
0 -
Oh yes, I am sure she can cope with it and any awkwardness is bound to be on his side, rather than hers. And any animus is sure to be personal rather than Party Political.richardDodd said:I think Madge would be able to cope with Camerons goof..She has had to deal with Labour PM's when she knows most of the party would like to kick her out of Buck house.
There's plenty of precedent for that kind of thing. Apparently Queen Victoria couldn't stand Gladstone. 'He addresses me like a public meeting' she was apparently heard to complain.
Not that Dave is any way comparable to Gladstone.
0 -
manofkent2014 said:
Indeed that's another myth that's being peddled by the Conservative Fantasy Factory. That come general election time voters stop protesting and 'think seriously' (tsk, tsk, tsk) about the ever so self-important parties of government.manofkent2014 said:TheScreamingEagles said:anotherDave said:
This is nonsense.TheScreamingEagles said:
s.anotherDave said:
Yes. And you agreed with me.TheScreamingEagles said:
You said According to ComRes, Labour supporters prefer UKIP to the ConservativesanotherDave said:
??????????????????TheScreamingEagles said:
You're misrepresenting/misreading the question.anotherDave said:"I don’t rule out at GE15 some LAB switching to CON to stop UKIP in certain seats."
According to ComRes, Labour supporters prefer UKIP to the Conservatives.
current-Labour
Conservative Party: +4% / -76% (-72)
UKIP: +12% / -58% (-46)
2010 Labour
Conservative Party: +8% / -71% (-63)
UKIP: +18% / -55% (-37)
http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/IoS_SM_Political_Poll_28th_September_2014_8723.pdf
The question was
Please indicate whether you have a favourable or unfavourable view of each of the following.
Now I can understand why Labour supporters have a favourable view on a party that is perceived to be damaging the Tory party.
This is why the Ipsos-Mori questions are much superior to ComRes' questions on this topic.
The point is that current-Labour supporters would be more likely to vote UKIP than Conservative, in a perceived Con vs UKIP marginal.
Even your blinkered interpretation supports that.
I say you can't interpret the question/data that way, as the question was asking someone else.
You are suggesting that Labour voters like UKIP because they damage the Conservative Party, but that they would vote Conservative rather than UKIP?
Tosh.
------
Of course that the Libdems polled nearly 7 million votes in 2010, 1 million more than 2005, 2 million more than 2001 even though we were in the midst of the 'Great Recession' when you'd have thought everyone would be focused on the 'serious parties of government' is something these Tory spinners seem to have overlooked. Clearly millions of those voters for the Libdems were 'protest voters'.
It just demonstrates how proficient the Tories have become at clutching at straws since the bad old days when they were regularly 30 points or more behind against Tony Blair.0 -
@chrisg0000: Decline in #Labour's share
Final Polls October 2012>Now
#Yougov 44% now 32%
#Mori 43% now 33%
#Opinium 41% now 35%
#ICM 43% now 35%0 -
No, it wouldn't. I cannot see Labour winning in the UK without winning in England too !david_herdson said:Mind you, 298 seats wouldn't necessarily be a victory if they couldn't force Cameron out of No 10. Lab+LD would be just about viable (329 seats, so an effective majority of about a dozen once you add in Sinn Fein abstentions and the Speaker), but it would be absolutely knife-edge and put the EV4EL centre-stage from day 1.
FWIW, If the Tories couldn't form a majority government even with LD or UKIP support, I'd expect Cameron to resign as PM but that's a different matter.0 -
So where have all those votes gone ?Scott_P said:@chrisg0000: Decline in #Labour's share
Final Polls October 2012>Now
#Yougov 44% now 32%
#Mori 43% now 33%
#Opinium 41% now 35%
#ICM 43% now 35%0 -
HMQ doesn't have to call for anyone. She waits either for Cameron to resign or to be voted down on a matter of confidence. She then sends for the leader of the opposition unless she has a clear indication that some other person could put together a government.AJK said:Her Majesty could be put on the spot if it is like 1974. Who does she send for?
FWIW, David Herdson is correct. Whichever of the big two Parties has the nerve to put PR into their manifesto will be the game changer (but neither will I suspect). Welcome to fruit machine politics! Multi party democracy with FPTP.0 -
not at all. Dave let himself down a bit because he was over-excited at meeting Mike (Bloomberg, not Smithson).Peter_the_Punter said:"Her Majesty could be put on the spot if it is like 1974. Who does she send for?"
Well, she's hardly likely to send for her mate Dave, if she can avoid it.
Those weekly meetings must a tad awkward these days.
The Queen deals every day with people who are over-excited or who behave gauchely when they meet her or who have something to do with her.
on topic (?):
I am pretty politically geeky (yes, really) and I have no idea what the relative state of the parties is in my constituency. I seriously think that the whole issue/phenomenon of "tactical voting" is hugely overstated.0 -
IpsosMori are not worth a tub of spit as far as party image polls are concerned.CarlottaVance said:What Labour & Con voters think of the other party and UKIP:
Con voters:
Extreme:
Lab: 18
UKIP: 65
Fit to Govern
Lab: 18
UKIP: 9
Lab Voters
Extreme:
Con: 37
UKIP: 84
Fit to Govern
Con: 35
UKIP: 9
They're really going to vote tactically for a party they consider 'extreme' and not 'fit to govern'?
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/political-monitor-sep-2014-party-image-tables.pdf0 -
"Topping
Oh well, that's allright then Topping. Sure Her Maj is just fine with it. Btw, did she tell you so personally or is it something you just picked up from connexions?
He didn't act 'gauchely'. He relayed details of conversations she was entitled to think were private. Most of us can understand how that feels.0 -
The model says 88% actually, although that was based on the latest Ipsos/MORI and there's a few more to go before the 'final' prediction.surbiton said:
Yes. With Fisher as Prime Minister and Rod Crosby as his Deputy.rottenborough said:Looks like another Con-Lib coalition then from these figures.
In fact, Fisher is being positively a Labour supporter suggesting the chance of a Tory majority at 19% whereas Rod Crosby has no such qualms. He puts Tory chances at 99.99%. The 0.01% fell off when the 293,876,321st simulation failed when the lights went out !
L&N freely admit that their seat probability model is less certain than the main thing - the vote lead probability. They don't try to model third-party seats for instance, and in 2015 that piece of the jigsaw could be even more crucial than before.
You will note that I serve these predictions up without comment, and offer others for comparison. The salient point, surely, is that they all show the Tories performing better than the current polls, and almost all have them winning the popular vote.
0 -
Super OT also although perhaps this has already been covered but on Any Answers the overwhelming majority of people who understood what he was saying supported Matthew Freud. (There were plenty of disabled people who phoned up to say "I'm worth the minimum wage." which was not the point.)0
-
Because?MikeK said:
IpsosMori are not worth a tub of spit as far as party image polls are concerned.CarlottaVance said:What Labour & Con voters think of the other party and UKIP:
Con voters:
Extreme:
Lab: 18
UKIP: 65
Fit to Govern
Lab: 18
UKIP: 9
Lab Voters
Extreme:
Con: 37
UKIP: 84
Fit to Govern
Con: 35
UKIP: 9
They're really going to vote tactically for a party they consider 'extreme' and not 'fit to govern'?
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/political-monitor-sep-2014-party-image-tables.pdf0 -
Looking at the result of the 2005 election, Electoral Calculus thought it might have affected 26 seats.TOPPING said:
I am pretty politically geeky (yes, really) and I have no idea what the relative state of the parties is in my constituency. I seriously think that the whole issue/phenomenon of "tactical voting" is hugely overstated.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/conlabgap.html#tactical
0 -
The Queen has been dealing all her life with people who are and continue to be gobsmacked to be able to say they have met the queen.Peter_the_Punter said:"Topping
Oh well, that's allright then Topping. Sure Her Maj is just fine with it. Btw, did she tell you so personally or is it something you just picked up from connexions?
He didn't act 'gauchely'. He relayed details of conversations she was entitled to think were private. Most of us can understand how that feels.
Dave seems to have been no different which is a phenomenon I have noticed with people who you would have bet would have been as cool as you like.
As I said, he was intoxicated by his place at the top table and that he was walking along with Mike B. It was gauche and crass but nothing the Queen hasn't seen happen many many times.0 -
Because.............na nana nanananana.... :^DCarlottaVance said:
Because?MikeK said:
IpsosMori are not worth a tub of spit as far as party image polls are concerned.CarlottaVance said:What Labour & Con voters think of the other party and UKIP:
Con voters:
Extreme:
Lab: 18
UKIP: 65
Fit to Govern
Lab: 18
UKIP: 9
Lab Voters
Extreme:
Con: 37
UKIP: 84
Fit to Govern
Con: 35
UKIP: 9
They're really going to vote tactically for a party they consider 'extreme' and not 'fit to govern'?
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/political-monitor-sep-2014-party-image-tables.pdf
0 -
James Forsyth thinks the best fortunes for UKIP lie in them putting Miliband in No 10:
Perhaps the circumstances in which Ukip would prosper most would be if Labour won in 2015. With continuing EU immigration and a Miliband government having to make significant cuts, Ukip would have a chance of breaking through in Labour’s northern heartlands. At the same time, any post-Cameron Tory leader would come under pressure to offer Ukip some kind of accommodation in an attempt to ‘reunite the right’.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/politics/9343412/ukip-is-here-to-stay-especially-if-labour-wins/0 -
On the figures quoted (i.e. 298/291/31/12 + 18NI) it's absolutely certain that Labour would have lost England and by some way, on both seats and votes.surbiton said:
No, it wouldn't. I cannot see Labour winning in the UK without winning in England too !david_herdson said:Mind you, 298 seats wouldn't necessarily be a victory if they couldn't force Cameron out of No 10. Lab+LD would be just about viable (329 seats, so an effective majority of about a dozen once you add in Sinn Fein abstentions and the Speaker), but it would be absolutely knife-edge and put the EV4EL centre-stage from day 1.
FWIW, If the Tories couldn't form a majority government even with LD or UKIP support, I'd expect Cameron to resign as PM but that's a different matter.
12 Others couldn't be more than 10 SNP at the absolute outside and I suspect the model would say 6-8. That means that Labour must have won a minimum of 30 more than the Tories north of the border given that the Lib Dems must have lost some there (though if the Lib Dems were involved in supporting Labour, that would simply add weight to the argument).0 -
In 1992 it was supposed to have reduced Major's majority from 71 to 21, and turned 1997 from a heavy defeat into a near-rout...anotherDave said:
Looking at the result of the 2005 election, Electoral Calculus thought it might have affected 26 seats.TOPPING said:
I am pretty politically geeky (yes, really) and I have no idea what the relative state of the parties is in my constituency. I seriously think that the whole issue/phenomenon of "tactical voting" is hugely overstated.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/conlabgap.html#tactical
So while relatively few people tactically vote (maybe 10%), the effects can be disproportionately large under bonkers FPTP.0 -
I doubt that. Boris would be appealing to many Kippers, simply on style. UKIP's best bet would be another Con-LD deal, which would continue to leave the Tory right flank exposed. Labour will still be weak after the election whether they win or not as they simply don't have any alternative leaders of quality.CarlottaVance said:James Forsyth thinks the best fortunes for UKIP lie in them putting Miliband in No 10:
Perhaps the circumstances in which Ukip would prosper most would be if Labour won in 2015. With continuing EU immigration and a Miliband government having to make significant cuts, Ukip would have a chance of breaking through in Labour’s northern heartlands. At the same time, any post-Cameron Tory leader would come under pressure to offer Ukip some kind of accommodation in an attempt to ‘reunite the right’.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/politics/9343412/ukip-is-here-to-stay-especially-if-labour-wins/0 -
That doesn't work any more, nobody buys newspapers and the website is behind a paywall.TheScreamingEagles said:
We need one of the Queen's advisers to write a letter to the Times PDQAJK said:Her Majesty could be put on the spot if it is like 1974. Who does she send for?
FWIW, David Herdson is correct. Whichever of the big two Parties has the nerve to put PR into their manifesto will be the game changer (but neither will I suspect). Welcome to fruit machine politics! Multi party democracy with FPTP.
That's how constitutional precedent is set in this country.
Senex would have to post a comment here.0 -
A particularly pathetic and inept bit of stealth boasting.TOPPING said:
The Queen has been dealing all her life with people who are and continue to be gobsmacked to be able to say they have met the queen.Peter_the_Punter said:"Topping
Oh well, that's allright then Topping. Sure Her Maj is just fine with it. Btw, did she tell you so personally or is it something you just picked up from connexions?
He didn't act 'gauchely'. He relayed details of conversations she was entitled to think were private. Most of us can understand how that feels.
Dave seems to have been no different which is a phenomenon I have noticed with people who you would have bet would have been as cool as you like.
As I said, he was intoxicated by his place at the top table and that he was walking along with Mike B. It was gauche and crass but nothing the Queen hasn't seen happen many many times.
0 -
I'm sure, and that is a decent number of seats. It's just that the mechanics of getting people to vote tactically and explain to them the various nuances I believe are quite challenging. Not that I have ever been in a constituency where tactical voting has been relevant but I'm not sure how it is actually done.anotherDave said:
Looking at the result of the 2005 election, Electoral Calculus thought it might have affected 26 seats.TOPPING said:
I am pretty politically geeky (yes, really) and I have no idea what the relative state of the parties is in my constituency. I seriously think that the whole issue/phenomenon of "tactical voting" is hugely overstated.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/conlabgap.html#tactical
Who knows (party high-ups) but how is it communicated both to the canvassers, door-knockers and the voters themselves? Have you ever seen any literature advocating tactical voting? Or does it all happen on the doorstep which I find difficult to picture.0 -
Calm down sunshine. I appreciate and sympathise with your personal circs but I have noticed an unnecessary barbed air to your posts of late.Ishmael_X said:
A particularly pathetic and inept bit of stealth boasting.TOPPING said:
The Queen has been dealing all her life with people who are and continue to be gobsmacked to be able to say they have met the queen.Peter_the_Punter said:"Topping
Oh well, that's allright then Topping. Sure Her Maj is just fine with it. Btw, did she tell you so personally or is it something you just picked up from connexions?
He didn't act 'gauchely'. He relayed details of conversations she was entitled to think were private. Most of us can understand how that feels.
Dave seems to have been no different which is a phenomenon I have noticed with people who you would have bet would have been as cool as you like.
As I said, he was intoxicated by his place at the top table and that he was walking along with Mike B. It was gauche and crass but nothing the Queen hasn't seen happen many many times.
Which is a shame as you always seemed quite acute on things.
We all bring here our various experiences in the world, whether it be sci-fi novels, the British Railway system, or our television preferences.
I, likewise, bring my experiences.0 -
Bar-charts in winnable seats and backpedaling in hopeless seats?TOPPING said:
I'm sure, and that is a decent number of seats. It's just that the mechanics of getting people to vote tactically and explain to them the various nuances I believe are quite challenging. Not that I have ever been in a constituency where tactical voting has been relevant but I'm not sure how it is actually done.anotherDave said:
Looking at the result of the 2005 election, Electoral Calculus thought it might have affected 26 seats.TOPPING said:
I am pretty politically geeky (yes, really) and I have no idea what the relative state of the parties is in my constituency. I seriously think that the whole issue/phenomenon of "tactical voting" is hugely overstated.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/conlabgap.html#tactical
Who knows (party high-ups) but how is it communicated both to the canvassers, door-knockers and the voters themselves? Have you ever seen any literature advocating tactical voting? Or does it all happen on the doorstep which I find difficult to picture.
0 -
Yes, I'm sure the Queen has had to deal with bigger prats than Dave, but they were extraordinary breaches of protocol nonetheless, especially from somebody with his background and training.TOPPING said:
The Queen has been dealing all her life with people who are and continue to be gobsmacked to be able to say they have met the queen.Peter_the_Punter said:"Topping
Oh well, that's allright then Topping. Sure Her Maj is just fine with it. Btw, did she tell you so personally or is it something you just picked up from connexions?
He didn't act 'gauchely'. He relayed details of conversations she was entitled to think were private. Most of us can understand how that feels.
Dave seems to have been no different which is a phenomenon I have noticed with people who you would have bet would have been as cool as you like.
As I said, he was intoxicated by his place at the top table and that he was walking along with Mike B. It was gauche and crass but nothing the Queen hasn't seen happen many many times.
They seemed such trivial incidents at the time, yet on reflection you wonder what the repercussions might be. Quite apart from the obvious embarrassment, she is bound to think that anything she says to him cannot be treated as confidential. Doesn't that affect her openness in those weekly meetings? And what about successive PMs? Is she going to think Dave was just a one-off and that she shouldn't assume others will be just as loose-lipped?
If she can't feel confident that her private meetings with the PM are indeed private, do they serve any purpose? Is it perhaps not time to scrap this centuries old tradition? That would suit Republicans, I think, who might wonder why she is getting involved at all, but would it suit those of us who like to think a sensitive and intelligent Monarch can play a useful part in the governance of the country, even now?
Strange how a little loose talk can lead one down some unexpected paths.0 -
I've never lived in a constituency where tactical voting has been irrelevant!TOPPING said:
I'm sure, and that is a decent number of seats. It's just that the mechanics of getting people to vote tactically and explain to them the various nuances I believe are quite challenging. Not that I have ever been in a constituency where tactical voting has been relevant but I'm not sure how it is actually done.anotherDave said:
Looking at the result of the 2005 election, Electoral Calculus thought it might have affected 26 seats.TOPPING said:
I am pretty politically geeky (yes, really) and I have no idea what the relative state of the parties is in my constituency. I seriously think that the whole issue/phenomenon of "tactical voting" is hugely overstated.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/conlabgap.html#tactical
Who knows (party high-ups) but how is it communicated both to the canvassers, door-knockers and the voters themselves? Have you ever seen any literature advocating tactical voting? Or does it all happen on the doorstep which I find difficult to picture.0 -
In reality, I think there are very few Conservative and Labour supporters who'd vote tactically for the other party to keep out UKIP. Most Labour supporters want to damage the Conservatives, and vice versa.TheScreamingEagles said:
No, but they might not back UKIP, which is the bit you were contesting in your original post.anotherDave said:
Yes. And you agreed with me.TheScreamingEagles said:
You said According to ComRes, Labour supporters prefer UKIP to the ConservativesanotherDave said:
??????????????????TheScreamingEagles said:
You're misrepresenting/misreading the question.anotherDave said:"I don’t rule out at GE15 some LAB switching to CON to stop UKIP in certain seats."
According to ComRes, Labour supporters prefer UKIP to the Conservatives.
current-Labour
Conservative Party: +4% / -76% (-72)
UKIP: +12% / -58% (-46)
2010 Labour
Conservative Party: +8% / -71% (-63)
UKIP: +18% / -55% (-37)
http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/IoS_SM_Political_Poll_28th_September_2014_8723.pdf
The question was
Please indicate whether you have a favourable or unfavourable view of each of the following.
Now I can understand why Labour supporters have a favourable view on a party that is perceived to be damaging the Tory party.
This is why the Ipsos-Mori questions are much superior to ComRes' questions on this topic.
The point is that current-Labour supporters would be more likely to vote UKIP than Conservative, in a perceived Con vs UKIP marginal.
Even your blinkered interpretation supports that.
I say you can't interpret the question/data that way, as the question was asking someone else.
" I can understand why Labour supporters have a favourable view on a party that is perceived to be damaging the Tory party."
Labour supporters may back the Tories to stop UKIP getting in, I think they may very well, the way other pollsters seem to back up the views that Labour supporters view Kippers and their candidates as being racist/more offensive than other candidates.
Also the voters think UKIP are the most extreme and least fit to govern party, including Labour supporters.
0 -
Sorry, but your theory is just silly since it requires DC after over 4 years as PM of the UK to come over all queer twice, once at talking to HM the Q for what must be at least the hundredth time, and again at meeting a fairly rich former Mayor of New York (not their first meeting). As for your hinted connections, I am privately certain you are the Duke of Norfolk. But keep it to yourself.TOPPING said:
Calm down sunshine. I appreciate and sympathise with your personal circs but I have noticed an unnecessary barbed air to your posts of late.Ishmael_X said:
A particularly pathetic and inept bit of stealth boasting.TOPPING said:
The Queen has been dealing all her life with people who are and continue to be gobsmacked to be able to say they have met the queen.Peter_the_Punter said:"Topping
Oh well, that's allright then Topping. Sure Her Maj is just fine with it. Btw, did she tell you so personally or is it something you just picked up from connexions?
He didn't act 'gauchely'. He relayed details of conversations she was entitled to think were private. Most of us can understand how that feels.
Dave seems to have been no different which is a phenomenon I have noticed with people who you would have bet would have been as cool as you like.
As I said, he was intoxicated by his place at the top table and that he was walking along with Mike B. It was gauche and crass but nothing the Queen hasn't seen happen many many times.
Which is a shame as you always seemed quite acute on things.
We all bring here our various experiences in the world, whether it be sci-fi novels, the British Railway system, or our television preferences.
I, likewise, bring my experiences.
0 -
I have seen tactical voting suggested in leaflets but more commonly it is a word of mouth thing. (And yes I've lived in a marginal, but am not in one now.)oldnat said:
I've never lived in a constituency where tactical voting has been irrelevant!TOPPING said:
I'm sure, and that is a decent number of seats. It's just that the mechanics of getting people to vote tactically and explain to them the various nuances I believe are quite challenging. Not that I have ever been in a constituency where tactical voting has been relevant but I'm not sure how it is actually done.anotherDave said:
Looking at the result of the 2005 election, Electoral Calculus thought it might have affected 26 seats.TOPPING said:
I am pretty politically geeky (yes, really) and I have no idea what the relative state of the parties is in my constituency. I seriously think that the whole issue/phenomenon of "tactical voting" is hugely overstated.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/conlabgap.html#tactical
Who knows (party high-ups) but how is it communicated both to the canvassers, door-knockers and the voters themselves? Have you ever seen any literature advocating tactical voting? Or does it all happen on the doorstep which I find difficult to picture.
0 -
0
-
@Rod_Crosby
Thanks to taking the time for the explanation. I think you missed a bit about explaining where the quotas come from, but I assume this is from the national vote totals.
While your system is very clever and sorts most issues, I would worry that it is so complicated to calculate, it would seem like a Byzantine web to all but the most intelligent members of the electorate. I can imagine all sorts of complaints about how X party got a third of the vote in a constituency but lost out because an unallocated remainder from Y party got assigned to their constituency. Given that we're living in an age of alienation from politics anyway, that could be damaging.0 -
We may be thinking of tactical voting in different ways. In our more multi-party system, it makes sense for many people to consider whether or not to vote tactically, if a change of MP in that constituency might affect the Westminster Government. For Scottish elections, that can still be a consideration at constituency level, but that choice, on its own is less likely to affect the Holyrood Government, given AMS.Peter_the_Punter said:
I have seen tactical voting suggested in leaflets but more commonly it is a word of mouth thing. (And yes I've lived in a marginal, but am not in one now.)oldnat said:
I've never lived in a constituency where tactical voting has been irrelevant!TOPPING said:
I'm sure, and that is a decent number of seats. It's just that the mechanics of getting people to vote tactically and explain to them the various nuances I believe are quite challenging. Not that I have ever been in a constituency where tactical voting has been relevant but I'm not sure how it is actually done.anotherDave said:
Looking at the result of the 2005 election, Electoral Calculus thought it might have affected 26 seats.TOPPING said:
I am pretty politically geeky (yes, really) and I have no idea what the relative state of the parties is in my constituency. I seriously think that the whole issue/phenomenon of "tactical voting" is hugely overstated.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/conlabgap.html#tactical
Who knows (party high-ups) but how is it communicated both to the canvassers, door-knockers and the voters themselves? Have you ever seen any literature advocating tactical voting? Or does it all happen on the doorstep which I find difficult to picture.0 -
It's him
http://www.rishisunak.com/Richard_Nabavi said:@wallaceme
Congratulations to Rishi Sunak, the new Tory candidate for Richmond [Wm Hague's seat]0 -
Haha for god's sake man keep it quiet!Ishmael_X said:
Sorry, but your theory is just silly since it requires DC after over 4 years as PM of the UK to come over all queer twice, once at talking to HM the Q for what must be at least the hundredth time, and again at meeting a fairly rich former Mayor of New York (not their first meeting). As for your hinted connections, I am privately certain you are the Duke of Norfolk. But keep it to yourself.TOPPING said:
Calm down sunshine. I appreciate and sympathise with your personal circs but I have noticed an unnecessary barbed air to your posts of late.Ishmael_X said:
A particularly pathetic and inept bit of stealth boasting.TOPPING said:
The Queen has been dealing all her life with people who are and continue to be gobsmacked to be able to say they have met the queen.Peter_the_Punter said:"Topping
Oh well, that's allright then Topping. Sure Her Maj is just fine with it. Btw, did she tell you so personally or is it something you just picked up from connexions?
He didn't act 'gauchely'. He relayed details of conversations she was entitled to think were private. Most of us can understand how that feels.
Dave seems to have been no different which is a phenomenon I have noticed with people who you would have bet would have been as cool as you like.
As I said, he was intoxicated by his place at the top table and that he was walking along with Mike B. It was gauche and crass but nothing the Queen hasn't seen happen many many times.
Which is a shame as you always seemed quite acute on things.
We all bring here our various experiences in the world, whether it be sci-fi novels, the British Railway system, or our television preferences.
I, likewise, bring my experiences.
Yes of course you are right but in this instance I think there is some slack as it wasn't egregious and it conveyed the mood more than was a betrayal of confidences so might be put in the 'happens all the time' category.
As Bob Hope said to me...0 -
0
-
"I also collect Coca Cola memorabilia"AndreaParma_82 said:It's him
http://www.rishisunak.com/Richard_Nabavi said:@wallaceme
Congratulations to Rishi Sunak, the new Tory candidate for Richmond [Wm Hague's seat]
He'd fit in perfectly here. :-)0 -
I think my point is that the sophistication (in terms of knowing what the hell is going on, rather than intellectual ability) required to understand whether it makes sense to vote tactically is beyond 99.9% of the electorate.oldnat said:
We may be thinking of tactical voting in different ways. In our more multi-party system, it makes sense for many people to consider whether or not to vote tactically, if a change of MP in that constituency might affect the Westminster Government. For Scottish elections, that can still be a consideration at constituency level, but that choice, on its own is less likely to affect the Holyrood Government, given AMS.Peter_the_Punter said:
I have seen tactical voting suggested in leaflets but more commonly it is a word of mouth thing. (And yes I've lived in a marginal, but am not in one now.)oldnat said:
I've never lived in a constituency where tactical voting has been irrelevant!TOPPING said:
I'm sure, and that is a decent number of seats. It's just that the mechanics of getting people to vote tactically and explain to them the various nuances I believe are quite challenging. Not that I have ever been in a constituency where tactical voting has been relevant but I'm not sure how it is actually done.anotherDave said:
Looking at the result of the 2005 election, Electoral Calculus thought it might have affected 26 seats.TOPPING said:
I am pretty politically geeky (yes, really) and I have no idea what the relative state of the parties is in my constituency. I seriously think that the whole issue/phenomenon of "tactical voting" is hugely overstated.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/conlabgap.html#tactical
Who knows (party high-ups) but how is it communicated both to the canvassers, door-knockers and the voters themselves? Have you ever seen any literature advocating tactical voting? Or does it all happen on the doorstep which I find difficult to picture.
I am also unclear as to the mechanics of a "tactical voting" strategy by the various wards. It's not that easy a) to contact all those targets with a clear, unambiguous message; or b) to make it explicit that you are advocating voting for a party that is not the one you support and have been campaigning for support.
It is the mechanics that I am interested in. "Word of mouth" somehow doesn't seem sufficiently sophisticated.0 -
Mark Senior/Surbiton I refer you to yesterday's yougov Scottish sample. Labour are on 19% in Scotland, down 23% from the 42% they achieved in 2010 and the SNP are on 41% up 21% on 2010. The Tories in Scotland are on 20% up 3% on 2010
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/dmv27pn9yn/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-161014.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_Kingdom_general_election_results_in_Scotland0 -
My first post to you requires an apology. Sorry.TOPPING said:
Haha for god's sake man keep it quiet!Ishmael_X said:
Sorry, but your theory is just silly since it requires DC after over 4 years as PM of the UK to come over all queer twice, once at talking to HM the Q for what must be at least the hundredth time, and again at meeting a fairly rich former Mayor of New York (not their first meeting). As for your hinted connections, I am privately certain you are the Duke of Norfolk. But keep it to yourself.TOPPING said:
Calm down sunshine. I appreciate and sympathise with your personal circs but I have noticed an unnecessary barbed air to your posts of late.Ishmael_X said:
A particularly pathetic and inept bit of stealth boasting.TOPPING said:
The Queen has been dealing all her life with people who are and continue to be gobsmacked to be able to say they have met the queen.Peter_the_Punter said:"Topping
Oh well, that's allright then Topping. Sure Her Maj is just fine with it. Btw, did she tell you so personally or is it something you just picked up from connexions?
He didn't act 'gauchely'. He relayed details of conversations she was entitled to think were private. Most of us can understand how that feels.
Dave seems to have been no different which is a phenomenon I have noticed with people who you would have bet would have been as cool as you like.
As I said, he was intoxicated by his place at the top table and that he was walking along with Mike B. It was gauche and crass but nothing the Queen hasn't seen happen many many times.
Which is a shame as you always seemed quite acute on things.
We all bring here our various experiences in the world, whether it be sci-fi novels, the British Railway system, or our television preferences.
I, likewise, bring my experiences.
Yes of course you are right but in this instance I think there is some slack as it wasn't egregious and it conveyed the mood more than was a betrayal of confidences so might be put in the 'happens all the time' category.
As Bob Hope said to me...
0 -
Voting for a less left wing or more left wing party than the left wing party you support in order to keep the Tories out is one thing. Voting for the Tories to keep out a party on a similar point in the politial spectrum to the Tories is another.
I know Labour supporters did that in some places to keep out the BNP. however again. Holding your nose and voting Tory to keep out Neonazis is one thing, holding your nose and voting Tory to keep out a party thats on the same spectrum as the Tories but not full of upper class twits is another.
Hence I think the tactical voting will not be so apparent as previous elections for the following reasons:
1) Many Lab Voters who voted Libdem to keep the Tories out won't because they are in coalition with the Tories and voting Libdem didn't keep the Tories out.
2) Many Libdem voters who voted Labour to keep the Tories out won't because they don't want Labour ruining everything the Libdems sacrificed so much to achieve.
3) Green voters who voted Libdem due to keep the Tories out won't because it didn't keep the Tories out and in any case there is a Green Party candidate this time which there wasn't in 2010.
4) BNP voters will vote UKIP. Most of them were a bit uncomfortable with how right wing the BNP were anyway but held their nose because anything was better than Liblabcon.
5) Millions of voters who have stayed at home since 1992 as they have felt disenfranchised because the Conservative party is no longer Conservative will vote UKIP.
6) Millions of voters who have stayed at home since 2005 or even 1983, as they have felt disenfranchised because the Labour party has been taken over by loony left metrosexual middle class minoritymongers will vote UKIP.
7) New Labour voters won't bother to vote.
8) With so many parties getting serious amounts of votes, its far less obvious how tactical voting will play out, so you might as well vote for the party you actually support.
0 -
The quotas (Droop quotas) are calculated locally, just like under STV. Parties exceeding the quota (or multiple quotas in a handful of cases) are guaranteed that number of seats in the constituency. That is very simple to calculate, and gives scope for independents/local issue groups/big personalities, etc to break through, slightly more easily than under FPTP perhaps, but not much more.Socrates said:@Rod_Crosby
I would worry that it is so complicated to calculate, it would seem like a Byzantine web to all but the most intelligent members of the electorate. I can imagine all sorts of complaints about how X party got a third of the vote in a constituency but lost out because an unallocated remainder from Y party got assigned to their constituency. ..
In the simulations, parties which come close to a full quota (including their remainders) tend to get their remainder seats allocated to these constituencies, so in the vast majority of seats a sensible looking result is obtained.
In a handful however, something is not quite "right". Perhaps the 4th party gets a seat while the third doesn't, etc. The justification for this is that the big picture is fair to all parties and voters, and if the third party had obtained a quota if would have been guaranteed a seat, votes for the third party still counted in determining its number of MPs, and the only reason they didn't get a seat locally was because another constituency had a "better" claim to a seat under some unbiased algorithm.
No electoral system can be perfect, and such things occur under FPTP regularly without much comment. e.g. LDs "winning" Oxford but winning neither seat; "winning" Bristol but coming away with 1 seat out of 4; Scottish LDs 19%, 11 seats, SNP 20%, 6 seats, etc...
Most electoral systems are "too complicated" for the voters. One might even add FPTP to the list! The systems in Denmark, Austria and plenty of other places are even more intricate than PR^2, although there is general voter satisfaction with them. The voters understand that every vote is treated equally, every vote counts, you can vote honestly, and *shock horror* you might actually get an MP you voted for, with some intra-party choice available. How that is actually achieved remains a blessed mystery to 99.9%, I suspect...
PR^2 falls into this category. Voter instruction could be as follows.
Vote for your desired party and its candidate of your choice.
Your vote will always contribute to your party's national seat total, and will also help elect your chosen candidate (or another of the same party) as a local MP.
[there could be some optional stuff about the 1,2,3 along the lines of: if your preferred party is unsuccessful locally, your further preferences will help determine which of the other candidates from other parties get elected, and will help decide what kind of government coalition is preferred, if the need arises]0 -
What polling evidence do you have that Lab voters think UKIP is "on the same spectrum as Tories"?Paul_Mid_Beds said:I know Labour supporters did that in some places to keep out the BNP. however again. Holding your nose and voting Tory to keep out Neonazis is one thing, holding your nose and voting Tory to keep out a party thats on the same spectrum as the Tories but not full of upper class twits is another
This suggests not:
Lab Voters think the party is extreme:
Con:,37
Lab: 840 -
so another PPE - how refreshingly original.AndreaParma_82 said:It's him
http://www.rishisunak.com/Richard_Nabavi said:@wallaceme
Congratulations to Rishi Sunak, the new Tory candidate for Richmond [Wm Hague's seat]0 -
35% strategy innit?surbiton said:
So where have all those votes gone ?Scott_P said:@chrisg0000: Decline in #Labour's share
Final Polls October 2012>Now
#Yougov 44% now 32%
#Mori 43% now 33%
#Opinium 41% now 35%
#ICM 43% now 35%
Its working!!0 -
Another extremely interesting thread. There's also a permutation of the Conservatives having a majority on a low 30's vote share. As Mike says, it might put a strain on our electoral system.
Any polls expected tonight? I've been out so am just wondering.0
