politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB is still ahead in England which the Tories won at GE10
Labour might have collapsed in Scotland but the gainers are not the Tories but the SNP – which means this development does not in any way help CON with their overall majority ambition.
Comments
-
Should read:
LAB 35.5% England vote: 286 MPs0 -
Thanks again. The first version of this post got corrupted and I've had to re-publish.Sunil_Prasannan said:Should read:
LAB 35.5% England vote: 286 MPs
0 -
Which utter bastard has removed the Greens from the table here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
Right after I modified my spreadsheet to include them0 -
Looks like the LDs are pulling away from the GreensRobD said:Which utter bastard has removed the Greens from the table here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
Right after I modified my spreadsheet to include them
Part-ELBOW for the four polls so far this week (Populus, Ashcroft and two YouGovs), total sample 4,505:
Lab 33.9% (+1.0)
Con 32.3% (+0.2)
UKIP 14.8% (-1.5)
LD 8.3% (+0.8)
Lab lead 1.5% (+0.8)0 -
"it would be really good if we could see some England only polling".
I remember suggesting that on this site a number of years ago, and being ridiculed by the Tory herd for imagining that Scotland could have a different political system
OGH should simply ask the editors of the London-based media why they continue to insist on such archaic practices.
Scottish & Welsh VI polls are normally funded in Scotland & Wales. That London can't tell its UK arse from its English elbow may be a major reason why GB polling is even more pointless now that it was some years back.0 -
LDs heading to the sunlight uplands?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Looks like the LDs are pulling away from the GreensRobD said:Which utter bastard has removed the Greens from the table here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
Right after I modified my spreadsheet to include them
Part-ELBOW for the four polls so far this week (Populus, Ashcroft and two YouGovs), total sample 4,505:
Lab 33.9% (+1.0)
Con 32.3% (+0.2)
UKIP 14.8% (-1.5)
LD 8.3% (+0.8)
Lab lead 1.5% (+0.8)0 -
PossiblyRobD said:
LDs heading to the sunlight uplands?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Looks like the LDs are pulling away from the GreensRobD said:Which utter bastard has removed the Greens from the table here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
Right after I modified my spreadsheet to include them
Part-ELBOW for the four polls so far this week (Populus, Ashcroft and two YouGovs), total sample 4,505:
Lab 33.9% (+1.0)
Con 32.3% (+0.2)
UKIP 14.8% (-1.5)
LD 8.3% (+0.8)
Lab lead 1.5% (+0.8)
BTW, I edit wiki under the Sunil060902 moniker, it wasn't me wot removed the Greens!0 -
You're welcome! That's OK, though I did wonder if I was imagining the new thread!MikeSmithson said:
Thanks again. The first version of this post got corrupted and I've had to re-publish.Sunil_Prasannan said:Should read:
LAB 35.5% England vote: 286 MPs0 -
Ah, wasn't particularly blaming anyone here.. just venting my annoyance. I don't know how the "others" column in that table is actually calculated, given that if you sum all the other parties in the latest yougov poll, you get others of 11, not 12.Sunil_Prasannan said:
PossiblyRobD said:
LDs heading to the sunlight uplands?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Looks like the LDs are pulling away from the GreensRobD said:Which utter bastard has removed the Greens from the table here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
Right after I modified my spreadsheet to include them
Part-ELBOW for the four polls so far this week (Populus, Ashcroft and two YouGovs), total sample 4,505:
Lab 33.9% (+1.0)
Con 32.3% (+0.2)
UKIP 14.8% (-1.5)
LD 8.3% (+0.8)
Lab lead 1.5% (+0.8)
BTW, I edit wiki under the Sunil060902 moniker, it wasn't me wot removed the Greens!0 -
I posted a comment about the UKPR polling average but it's disappeared.0
-
Most recent polling puts Labour ahead of the Tories in Scotland by a bigger margin than in GB as a whole. This morning's Yougov, for example, has the two parties level in England and Wales, which implies a Tory lead in England.0
-
No - because of the slew of seats that the Libdem collapse will hand to the Tories.0
-
O/T but the Republicans now hold 67 State Senates/legislatures, compared to 28 held by Democrats. That's an enormous lead at State level.0
-
It's actually a very good point. If you 'Baxter' then almost all the Tory gains would be from the LibDems. It's a pity Mike has overlooked this.Paul_Mid_Beds said:No - because of the slew of seats that the Libdem collapse will hand to the Tories.
Whilst I recognise we have to churn out threads, this is all so speculative at the moment. Until we start to get serious about the General Election next February there's little benefit from over-analysing at the moment. What would be helpful are some more polls, preferably not just by Lord Ashcroft who consistently over-states Labour.0 -
Again why no mention of the fact that Tories face an anti-fracking campaign from local groups in 120 constituencies (Labour in only 16 constituencies)? The only opposition to fracking currently is The Greens, who won't attract many Conservative voters with the Green fascist pro-EU and pro-paedophile agenda. However there could be an outbreak of independent candidates in these constituencies. At Newark an independent took 5% of the vote. Something has to give, as the opposition to fracking/shale gas/CBM is building rapidly.0
-
Labour currently hold 26 Welsh seats, 41 Scottish seats, and 257 UK seats. That makes 190 English seats.
The Tory equivalent is 8 Welsh, 1 Scottish, and 294 English seats.
So the Tories have a 100 seat lead over Labour in England. That might increase if the Tories take more Lib Dem English seats that Labour do, say 12:8 in the Tories favour. That'd give 306 Tory English seats, and 198 Labour English seats.
Labour would need to be doing pretty well to take 54+ seats (net) off the Tories in England. And that'd be to be *just* ahead. No-one thinks the Tories are going to sink to sub-200 seats, like GE2005. Many of the seats Labour won then are simply no longer in contention for them.
Personally, the best I can Labour doing is about 30 seat gains off the Tories in England, so I'd expect the Tories to be ahead on both seats, and votes.0 -
The majority of people I speak to in the UK first don't realise Obama is unpopular in the US, and second cannot fathom why. They seem to (still) be under the impression he's a modern American hero.Sean_F said:Most recent polling puts Labour ahead of the Tories in Scotland by a bigger margin than in GB as a whole. This morning's Yougov, for example, has the two parties level in England and Wales, which implies a Tory lead in England.
0 -
I disagree with the premise of this thread leader. If the Tories get mid to low 30s with UKIP in the teens they will no longer have piled up the absurd majorities that they did in southern England in 2005. So their vote is going to be more evenly distributed with more support in the marginals. If they were behind this might be a disadvantage but not if they are ahead.
In 2005 lots of Labour supporters voted Lib Dem tactically to keep the Tories out. That resulted in an apparent efficiency in the Labour vote that will not be repeated. They will get a lot more votes in the south west, for example, but no seats. Conversely the substantial numbers of votes the Tories get there will deliver more seats as the Lib Dems collapse.
By 2010 much of the apparently greater efficiency of the Labour vote was in fact down to Scotland where 42% of the vote produced 72% of the seats. I have real doubts this is going to be repeated. In England things were much more in line with vote share and I expect them to be even more so in 2015.0 -
What about HRC?Casino_Royale said:
The majority of people I speak to in the UK first don't realise Obama is unpopular in the US, and second cannot fathom why. They seem to (still) be under the impression he's a modern American hero.Sean_F said:Most recent polling puts Labour ahead of the Tories in Scotland by a bigger margin than in GB as a whole. This morning's Yougov, for example, has the two parties level in England and Wales, which implies a Tory lead in England.
Just because she's the only they've heard of they think she's amazingly popular, etc.0 -
For Labour to finish 92 ahead of the Conservatives in England they'd need to be at least close in Rochester & Strood, whereas they're polling 16%,Casino_Royale said:Labour currently hold 26 Welsh seats, 41 Scottish seats, and 257 UK seats. That makes 190 English seats.
The Tory equivalent is 8 Welsh, 1 Scottish, and 294 English seats.
So the Tories have a 100 seat lead over Labour in England. That might increase if the Tories take more Lib Dem English seats that Labour do, say 12:8 in the Tories favour. That'd give 306 Tory English seats, and 198 Labour English seats.
Labour would need to be doing pretty well to take 54+ seats (net) off the Tories in England. And that'd be to be *just* ahead. No-one thinks the Tories are going to sink to sub-200 seats, like GE2005. Many of the seats Labour won then are simply no longer in contention for them.
Personally, the best I can Labour doing is about 30 seat gains off the Tories in England, so I'd expect the Tories to be ahead on both seats, and votes.0 -
Non-Americans tend to overestimate support for Democratic candidates.Itajai said:
What about HRC?Casino_Royale said:
The majority of people I speak to in the UK first don't realise Obama is unpopular in the US, and second cannot fathom why. They seem to (still) be under the impression he's a modern American hero.Sean_F said:Most recent polling puts Labour ahead of the Tories in Scotland by a bigger margin than in GB as a whole. This morning's Yougov, for example, has the two parties level in England and Wales, which implies a Tory lead in England.
Just because she's the only they've heard of they think she's amazingly popular, etc.0 -
You can't extrapolate from one seat, especially not in a by-election.Sean_F said:
For Labour to finish 92 ahead of the Conservatives in England they'd need to be at least close in Rochester & Strood, whereas they're polling 16%,Casino_Royale said:Labour currently hold 26 Welsh seats, 41 Scottish seats, and 257 UK seats. That makes 190 English seats.
The Tory equivalent is 8 Welsh, 1 Scottish, and 294 English seats.
So the Tories have a 100 seat lead over Labour in England. That might increase if the Tories take more Lib Dem English seats that Labour do, say 12:8 in the Tories favour. That'd give 306 Tory English seats, and 198 Labour English seats.
Labour would need to be doing pretty well to take 54+ seats (net) off the Tories in England. And that'd be to be *just* ahead. No-one thinks the Tories are going to sink to sub-200 seats, like GE2005. Many of the seats Labour won then are simply no longer in contention for them.
Personally, the best I can Labour doing is about 30 seat gains off the Tories in England, so I'd expect the Tories to be ahead on both seats, and votes.0 -
I didn't know the Greens were pro-paedophile. Links please.Tapestry said:Again why no mention of the fact that Tories face an anti-fracking campaign from local groups in 120 constituencies (Labour in only 16 constituencies)? The only opposition to fracking currently is The Greens, who won't attract many Conservative voters with the Green fascist pro-EU and pro-paedophile agenda. However there could be an outbreak of independent candidates in these constituencies. At Newark an independent took 5% of the vote. Something has to give, as the opposition to fracking/shale gas/CBM is building rapidly.
0 -
The absurdity of UK polls in a multinational multiparty system gets increasingly pronounced. Its not and never has been a national election. And what is increasingly clear is that voters are going to react differently in different seats to the same events.
Alongside the usual Labour vs Tory battle for power we have the LD/UKIP/SNP wild cards which completely disrupt "normal" voting patterns in seats where they are (or in the case of the LibDems were) contenders.
I hope Lord A has deep pockets - we are going to need many constituency specific polls....0 -
Interesting piece in the NYT about media results in the US. Fox won the battle for viewers handily: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/business/media/fox-election-coverage-draws-biggest-share-of-a-less-than-rapt-audience.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
They did the same the last time the Republicans did well but did much less well when the Dems did well in 2006. Basically Republicans, like certain football supporters, are much more likely to switch on when their team is winning and motivated. I wonder if the viewing figures of the respective outlets should be watched as closely as the polls in the lead up to 2016.
I also think this demonstrates how we seriously overrate "impartiality" and "balance" in this country in our media. Partisan, opinionated viewing is good for participation and interest.0 -
Last time round didn't the Democrats win the popular vote for the House, even though the Republicans won most seats?Sean_F said:
Non-Americans tend to overestimate support for Democratic candidates.Itajai said:
What about HRC?Casino_Royale said:
The majority of people I speak to in the UK first don't realise Obama is unpopular in the US, and second cannot fathom why. They seem to (still) be under the impression he's a modern American hero.Sean_F said:Most recent polling puts Labour ahead of the Tories in Scotland by a bigger margin than in GB as a whole. This morning's Yougov, for example, has the two parties level in England and Wales, which implies a Tory lead in England.
Just because she's the only they've heard of they think she's amazingly popular, etc.
0 -
Yeah, we do fail to grasp the propensity of the US electorate to vote for nutters and sociopaths.Sean_F said:
Non-Americans tend to overestimate support for Democratic candidates.Itajai said:
What about HRC?Casino_Royale said:
The majority of people I speak to in the UK first don't realise Obama is unpopular in the US, and second cannot fathom why. They seem to (still) be under the impression he's a modern American hero.Sean_F said:Most recent polling puts Labour ahead of the Tories in Scotland by a bigger margin than in GB as a whole. This morning's Yougov, for example, has the two parties level in England and Wales, which implies a Tory lead in England.
Just because she's the only they've heard of they think she's amazingly popular, etc.0 -
Whilst I agree with that their performance in Rochester seems to be woeful and does demonstrate their lack of reach in parts of the country that they held in 2005.logical_song said:
You can't extrapolate from one seat, especially not in a by-election.Sean_F said:
For Labour to finish 92 ahead of the Conservatives in England they'd need to be at least close in Rochester & Strood, whereas they're polling 16%,Casino_Royale said:Labour currently hold 26 Welsh seats, 41 Scottish seats, and 257 UK seats. That makes 190 English seats.
The Tory equivalent is 8 Welsh, 1 Scottish, and 294 English seats.
So the Tories have a 100 seat lead over Labour in England. That might increase if the Tories take more Lib Dem English seats that Labour do, say 12:8 in the Tories favour. That'd give 306 Tory English seats, and 198 Labour English seats.
Labour would need to be doing pretty well to take 54+ seats (net) off the Tories in England. And that'd be to be *just* ahead. No-one thinks the Tories are going to sink to sub-200 seats, like GE2005. Many of the seats Labour won then are simply no longer in contention for them.
Personally, the best I can Labour doing is about 30 seat gains off the Tories in England, so I'd expect the Tories to be ahead on both seats, and votes.
I think Labour's performance is increasingly dependent on London and they are at risk of piling up ever bigger majorities there with relatively few additional seats reducing the efficiency of their vote.0 -
O/T - but, frankly, more important.
The BBC's Peston has estimated the difference between the Parties in economic policy. Labour propose to cut the current deficit by £10bn by 2020 (or thereabouts), the Tories by £40bn. For Labour's hard-core that's £10bn too much (unless it's all tax increases on the rich), for Kippers and Tory activists £40bn is still too little., since they no longer want the State to provide anything at all except national security. Neither agenda is doable. (The only way to restore international competitiveness is to reduce our consumption of residential land, particularly within 50 miles of London, by a factor of - what? - 20? 200? Not doable, although making it a criminal offence for pensioners to live in that area would be a start!)
By 2020 we shall be choosing between democracy and currency collapse.0 -
0
-
They're back now - seems to be an edit skirmish taking place.RobD said:Which utter bastard has removed the Greens from the table here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
Right after I modified my spreadsheet to include them0 -
Who says Labour are ahead in England?
The latest Lord Ashcroft poll has a sample of 444 in England only that comes out with a Tory lead of 1% (Table 3). If this was actually weighted to England rather being a sub-sample of GB then we can assume a larger Tory lead (and in last week's Lord Ashcroft poll it was a 3% Tory lead in England)
And only if we assume no movement back from Ukip to Conservatives (which all recent polling suggests will happen to a certain extent) or from Labour to Lib Dem do we come up with any other outcome at GE2015 than a Tory lead in England or circa 5% at least.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ANP-141103-Full-tables.pdf0 -
This would be the same Tory party that has ringfenced Health spending? Your hyperbolic description does obscure the fact that Labour are simply failing to come to terms with the necessary deficit reduction. It is one of the main reasons they are not fit to govern.Innocent_Abroad said:O/T - but, frankly, more important.
The BBC's Peston has estimated the difference between the Parties in economic policy. Labour propose to cut the current deficit by £10bn by 2020 (or thereabouts), the Tories by £40bn. For Labour's hard-core that's £10bn too much (unless it's all tax increases on the rich), for Kippers and Tory activists £40bn is still too little., since they no longer want the State to provide anything at all except national security. Neither agenda is doable. (The only way to restore international competitiveness is to reduce our consumption of residential land, particularly within 50 miles of London, by a factor of - what? - 20? 200? Not doable, although making it a criminal offence for pensioners to live in that area would be a start!)
By 2020 we shall be choosing between democracy and currency collapse.
The Tories have recognised the scale of the task but then try to cheer their supporters up by talking about unachievable tax cuts. Not going to happen.0 -
Reshuffle? Laughable isn't it. That 'reshuffle' has just about convinced me that Miliband is going to lose and lose big. I will start looking at Con Maj odds and see what value I can find.dugarbandier said:0 -
Morning all,antifrank said:Matt at his sublime best:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1vWnNWIEAAO3cv.jpg
LOL. An excellent one from Matt.0 -
And terrible for the quality of debate. Partisan coverage means that the extremists such as Palin get far more exposure than they deserved as it improves the ratings. I have no desire to import this. Why on earth would you want a "news" channel that is allowed to intentionally spin, manipulate or ignore viewpoints it doesn't agree with?DavidL said:
I also think this demonstrates how we seriously overrate "impartiality" and "balance" in this country in our media. Partisan, opinionated viewing is good for participation and interest.
0 -
American opinion polls show Hillary Clinton wiping the floor with the opposition, even being competitive in Southern states. Her polling will come down, but I haven't seen evidence of any viable Republican that could beat her in places like Ohio.Sean_F said:
Non-Americans tend to overestimate support for Democratic candidates.Itajai said:
What about HRC?Casino_Royale said:
The majority of people I speak to in the UK first don't realise Obama is unpopular in the US, and second cannot fathom why. They seem to (still) be under the impression he's a modern American hero.Sean_F said:Most recent polling puts Labour ahead of the Tories in Scotland by a bigger margin than in GB as a whole. This morning's Yougov, for example, has the two parties level in England and Wales, which implies a Tory lead in England.
Just because she's the only they've heard of they think she's amazingly popular, etc.0 -
Even more interesting is if you look at the 'Edit History' for this in wikipedia. Seems that the someone doing the removal is a "sockpuppet" i.e. a deception for someone who is banned.OblitusSumMe said:
They're back now - seems to be an edit skirmish taking place.RobD said:Which utter bastard has removed the Greens from the table here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
Right after I modified my spreadsheet to include them
Who could possibly not want the Greens higher poll ratings seen by other wikipedia users?
0 -
The ring-fence is a politicians' promise. Osborne could declare it "unaffordable" to-morrow. Many Tory activists (i.e. those who have private health insurance and are thus paying for it twice) wish he would.DavidL said:
This would be the same Tory party that has ringfenced Health spending? Your hyperbolic description does obscure the fact that Labour are simply failing to come to terms with the necessary deficit reduction. It is one of the main reasons they are not fit to govern.Innocent_Abroad said:O/T - but, frankly, more important.
The BBC's Peston has estimated the difference between the Parties in economic policy. Labour propose to cut the current deficit by £10bn by 2020 (or thereabouts), the Tories by £40bn. For Labour's hard-core that's £10bn too much (unless it's all tax increases on the rich), for Kippers and Tory activists £40bn is still too little., since they no longer want the State to provide anything at all except national security. Neither agenda is doable. (The only way to restore international competitiveness is to reduce our consumption of residential land, particularly within 50 miles of London, by a factor of - what? - 20? 200? Not doable, although making it a criminal offence for pensioners to live in that area would be a start!)
By 2020 we shall be choosing between democracy and currency collapse.
The Tories have recognised the scale of the task but then try to cheer their supporters up by talking about unachievable tax cuts. Not going to happen.
And I object to your use of "hyperbolic" and "obscure" - I should have thought that quantifying the difference in policy between the Parties was doing anything but obscure it. As to how much of a reduction is "necessary", you have only your blind partisanship to tell you that it's £40bn, rather than £10bn or even £100bn.
0 -
Jeb Bush.Socrates said:
American opinion polls show Hillary Clinton wiping the floor with the opposition, even being competitive in Southern states. Her polling will come down, but I haven't seen evidence of any viable Republican that could beat her in places like Ohio.Sean_F said:
Non-Americans tend to overestimate support for Democratic candidates.Itajai said:
What about HRC?Casino_Royale said:
The majority of people I speak to in the UK first don't realise Obama is unpopular in the US, and second cannot fathom why. They seem to (still) be under the impression he's a modern American hero.Sean_F said:Most recent polling puts Labour ahead of the Tories in Scotland by a bigger margin than in GB as a whole. This morning's Yougov, for example, has the two parties level in England and Wales, which implies a Tory lead in England.
Just because she's the only they've heard of they think she's amazingly popular, etc.0 -
Can't say I'm really familiar with any of the players apart from the departing Murphy. Not that I'm proud of my ignorance.Swiss_Bob said:
Reshuffle? Laughable isn't it. That 'reshuffle' has just about convinced me that Miliband is going to lose and lose big. I will start looking at Con Maj odds and see what value I can find.dugarbandier said:
0 -
In the process they managed to delete the latest yougov poll. And I think the green colour used is now different.. argh!rottenborough said:
Even more interesting is if you look at the 'Edit History' for this in wikipedia. Seems that the someone doing the removal is a "sockpuppet" i.e. a deception for someone who is banned.OblitusSumMe said:
They're back now - seems to be an edit skirmish taking place.RobD said:Which utter bastard has removed the Greens from the table here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
Right after I modified my spreadsheet to include them
Who could possibly not want the Greens higher poll ratings seen by other wikipedia users?0 -
The key appointment is Lucy Powell, who I know little of, but Guardian seems to think she is an energetic campaigner who wants to get Ed out into the marginals.dugarbandier said:
Can't say I'm really familiar with any of the players apart from the departing Murphy. Not that I'm proud of my ignorance.Swiss_Bob said:
Reshuffle? Laughable isn't it. That 'reshuffle' has just about convinced me that Miliband is going to lose and lose big. I will start looking at Con Maj odds and see what value I can find.dugarbandier said:
Will marginal Labour wannabe MPs want him in their marginal?0 -
He won't make it through a GOP primary. Even then, I'm not convinced: would you rather have a Clinton economy or a Bush economy? The guy would have to disown his brother's legacy, which he has refused to do.rottenborough said:
Jeb Bush.Socrates said:
American opinion polls show Hillary Clinton wiping the floor with the opposition, even being competitive in Southern states. Her polling will come down, but I haven't seen evidence of any viable Republican that could beat her in places like Ohio.Sean_F said:
Non-Americans tend to overestimate support for Democratic candidates.Itajai said:
What about HRC?Casino_Royale said:
The majority of people I speak to in the UK first don't realise Obama is unpopular in the US, and second cannot fathom why. They seem to (still) be under the impression he's a modern American hero.Sean_F said:Most recent polling puts Labour ahead of the Tories in Scotland by a bigger margin than in GB as a whole. This morning's Yougov, for example, has the two parties level in England and Wales, which implies a Tory lead in England.
Just because she's the only they've heard of they think she's amazingly popular, etc.0 -
Also, turnout in US elections is even more lamentable than in the UK, isn't it?not_on_fire said:
And terrible for the quality of debate. Partisan coverage means that the extremists such as Palin get far more exposure than they deserved as it improves the ratings. I have no desire to import this. Why on earth would you want a "news" channel that is allowed to intentionally spin, manipulate or ignore viewpoints it doesn't agree with?DavidL said:
I also think this demonstrates how we seriously overrate "impartiality" and "balance" in this country in our media. Partisan, opinionated viewing is good for participation and interest.
All Fox shows is that partisan people will tune in to hear their views confirmed.
0 -
It's typical of the kind of seat where Labour were competitive in 2005 and which is out of reach today.logical_song said:
You can't extrapolate from one seat, especially not in a by-election.Sean_F said:
For Labour to finish 92 ahead of the Conservatives in England they'd need to be at least close in Rochester & Strood, whereas they're polling 16%,Casino_Royale said:Labour currently hold 26 Welsh seats, 41 Scottish seats, and 257 UK seats. That makes 190 English seats.
The Tory equivalent is 8 Welsh, 1 Scottish, and 294 English seats.
So the Tories have a 100 seat lead over Labour in England. That might increase if the Tories take more Lib Dem English seats that Labour do, say 12:8 in the Tories favour. That'd give 306 Tory English seats, and 198 Labour English seats.
Labour would need to be doing pretty well to take 54+ seats (net) off the Tories in England. And that'd be to be *just* ahead. No-one thinks the Tories are going to sink to sub-200 seats, like GE2005. Many of the seats Labour won then are simply no longer in contention for them.
Personally, the best I can Labour doing is about 30 seat gains off the Tories in England, so I'd expect the Tories to be ahead on both seats, and votes.0 -
I'm not so sure he wont make it through GOP primary. I've read some stuff over the last few days concerning how the establishment in the GOP have pulled the stops out to block Tea Party candidates and support long-time senators against radical challengers.Socrates said:
He won't make it through a GOP primary. Even then, I'm not convinced: would you rather have a Clinton economy or a Bush economy? The guy would have to disown his brother's legacy, which he has refused to do.rottenborough said:
Jeb Bush.Socrates said:
American opinion polls show Hillary Clinton wiping the floor with the opposition, even being competitive in Southern states. Her polling will come down, but I haven't seen evidence of any viable Republican that could beat her in places like Ohio.Sean_F said:
Non-Americans tend to overestimate support for Democratic candidates.Itajai said:
What about HRC?Casino_Royale said:
The majority of people I speak to in the UK first don't realise Obama is unpopular in the US, and second cannot fathom why. They seem to (still) be under the impression he's a modern American hero.Sean_F said:Most recent polling puts Labour ahead of the Tories in Scotland by a bigger margin than in GB as a whole. This morning's Yougov, for example, has the two parties level in England and Wales, which implies a Tory lead in England.
Just because she's the only they've heard of they think she's amazingly popular, etc.0 -
Shame that the majority of your fellow voters want to remain our partners then.Sorry 'bout thatoldnat said:"it would be really good if we could see some England only polling".
I remember ... being ridiculed by the Tory herd for imagining that Scotland could have a different political system 0 -
Just about, though vote totals are affected by candidates being returned unopposed.SouthamObserver said:
Last time round didn't the Democrats win the popular vote for the House, even though the Republicans won most seats?Sean_F said:
Non-Americans tend to overestimate support for Democratic candidates.Itajai said:
What about HRC?Casino_Royale said:
The majority of people I speak to in the UK first don't realise Obama is unpopular in the US, and second cannot fathom why. They seem to (still) be under the impression he's a modern American hero.Sean_F said:Most recent polling puts Labour ahead of the Tories in Scotland by a bigger margin than in GB as a whole. This morning's Yougov, for example, has the two parties level in England and Wales, which implies a Tory lead in England.
Just because she's the only they've heard of they think she's amazingly popular, etc.
0 -
It was probably a LibDem...RobD said:
Ah, wasn't particularly blaming anyone here.. just venting my annoyance. I don't know how the "others" column in that table is actually calculated, given that if you sum all the other parties in the latest yougov poll, you get others of 11, not 12.Sunil_Prasannan said:
PossiblyRobD said:
LDs heading to the sunlight uplands?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Looks like the LDs are pulling away from the GreensRobD said:Which utter bastard has removed the Greens from the table here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
Right after I modified my spreadsheet to include them
Part-ELBOW for the four polls so far this week (Populus, Ashcroft and two YouGovs), total sample 4,505:
Lab 33.9% (+1.0)
Con 32.3% (+0.2)
UKIP 14.8% (-1.5)
LD 8.3% (+0.8)
Lab lead 1.5% (+0.8)
BTW, I edit wiki under the Sunil060902 moniker, it wasn't me wot removed the Greens!
Hmmh, might have been a conspiracy.
What's Norman Baker up to at the moment?0 -
The party establishment got very lucky this year. Tea Party-backed candidates had a string of near-misses..rottenborough said:
I'm not so sure he wont make it through GOP primary. I've read some stuff over the last few days concerning how the establishment in the GOP have pulled the stops out to block Tea Party candidates and support long-time senators against radical challengers.Socrates said:
He won't make it through a GOP primary. Even then, I'm not convinced: would you rather have a Clinton economy or a Bush economy? The guy would have to disown his brother's legacy, which he has refused to do.rottenborough said:
Jeb Bush.Socrates said:
American opinion polls show Hillary Clinton wiping the floor with the opposition, even being competitive in Southern states. Her polling will come down, but I haven't seen evidence of any viable Republican that could beat her in places like Ohio.Sean_F said:
Non-Americans tend to overestimate support for Democratic candidates.Itajai said:
What about HRC?Casino_Royale said:
The majority of people I speak to in the UK first don't realise Obama is unpopular in the US, and second cannot fathom why. They seem to (still) be under the impression he's a modern American hero.Sean_F said:Most recent polling puts Labour ahead of the Tories in Scotland by a bigger margin than in GB as a whole. This morning's Yougov, for example, has the two parties level in England and Wales, which implies a Tory lead in England.
Just because she's the only they've heard of they think she's amazingly popular, etc.0 -
No, I'd say they tend to under-estimate support for Republicans.Sean_F said:
Non-Americans tend to overestimate support for Democratic candidates.Itajai said:
What about HRC?Casino_Royale said:
The majority of people I speak to in the UK first don't realise Obama is unpopular in the US, and second cannot fathom why. They seem to (still) be under the impression he's a modern American hero.Sean_F said:Most recent polling puts Labour ahead of the Tories in Scotland by a bigger margin than in GB as a whole. This morning's Yougov, for example, has the two parties level in England and Wales, which implies a Tory lead in England.
Just because she's the only they've heard of they think she's amazingly popular, etc.
Similar, but not quite the same thing.0 -
It's interesting to think about why this is so. Among other explanations, I can come up with:Sean_F said:
It's typical of the kind of seat where Labour were competitive in 2005 and which is out of reach today.logical_song said:
You can't extrapolate from one seat, especially not in a by-election.Sean_F said:
For Labour to finish 92 ahead of the Conservatives in England they'd need to be at least close in Rochester & Strood, whereas they're polling 16%,Casino_Royale said:Labour currently hold 26 Welsh seats, 41 Scottish seats, and 257 UK seats. That makes 190 English seats.
The Tory equivalent is 8 Welsh, 1 Scottish, and 294 English seats.
So the Tories have a 100 seat lead over Labour in England. That might increase if the Tories take more Lib Dem English seats that Labour do, say 12:8 in the Tories favour. That'd give 306 Tory English seats, and 198 Labour English seats.
Labour would need to be doing pretty well to take 54+ seats (net) off the Tories in England. And that'd be to be *just* ahead. No-one thinks the Tories are going to sink to sub-200 seats, like GE2005. Many of the seats Labour won then are simply no longer in contention for them.
Personally, the best I can Labour doing is about 30 seat gains off the Tories in England, so I'd expect the Tories to be ahead on both seats, and votes.
- temporary swing of the pendulum, exacerbated by quality of Labour leadership;
- secular change: rejection of social democratic "1945" settlement" and class-based politics to be replaced by "identity" politics, i.e. race/culture.
0 -
Ah Con Home has a pop at Carswell... how quaint.Scrapheap_as_was said:
"Mark - you're not really expecting us to believe that Carswell agonised for months over making the decision to defect, without realising that he would find himself in a conflicted position once he had done so?
No, I think this is another attempt to portray Carswell in a favourable (blue) light, as the principled but disaffected hero, to provide stark comparison with your real, un-named target, which is of course Mark Reckless.
Reckless who can't have agonised for months, since he was promising to toe the party line the day before he announced his defection. The Reckless who will create a far bigger crisis for the Tory party if he wins the Rochester byelection. And presumably the Reckless who won't feel as conflicted about being a senior officer in the UKIP regime, than Carswell does. "
This comment nails it.0 -
The party establishment are going to work really hard, and therefore the electorate will accept who they want? Let's not be silly here. A Tea Party candidate won't make it through, but neither will a super-establishment patrician figure that's supported amnesty for illegal immigrants. Mitt Romney only made it through because he completely abandoned all his former positions, and Jeb Bush isn't willing to do that.rottenborough said:
I'm not so sure he wont make it through GOP primary. I've read some stuff over the last few days concerning how the establishment in the GOP have pulled the stops out to block Tea Party candidates and support long-time senators against radical challengers.Socrates said:
He won't make it through a GOP primary. Even then, I'm not convinced: would you rather have a Clinton economy or a Bush economy? The guy would have to disown his brother's legacy, which he has refused to do.rottenborough said:
Jeb Bush.Socrates said:
American opinion polls show Hillary Clinton wiping the floor with the opposition, even being competitive in Southern states. Her polling will come down, but I haven't seen evidence of any viable Republican that could beat her in places like Ohio.Sean_F said:
Non-Americans tend to overestimate support for Democratic candidates.Itajai said:
What about HRC?Casino_Royale said:
The majority of people I speak to in the UK first don't realise Obama is unpopular in the US, and second cannot fathom why. They seem to (still) be under the impression he's a modern American hero.Sean_F said:Most recent polling puts Labour ahead of the Tories in Scotland by a bigger margin than in GB as a whole. This morning's Yougov, for example, has the two parties level in England and Wales, which implies a Tory lead in England.
Just because she's the only they've heard of they think she's amazingly popular, etc.0 -
Link? Today's YG has the Tories one point ahead in London (which admittedly is a bit atypical) but Labour 5 points ahead in the marginal-rich Midlands and Wales. That's just one poll, but typically polls show Labour highly competitive in the Midlands, though miles behind in the South outside London and miles ahead in the North. My suspicion is that the Lab->LD tactical vote will hold up well in the South, not so well the further you go North, and the LD->Lab switch (which isn't just tactical, of course) is exactly the other way round, London excepted in both cases.DavidL said:
I think Labour's performance is increasingly dependent on London and they are at risk of piling up ever bigger majorities there with relatively few additional seats reducing the efficiency of their vote.
One factor that the Ashcroft marginal polls are useful is that in many of the seats, voters didn't think of them as marginal last time. So you will tend to get MORE tactical voting there in 2015, and LESS in seats that were thought of as marginal in 2010 but are now seen as pretty safe. I think that's the reason why Labour is consistently doing slightly better in the current marginals than nationally - the politically-motivated Red Liberals are responding to the changes, while the UKIP assault is more uniform as nobody really knows with any confidence where they're going to score.
Voters are in my experience quite clued up about whether their seat is currently marginal (partly because of all the bar charts in leaflets), but like all of us rather stumped to predict what will become marginal.0 -
The "reason" for initially tipping the Tories in Rochester for many was that "they were really fired up"
A terrible reason for the bet even if they were...
But it seems many weren't/aren't
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11211995/Tories-resort-to-name-and-shame-as-100-MPs-refuse-to-fight-Ukip.html0 -
0
-
At the last presidential election, Fox was so dominant in cable viewers that there were more democrats in Fox's audience than MSNBC's.SouthamObserver said:
All Fox shows is that partisan people will tune in to hear their views confirmed.not_on_fire said:
And terrible for the quality of debate. Partisan coverage means that the extremists such as Palin get far more exposure than they deserved as it improves the ratings. I have no desire to import this. Why on earth would you want a "news" channel that is allowed to intentionally spin, manipulate or ignore viewpoints it doesn't agree with?DavidL said:
I also think this demonstrates how we seriously overrate "impartiality" and "balance" in this country in our media. Partisan, opinionated viewing is good for participation and interest.
0 -
Good morning. You will find very long odds on such an outcome. The value wager is Tory Most Seats - better than even money which is simply an interest rate of 100+% given how certain that seems to be, according to the wise owls hereinSwiss_Bob said:
Reshuffle? Laughable isn't it. That 'reshuffle' has just about convinced me that Miliband is going to lose and lose big. I will start looking at Con Maj odds and see what value I can find.dugarbandier said:0 -
Salmond has reintroduced a UK wide law of lesse majeste.0
-
Powell said: “I’m going to unblock the system to make sure that our operation is serving all of those fantastic candidates and our fantastic front bench and Ed as our leader.”Swiss_Bob said:
Reshuffle? Laughable isn't it. That 'reshuffle' has just about convinced me that Miliband is going to lose and lose big. I will start looking at Con Maj odds and see what value I can find.dugarbandier said:
You mean she doesn't believe Ed is fantastic?
Ashcroft points out that Conservatives cannot afford to lose more than 21 seats to Labour if they are to remain the largest party after the election and therefore probably in lead position to conduct coalition negotiations with other parties.
But Ashcroft’s polling in the marginals – the biggest constituency level polling exercise ever undertaken in the UK – shows the Tories behind in 38 seats. Ashcroft has not polled in every Tory-held marginal, so the scale of its losses is likely to be larger.
Appalling reporting. Leads the reader to draw a completely erroneous conclusion (by ignoring the possibility of any Tory wins and/or what is happening in Scotland)0 -
Good Morning.
A reminder that all is not well in Germany:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11210729/Former-Communists-from-East-Germany-set-to-return-to-power.html?utm_content=buffer667e7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer0 -
I've heard farage has a sniper in the commons gallery ready to take out Carswell the minute he stops tweeting negative comments about the Tories, then holds him hostage at UKIP HQ lest he follow up his desire to return home to the Tories.Pulpstar said:
Ah Con Home has a pop at Carswell... how quaint.Scrapheap_as_was said:
"Mark - you're not really expecting us to believe that Carswell agonised for months over making the decision to defect, without realising that he would find himself in a conflicted position once he had done so?
No, I think this is another attempt to portray Carswell in a favourable (blue) light, as the principled but disaffected hero, to provide stark comparison with your real, un-named target, which is of course Mark Reckless.
Reckless who can't have agonised for months, since he was promising to toe the party line the day before he announced his defection. The Reckless who will create a far bigger crisis for the Tory party if he wins the Rochester byelection. And presumably the Reckless who won't feel as conflicted about being a senior officer in the UKIP regime, than Carswell does. "
This comment nails it.
Apparently many Ukip voters are just Tories on holiday too0 -
Still lots of DK's here, but can we rely on a sweet tooth?
Latest poll in #Rochester shows #UKIP lead #MessinaWontSaveYou pic.twitter.com/9guFQt1ve1
— Douglas Carswell MP (@DouglasCarswell) November 5, 20140 -
The wikipedia page has two tables. One for headline figures, and another for all participants.RobD said:Which utter bastard has removed the Greens from the table here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
Right after I modified my spreadsheet to include them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Detailed_poll_results0 -
Merkel has chosen to allow the Left Party into the democratic process. No one made her do it, and the Social Democrats can always withdraw from the coalition if the Lefts misbehave. If Merkel were to say that she would, as a result of these Thuringian events, never enter into a Grand Coalition at Federal level, that would be worth hearing. What we have is a woman spluttering into her glass of Hock...MikeK said:Good Morning.
A reminder that all is not well in Germany:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11210729/Former-Communists-from-East-Germany-set-to-return-to-power.html?utm_content=buffer667e7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
0 -
Yep, we are all on our holidays. LOLisam said:
I've heard farage has a sniper in the commons gallery ready to take out Carswell the minute he stops tweeting negative comments about the Tories, then holds him hostage at UKIP HQ lest he follow up his desire to return home to the Tories.Pulpstar said:
Ah Con Home has a pop at Carswell... how quaint.Scrapheap_as_was said:
"Mark - you're not really expecting us to believe that Carswell agonised for months over making the decision to defect, without realising that he would find himself in a conflicted position once he had done so?
No, I think this is another attempt to portray Carswell in a favourable (blue) light, as the principled but disaffected hero, to provide stark comparison with your real, un-named target, which is of course Mark Reckless.
Reckless who can't have agonised for months, since he was promising to toe the party line the day before he announced his defection. The Reckless who will create a far bigger crisis for the Tory party if he wins the Rochester byelection. And presumably the Reckless who won't feel as conflicted about being a senior officer in the UKIP regime, than Carswell does. "
This comment nails it.
Apparently many Ukip voters are just Tories on holiday too0 -
London is curious.
Ashcroft's marginals have Labour piling up big swings in Enfield N, Brent C, Brentford etc, yet the overall London picture from an aggregate of subsamples is a London wide swing that is only around 1.5%.
That implies that Labour are losing ground in some other places, while the Tories are piling up votes in some. The question is "where?"
The area with the biggest swing to Labour is the South - yet the Tories are still miles clear and UKIP are getting close to the Labour vote share.
0 -
Swing voters in the South East (outside London) and Eastern England , plus a section of Labour's core vote, have gone to UKIP. That makes it very hard for Labour to recover in this part of England.Innocent_Abroad said:
It's interesting to think about why this is so. Among other explanations, I can come up with:Sean_F said:
It's typical of the kind of seat where Labour were competitive in 2005 and which is out of reach today.logical_song said:
You can't extrapolate from one seat, especially not in a by-election.Sean_F said:
For Labour to finish 92 ahead of the Conservatives in England they'd need to be at least close in Rochester & Strood, whereas they're polling 16%,Casino_Royale said:Labour currently hold 26 Welsh seats, 41 Scottish seats, and 257 UK seats. That makes 190 English seats.
The Tory equivalent is 8 Welsh, 1 Scottish, and 294 English seats.
So the Tories have a 100 seat lead over Labour in England. That might increase if the Tories take more Lib Dem English seats that Labour do, say 12:8 in the Tories favour. That'd give 306 Tory English seats, and 198 Labour English seats.
Labour would need to be doing pretty well to take 54+ seats (net) off the Tories in England. And that'd be to be *just* ahead. No-one thinks the Tories are going to sink to sub-200 seats, like GE2005. Many of the seats Labour won then are simply no longer in contention for them.
Personally, the best I can Labour doing is about 30 seat gains off the Tories in England, so I'd expect the Tories to be ahead on both seats, and votes.
- temporary swing of the pendulum, exacerbated by quality of Labour leadership;
- secular change: rejection of social democratic "1945" settlement" and class-based politics to be replaced by "identity" politics, i.e. race/culture.
0 -
It would be interesting for someone to model that effect - let's say in the south of England 25% of Tory votes shift to UKIP [i.e, 10-15% of the voters], what that actually does in terms of the efficiency of their vote overall.Sean_F said:
Swing voters in the South East (outside London) and Eastern England , plus a section of Labour's core vote, have gone to UKIP. That makes it very hard for Labour to recover in this part of England.Innocent_Abroad said:
It's interesting to think about why this is so. Among other explanations, I can come up with:Sean_F said:
It's typical of the kind of seat where Labour were competitive in 2005 and which is out of reach today.logical_song said:
You can't extrapolate from one seat, especially not in a by-election.Sean_F said:
For Labour to finish 92 ahead of the Conservatives in England they'd need to be at least close in Rochester & Strood, whereas they're polling 16%,Casino_Royale said:Labour currently hold 26 Welsh seats, 41 Scottish seats, and 257 UK seats. That makes 190 English seats.
The Tory equivalent is 8 Welsh, 1 Scottish, and 294 English seats.
So the Tories have a 100 seat lead over Labour in England. That might increase if the Tories take more Lib Dem English seats that Labour do, say 12:8 in the Tories favour. That'd give 306 Tory English seats, and 198 Labour English seats.
Labour would need to be doing pretty well to take 54+ seats (net) off the Tories in England. And that'd be to be *just* ahead. No-one thinks the Tories are going to sink to sub-200 seats, like GE2005. Many of the seats Labour won then are simply no longer in contention for them.
Personally, the best I can Labour doing is about 30 seat gains off the Tories in England, so I'd expect the Tories to be ahead on both seats, and votes.
- temporary swing of the pendulum, exacerbated by quality of Labour leadership;
- secular change: rejection of social democratic "1945" settlement" and class-based politics to be replaced by "identity" politics, i.e. race/culture.
I suspect that @DavidL is spot on with his view that Labour's relative advantage will be a lot smaller in 2015 than it was in 20050 -
So why was the effigy not burnt? If he thought it was a joke, why did so many with 45 badges work themselves up into a frenzy. The back images showed a Union Flag, a bare bum, compared to Georgian political prints it was quite tame.Carnyx said:
I think you'll find that in fact he took it in fairly good part - with a barbed joke in return.dr_spyn said:Salmond has reintroduced a UK wide law of lesse majeste.
It appears that burning Bush, Brown, Thatcher, Lawson, Putin, Saddam, Putin (last night), Blair, Brezhenev is OK, but smoking out Salmond is beyond satire. Will a new article 58 be prepared for a new Scottish criminal code?
Burning effigies is better than burning real people, 17 Protestants were burnt in Queen Mary's reign in Lewes, as a warning not to deviate from the one true faith. The outraged on Twitter should reflect on Wellington's words publish and be damned.
As ane fule kno Lewes has a LD MP, unless Norman Baker has a secret desire to change sides.
0 -
A spokesperson for the first minister said: "The Tory-controlled East Sussex County Council obviously view the First Minister - and the 45 per cent of Scots who voted Yes - as as big a threat to the Westminster establishment as Guy Fawkes, although it's unclear why poor Nessie has been targeted.Carnyx said:
I think you'll find that in fact he took it in fairly good part - with a barbed joke in return.dr_spyn said:Salmond has reintroduced a UK wide law of lesse majeste.
"It's a typical Tory attitude to Scotland, whether north or south of the border."
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/298516-alex-salmond-effigy-to-be-burned-at-lewes-bonfire-celebrations/
Humourless thin skinned victim hood would be nearer the mark.....especially since it had nowt to do with 'The Tory-controlled' council......
0 -
I know he lost your referendum - but doesn't Salmond deserve some credit?malcolmg said:
0 -
Amazingly the German establishment has accepted the former communists as a legitimate party, but refuses to work with Alternative for Germany, the moderate eurosceptics. Europhiles are unhinged when it comes to eurosceptism.Innocent_Abroad said:
Merkel has chosen to allow the Left Party into the democratic process. No one made her do it, and the Social Democrats can always withdraw from the coalition if the Lefts misbehave. If Merkel were to say that she would, as a result of these Thuringian events, never enter into a Grand Coalition at Federal level, that would be worth hearing. What we have is a woman spluttering into her glass of Hock...MikeK said:Good Morning.
A reminder that all is not well in Germany:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11210729/Former-Communists-from-East-Germany-set-to-return-to-power.html?utm_content=buffer667e7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer0 -
Remember the uproar on Twitter and Police investigation when this happened:
An effigy of David Cameron holding a "puppet Nick Clegg" was burned in Lewes in 2010.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-29921797
No. Neither do I.......0 -
The second set of tables are not updated as frequently, and I don't think that it is a complete list.anotherDave said:
The wikipedia page has two tables. One for headline figures, and another for all participants.RobD said:Which utter bastard has removed the Greens from the table here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
Right after I modified my spreadsheet to include them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Detailed_poll_results0 -
You're being a bit unfair to Merkel on this. The Left Party and its predecessor the PDS have been significant factors in the eastern states ever since reunification, long before Merkel took office. Should she have made it illegal to vote for a party that consistently gets 20%+ of the vote in those states? Allowing the left to elect a left party locally was an implicit part of the reunification deal.Innocent_Abroad said:
Merkel has chosen to allow the Left Party into the democratic process. No one made her do it, and the Social Democrats can always withdraw from the coalition if the Lefts misbehave. If Merkel were to say that she would, as a result of these Thuringian events, never enter into a Grand Coalition at Federal level, that would be worth hearing. What we have is a woman spluttering into her glass of Hock...MikeK said:Good Morning.
A reminder that all is not well in Germany:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11210729/Former-Communists-from-East-Germany-set-to-return-to-power.html?utm_content=buffer667e7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
As with all parties on the fringes, there's a choice between stamping on them or drawing them into the democratic process, which means that one has to accept that they'll sometimes win something. In general the latter is best unless they actually do or say something illegal which you can prosecute.
Applies on the right too - I've never been in favour of banning the far right from standing at elections or, as in the last Euro elections but one, actually winning seats. Once elected, the parties find they have to either moderate their policies to meet reality (as e.g. the Sweden Democrats are trying to do) or lose popularity by pushing through policies against the odds, as the Greens (though perhaps not Caroline) apparently have in Brighton.
0 -
Off-topic:
I found this whilst scanning t'Telegraph Scottish section:
http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/the-people-of-east-sussex-use-fireworks.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+ScotGoesPop+(SCOT+goes+POP!)
Are all Jockanese wannabe clowns...?0 -
http://www.somersetguardian.co.uk/Ukip-asking-questions-parties-avoiding/story-24262386-detail/story.html
A letter from a supporter explains his views.0 -
There's a reason for that. It's called 20th century European history. (I know that in your world the Soviet Union declared war on Germany, or at least it would have made life tidier if it had.)Socrates said:
Amazingly the German establishment has accepted the former communists as a legitimate party, but refuses to work with Alternative for Germany, the moderate eurosceptics. Europhiles are unhinged when it comes to eurosceptism.Innocent_Abroad said:
Merkel has chosen to allow the Left Party into the democratic process. No one made her do it, and the Social Democrats can always withdraw from the coalition if the Lefts misbehave. If Merkel were to say that she would, as a result of these Thuringian events, never enter into a Grand Coalition at Federal level, that would be worth hearing. What we have is a woman spluttering into her glass of Hock...MikeK said:Good Morning.
A reminder that all is not well in Germany:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11210729/Former-Communists-from-East-Germany-set-to-return-to-power.html?utm_content=buffer667e7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
And now - that's me done for another day. See you all to-morrow, God willing.
0 -
Which shows that American conservatives want their views confirmed, while American liberals are happy to hear the other point of view.anotherDave said:
At the last presidential election, Fox was so dominant in cable viewers that there were more democrats in Fox's audience than MSNBC's.SouthamObserver said:
All Fox shows is that partisan people will tune in to hear their views confirmed.not_on_fire said:
And terrible for the quality of debate. Partisan coverage means that the extremists such as Palin get far more exposure than they deserved as it improves the ratings. I have no desire to import this. Why on earth would you want a "news" channel that is allowed to intentionally spin, manipulate or ignore viewpoints it doesn't agree with?DavidL said:
I also think this demonstrates how we seriously overrate "impartiality" and "balance" in this country in our media. Partisan, opinionated viewing is good for participation and interest.
The demographic differences are horrendous for Republicans, but they need to lose several elections in a row to wake up to that. The problem is that their advantages via gerrymandering, efficient spread of voting and Democrats not bothering outside of presidential years means that the GOP keep winning huge Midterm victories. Thus they always get stuck in a "one more push" mindset. It's worth bearing in mind that last night voters passed measures to legalise marijuana, increase the minimum wage and rejected anti-abortion amendments in a whole bunch of red, purple and blue states.0 -
What on Earth has that got to do with anything?Innocent_Abroad said:
There's a reason for that. It's called 20th century European history. (I know that in your world the Soviet Union declared war on Germany, or at least it would have made life tidier if it had.)Socrates said:
Amazingly the German establishment has accepted the former communists as a legitimate party, but refuses to work with Alternative for Germany, the moderate eurosceptics. Europhiles are unhinged when it comes to eurosceptism.Innocent_Abroad said:
Merkel has chosen to allow the Left Party into the democratic process. No one made her do it, and the Social Democrats can always withdraw from the coalition if the Lefts misbehave. If Merkel were to say that she would, as a result of these Thuringian events, never enter into a Grand Coalition at Federal level, that would be worth hearing. What we have is a woman spluttering into her glass of Hock...MikeK said:Good Morning.
A reminder that all is not well in Germany:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11210729/Former-Communists-from-East-Germany-set-to-return-to-power.html?utm_content=buffer667e7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
And now - that's me done for another day. See you all to-morrow, God willing.0 -
The country is divided, but not north/south. Labour are still very strong in inner city areas around the country and the Tories are strong in more rural areas. Labour can win seats from Tories in the suburbs, as some of the suburbs are changing, with Labour voters moving out to these and the Tory voters moving to more rural areas. This change has been happening for some time and it is making it more difficult for Tories to win in England without a major change to constituencies. The Tories lost this opportunity when the Lib Dems blocked it, because Tories did not agree with House of Lords reform.0
-
Another point on the interesting thread. I don't think the following is correct:
"There’s no reason to think that the VOTES:SEATS ratio in England is going to be more equitable next May than it was ten years ago. In fact it could be worse for the Tories"
Why wouldn't it be better for the Tories? There is now Ukip taking Tory votes so surely the party's national votes will be more evenly spread?0 -
The operative word is 'were'. Remember, the British Greens sit with the German Greens in Strasbourg.logical_song said:
I didn't know the Greens were pro-paedophile. Links please.Tapestry said:.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/german-elections-blog-2013/2013/sep/16/german-green-jurgen-trittin-regret-paedophilia-pamphlet
http://www.dw.de/pedophilia-scandal-entangles-german-greens/a-168361530 -
The current YouGov reflects my thinking about the outturn vote share in May.
Perhaps with Labour and Tories reversed.
I can't see the Tories getting much above 34%. Likewise Labour won't get less than 32%.
The dreadful FPTP will again be discredited.0 -
What an actor that Cameron is!
'Cameron's protest naheffing hypocriet en voor de bühne'. Opinie @GuyVerhofstadt & @Gerbrandy http://t.co/AKWr5RRAPI pic.twitter.com/0E7b8rb8hf
— Gerben Jan Gerbrandy (@Gerbrandy) November 6, 20140 -
Lickle pup gains some self-awareness. According to Erik Erikson I would assume SoWo is mastering stage-II at last....SouthamObserver said:Also, turnout in US elections is even more lamentable than in the UK, isn't it?
All Fox shows is that partisan people will tune in to hear their views confirmed.
0 -
Danny Alexander set to make himself look stupid.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29924710
Someone will probably point out that the majority of the cost is tax.0 -
Why are the SNP getting sensitive about the Lewes bonfire?
They're celebrating the defeat of the gunpowder plot which was anti-Scottish. "Hark, hark, the dogs do bark, the beggars are coming to town etc."
On the same evening, you had Russell Brand parading around with the Guy Fawkes crowd. Now, he'd make a good Guy for next years fire.0 -
OGH at number 9:
http://uk.labs.teads.tv/top-blogs/search/politics
Blog ranking based on the score calculated by Teads which considers various numerous parameters including the number of backlinks, the number of shares of its articles on Facebook and Twitter0 -
Seems like Cammo might have been right about JC Junker..the lad from Luxembourg has a few questions to answer0
-
Labour's vote seems very soft at the moment. I predicted Labour polling 25-30% at the GE. The way Miliband is carrying on it's going to be at the bottom end of that range.Charles said:
Powell said: “I’m going to unblock the system to make sure that our operation is serving all of those fantastic candidates and our fantastic front bench and Ed as our leader.”Swiss_Bob said:
Reshuffle? Laughable isn't it. That 'reshuffle' has just about convinced me that Miliband is going to lose and lose big. I will start looking at Con Maj odds and see what value I can find.dugarbandier said:
You mean she doesn't believe Ed is fantastic?
Ashcroft points out that Conservatives cannot afford to lose more than 21 seats to Labour if they are to remain the largest party after the election and therefore probably in lead position to conduct coalition negotiations with other parties.
But Ashcroft’s polling in the marginals – the biggest constituency level polling exercise ever undertaken in the UK – shows the Tories behind in 38 seats. Ashcroft has not polled in every Tory-held marginal, so the scale of its losses is likely to be larger.
Appalling reporting. Leads the reader to draw a completely erroneous conclusion (by ignoring the possibility of any Tory wins and/or what is happening in Scotland)0 -
Patrick O'Flynn speaks to the Spectator:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9361742/ukips-patrick-oflynn-on-the-genius-nigel-farage-and-why-douglas-carswells-votes-wont-set-party-policy/0 -
And Comical James at 93.......chortle......CarlottaVance said:OGH at number 9:
http://uk.labs.teads.tv/top-blogs/search/politics
Blog ranking based on the score calculated by Teads which considers various numerous parameters including the number of backlinks, the number of shares of its articles on Facebook and Twitter
0
