politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Latest YouGov makes it 8 consecutive polls without a CON le

Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB - LAB desperately needs positive news from Scotland. Maybe the Good Lord will provide.

Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcrof -@MSmithsonPB - mmmmm



Arf - his lordship is such a tease…!

felix said:

SimonStClare said:

Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB - LAB desperately needs positive news from Scotland. Maybe the Good Lord will provide.

Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcrof -@MSmithsonPB - mmmmm



Arf - his lordship is such a tease…!

Things are already so bad for Labour in Scotland it would be extraordinary if Ashcroft does not give them some mild relief. Either way I see no long-term future for the Union in its present form We need a new settlement, not least for England.

Absolutely right ..... the Union as it stands is toast.
A completely new framework is required and a definitive commitment to this effect from one or more of the major parties may have a major influence at the forthcoming GE, particularly with English voters who are becoming heartily sick of being treated as second class citizens when it comes to the sharing out of the UK cake. Things have to change big time and soon.

I notice that's a 5 "mmmmm" lower case comment from Lord A.

Followers of the AAA ratings (Ashcroft Analytical Assessments) on twitter will be aware that this reflects that :

Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister.

Todays BJESUS

3.2.15 LAB 313 (310) CON 267(269) LD29(31) UKIP2(2) Others39(38) Ed is crap is PM

FalseFlag said:

Brent crude continuing its rise. WTI still low enough to bankrupt US shale.

Dead cat bounce.

Another Scottish poll, another ginormous SNP lead. If Lord Ashcroft is finding something different at constituency level, it's going to need a lot of explaining. So I conclude that Lord Ashcroft will find results that are reasonably consistent with the SNP's large poll leads.

Today may well be the last chance to get odds-against prices on the SNP in a dozen Scottish constituencies.

Labour could lose 6 out of 7 seats in Glasgow if the national Scottish surveys are borne out by Ashcroft's constituency polling.

audreyanne said:

Not sharing the gloom about Cons. Our share of the vote is actually up. I'll take this right now given those grim days of polls showing the 20's.

Anyway, Labour will not win from here. More anon.

There's no evidence that the Conservative share has broken out of the range 32 +/-1.5 that it has been in since summer 2013.

antifrank said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

bigjohnowls said:

Todays BJESUS

3.2.15 LAB 313 (310) CON 267(269) LD29(31) UKIP2(2) Others39(38) Ed is crap is PM

I don't think you're taking Scotland sufficiently into account.

I would agree but that does not seem to me to impact on the EICIPM proposition. If Labour are down another 20 seats from this projection to the low 290s they will still be the largest party and the SNP will favour them over any tory alternative anyway in a confidence vote.

Those who continue to pile into Tory most seats make President Romney's most fervent supporters look sanguine. The bet of this week must surely be EICIPM. It may not happen, Labour may implode, there may be sudden and radical shifts in the polling but the odds being offered are ridiculous and driven by the weight of money.

It's safer to lay David Cameron than back Ed Miliband, as Pulpstar noted the other day. If Labour are second in seats, the Labour leader may be a casualty of party manoeuvring or coalition-building.

I missed that but don't really get the logic.

The only precedent I can think of for that would be when Ken Livingstone let someone else go to the trouble of winning the election for the GLC and then staged a coup after the election to take control.

Given Labour's constitutional paralysis I really cannot conceive how a leader who has won the most seats is going to get the heave. And it is not as if Ed is a Nick Clegg or Gordon Brown type divisive figure that others will just refuse to work with. Most of them will be confident that they can bully him more easily than the alternatives (with the possible exception of Burnham).

DavidL said:

antifrank said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

bigjohnowls said:

Todays BJESUS

3.2.15 LAB 313 (310) CON 267(269) LD29(31) UKIP2(2) Others39(38) Ed is crap is PM

I don't think you're taking Scotland sufficiently into account.

I would agree but that does not seem to me to impact on the EICIPM proposition. If Labour are down another 20 seats from this projection to the low 290s they will still be the largest party and the SNP will favour them over any tory alternative anyway in a confidence vote.

Those who continue to pile into Tory most seats make President Romney's most fervent supporters look sanguine. The bet of this week must surely be EICIPM. It may not happen, Labour may implode, there may be sudden and radical shifts in the polling but the odds being offered are ridiculous and driven by the weight of money.

It's safer to lay David Cameron than back Ed Miliband, as Pulpstar noted the other day. If Labour are second in seats, the Labour leader may be a casualty of party manoeuvring or coalition-building.

I missed that but don't really get the logic.

The only precedent I can think of for that would be when Ken Livingstone let someone else go to the trouble of winning the election for the GLC and then staged a coup after the election to take control.

Given Labour's constitutional paralysis I really cannot conceive how a leader who has won the most seats is going to get the heave. And it is not as if Ed is a Nick Clegg or Gordon Brown type divisive figure that others will just refuse to work with. Most of them will be confident that they can bully him more easily than the alternatives (with the possible exception of Burnham).

If Labour come second in seats, they will probably also have come second in votes. But they may yet be able to put together a government with Lib Dem and SNP support. In those circumstances, many within Labour will blame Ed Miliband for their relative failure. And while the SNP would be delighted to have a government with a weak leader, the Lib Dems would not. So in the jostling, Ed Miliband might well find himself on the cutting room floor with someone like Alan Johnson given the top job.

antifrank said:

DavidL said:

antifrank said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

bigjohnowls said:

Todays BJESUS

3.2.15 LAB 313 (310) CON 267(269) LD29(31) UKIP2(2) Others39(38) Ed is crap is PM

I don't think you're taking Scotland sufficiently into account.

.

It's safer to lay David Cameron than back Ed Miliband, as Pulpstar noted the other day. If Labour are second in seats, the Labour leader may be a casualty of party manoeuvring or coalition-building.

I missed that but don't really get the logic.

The only precedent I can think of for that would be when Ken Livingstone let someone else go to the trouble of winning the election for the GLC and then staged a coup after the election to take control.

Given Labour's constitutional paralysis I really cannot conceive how a leader who has won the most seats is going to get the heave. And it is not as if Ed is a Nick Clegg or Gordon Brown type divisive figure that others will just refuse to work with. Most of them will be confident that they can bully him more easily than the alternatives (with the possible exception of Burnham).

If Labour come second in seats, they will probably also have come second in votes. But they may yet be able to put together a government with Lib Dem and SNP support. In those circumstances, many within Labour will blame Ed Miliband for their relative failure. And while the SNP would be delighted to have a government with a weak leader, the Lib Dems would not. So in the jostling, Ed Miliband might well find himself on the cutting room floor with someone like Alan Johnson given the top job.

If Labour come first in votes they will be so close to an overall majority that they will have viable option of having a minority government. If they are (just) second but still have the most seats then EICIPM. If they are second in seats as well the tories will have won the popular vote by quite a margin and are likely to remain in government in some form.

Why would the defeated, demoralised and probably leaderless Lib Dems insist on Ed standing down? The idea that Alan Johnson might be chosen shows the desperation of the idea.

Ed walked over his brother's body to get this job. He may be useless but he is probably more driven to justify his decisions than any leader in recent years.

@politicshome: Labour's row with big businesses continues, with former heads of B&Q, M&S, and current Heathrow chief weighing in. http://t.co/GRldhKvPl1

I thought we were getting the Ashcroft polling yesterday, do we know when it's coming out?

Amazing BBC F1 insight from the livefeed:
"There's no point reading into headline times because we don't know the spec in which each team is running their car, nor do we know fuel loads.
But Ferrari and Sebastian Vettel will still be pleased with their efforts so far as the German finished top of the pile on both days and racked up a solid amount of laps."

Let's not look at the times, they're worthless. Vettel was fastest both days, he must be pleased.

There's no enthusiasm for Labour, even less so for their freak accidental leader EdM. They'll get around 26 % in the GE, postal votes and rotten boroughs willing.

The man who restored Marks & Spencer’s fortunes today accuses Ed Miliband of being a ‘1970s throwback’ who has wrecked Britain’s pro-business consensus.

Stuart Rose claims Labour’s ‘business-bashing’ could curb investment and lead to ‘shuttered shop fronts, empty high streets and lengthening dole queues’.His intervention, in an article for the Daily Mail, is especially significant because he was handpicked by Gordon Brown to advise him directly as prime minister.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2937172/Man-saved-M-S-savages-Ed-Stuart-Rose-brands-Miliband-seventies-throwback-day-Boots-chief-attacked-Labour.html#ixzz3QfUSVQRz


Oh dear.....

antifrank said:

Another Scottish poll, another ginormous SNP lead. If Lord Ashcroft is finding something different at constituency level, it's going to need a lot of explaining. So I conclude that Lord Ashcroft will find results that are reasonably consistent with the SNP's large poll leads.

Today may well be the last chance to get odds-against prices on the SNP in a dozen Scottish constituencies.

Until the SNP actually select their candidates.

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

bigjohnowls said:

Todays BJESUS

3.2.15 LAB 313 (310) CON 267(269) LD29(31) UKIP2(2) Others39(38) Ed is crap is PM

I don't think you're taking Scotland sufficiently into account.

I would agree but that does not seem to me to impact on the EICIPM proposition. If Labour are down another 20 seats from this projection to the low 290s they will still be the largest party and the SNP will favour them over any tory alternative anyway in a confidence vote.

That's right IMO. I'm certainly expecting terrible figures from Scotland, but even if they accurately reflect differential turnout (the big question in areas like Glasgow) they don't actually affect the next PM betting (though they do affect the odds for largest party, which is why betting on Ed as PM makes most sense). The probability of Labour gaining lots of English seats and then instantly replacing Ed is zero - Labour doesn't even force out unsuccessful leaders, let alone leaders who put us in a position to form a government.

The overall trend over the last 3 months is quite nicely shown by

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/02/03/labour-lead-2/

Within MOE, the fairest summary is to say there isn't a trend at all. Nobody is changing their minds. People backing a Tory majority are betting that these lines will dramatically alter in the next 3 months. It's not very likely.

antifrank said:

DavidL said:

If Labour come first in votes they will be so close to an overall majority that they will have viable option of having a minority government. If they are (just) second but still have the most seats then EICIPM. If they are second in seats as well the tories will have won the popular vote by quite a margin and are likely to remain in government in some form.

You underestimate the challenge for the Conservatives. This is best illustrated with numbers. Imagine a Parliament roughly as follows:

Con 290
Lab 270
SNP 40
Lib Dem 25

There is no plausible Conservative-led majority that is stable. But Labour + SNP + Lib Dem would have a majority of 18, not to mention the support in practice from Plaid Cymru, the SDLP and others in all probability. So some government of that type would be formed.

Would Ed Miliband be seen as the man to lead it, given that Labour would have been seen to have underperformed and he would presumably be personally blamed for that? The point is at least open to question.

That would be a really stable coalition, it wouldn't destroy the parties involved.

FalseFlag said:

antifrank said:

DavidL said:

If Labour come first in votes they will be so close to an overall majority that they will have viable option of having a minority government. If they are (just) second but still have the most seats then EICIPM. If they are second in seats as well the tories will have won the popular vote by quite a margin and are likely to remain in government in some form.

You underestimate the challenge for the Conservatives. This is best illustrated with numbers. Imagine a Parliament roughly as follows:

Con 290
Lab 270
SNP 40
Lib Dem 25

There is no plausible Conservative-led majority that is stable. But Labour + SNP + Lib Dem would have a majority of 18, not to mention the support in practice from Plaid Cymru, the SDLP and others in all probability. So some government of that type would be formed.

Would Ed Miliband be seen as the man to lead it, given that Labour would have been seen to have underperformed and he would presumably be personally blamed for that? The point is at least open to question.

That would be a really stable coalition, it wouldn't destroy the parties involved.

It wouldn't be a coalition. It would be a Labour minority government. And it would be grisly, but it would at least control a majority in the Commons.

DavidL said:

OblitusSumMe said:

audreyanne said:

Got to say I'm pretty upbeat right now. Might have something to do with my dream when I was chatting near Downing Street with David Cameron. 'We're winning' I said to him. He didn't actually reply but it felt good saying it.

In the waking world, no reason for any despondency. Neck and neck at around 32-33 with just over three months to go against a Labour party led by EdM? I'll take that very happily thank you very much.

Watch this space.

I think it's a step forward in your relationship with reality to place the source of your confidence in a dream.

I do agree with your second paragraph. There's everything to play for in the current situation. The election can be won by either side.

Only a fool would not recognise that either side can win one of the most uncertain elections in our history. But the current polling, the boundaries, the efficiency of the Labour vote, the massive increase in the UKIP vote and the flat consistency of the tory vote that you pointed out earlier all make a Labour victory more likely than not. And yet the markets say the opposite.

The polling makes clear Labour won't win the popular vote and are unlikely to win most seats, any victory would be a pyrrhic victory.

antifrank said:

FalseFlag said:

antifrank said:

DavidL said:

If Labour come first in votes they will be so close to an overall majority that they will have viable option of having a minority government. If they are (just) second but still have the most seats then EICIPM. If they are second in seats as well the tories will have won the popular vote by quite a margin and are likely to remain in government in some form.

You underestimate the challenge for the Conservatives. This is best illustrated with numbers. Imagine a Parliament roughly as follows:

Con 290
Lab 270
SNP 40
Lib Dem 25

There is no plausible Conservative-led majority that is stable. But Labour + SNP + Lib Dem would have a majority of 18, not to mention the support in practice from Plaid Cymru, the SDLP and others in all probability. So some government of that type would be formed.

Would Ed Miliband be seen as the man to lead it, given that Labour would have been seen to have underperformed and he would presumably be personally blamed for that? The point is at least open to question.

That would be a really stable coalition, it wouldn't destroy the parties involved.

It wouldn't be a coalition. It would be a Labour minority government. And it would be grisly, but it would at least control a majority in the Commons.

Elected on dodgy boundaries, without the consent of England, imposing austerity they denied was necessary and subject to continual by election defeats.

One thing Quebec has turned into is a Liberal v Nationalist battle, so much so that a former progressive conservative leader ended up leading the Liberals back into power in 2003

FalseFlag said:

DavidL said:

OblitusSumMe said:

audreyanne said:

Got to say I'm pretty upbeat right now. Might have something to do with my dream when I was chatting near Downing Street with David Cameron. 'We're winning' I said to him. He didn't actually reply but it felt good saying it.

In the waking world, no reason for any despondency. Neck and neck at around 32-33 with just over three months to go against a Labour party led by EdM? I'll take that very happily thank you very much.

Watch this space.

I think it's a step forward in your relationship with reality to place the source of your confidence in a dream.

I do agree with your second paragraph. There's everything to play for in the current situation. The election can be won by either side.

Only a fool would not recognise that either side can win one of the most uncertain elections in our history. But the current polling, the boundaries, the efficiency of the Labour vote, the massive increase in the UKIP vote and the flat consistency of the tory vote that you pointed out earlier all make a Labour victory more likely than not. And yet the markets say the opposite.

The polling makes clear Labour won't win the popular vote and are unlikely to win most seats, any victory would be a pyrrhic victory.

With respect the polling shows the exact opposite on both counts. The expectation is that by polling day this will have developed into a tory most votes scenario. I still believe that although as Nick points out the evidence over the last 3 months is somewhat inconclusive.

As Mike repeatedly points out a narrow win on share of the vote is absolutely no use to the tories. They will lose at least 50 seats in England to Labour with a small lead. They need to be well ahead and only models based on different, inaccurate polling in very different circumstances give any credence to the idea that they will.

This is the election where anything is possible but not necessarily likely.

OblitusSumMe said:

DavidL said:

OblitusSumMe said:

audreyanne said:

Got to say I'm pretty upbeat right now. Might have something to do with my dream when I was chatting near Downing Street with David Cameron. 'We're winning' I said to him. He didn't actually reply but it felt good saying it.

In the waking world, no reason for any despondency. Neck and neck at around 32-33 with just over three months to go against a Labour party led by EdM? I'll take that very happily thank you very much.

Watch this space.

I think it's a step forward in your relationship with reality to place the source of your confidence in a dream.

I do agree with your second paragraph. There's everything to play for in the current situation. The election can be won by either side.

Only a fool would not recognise that either side can win one of the most uncertain elections in our history. But the current polling, the boundaries, the efficiency of the Labour vote, the massive increase in the UKIP vote and the flat consistency of the tory vote that you pointed out earlier all make a Labour victory more likely than not. And yet the markets say the opposite.

The Tories have some things in their favour too: They're the incumbent government, the public largely still blame Labour for the dire state of the economy, Cameron is an asset, there are enough fools in Labour ranks who believe the battle is lost that they are fighting the blame game already, etc.

That's why it is so hard to call.

I agree with all of that. It is indeed hard to say. Unlike the majority on here I think Cameron has been an excellent PM and is a far more formidable campaigner than he is given credit for. He is their best chance and Ed is Labour's biggest problem.

DavidL said:

FalseFlag said:

DavidL said:

OblitusSumMe said:

audreyanne said:

Got to say I'm pretty upbeat right now. Might have something to do with my dream when I was chatting near Downing Street with David Cameron. 'We're winning' I said to him. He didn't actually reply but it felt good saying it.

In the waking world, no reason for any despondency. Neck and neck at around 32-33 with just over three months to go against a Labour party led by EdM? I'll take that very happily thank you very much.

Watch this space.

I think it's a step forward in your relationship with reality to place the source of your confidence in a dream.

I do agree with your second paragraph. There's everything to play for in the current situation. The election can be won by either side.

Only a fool would not recognise that either side can win one of the most uncertain elections in our history. But the current polling, the boundaries, the efficiency of the Labour vote, the massive increase in the UKIP vote and the flat consistency of the tory vote that you pointed out earlier all make a Labour victory more likely than not. And yet the markets say the opposite.

The polling makes clear Labour won't win the popular vote and are unlikely to win most seats, any victory would be a pyrrhic victory.

With respect the polling shows the exact opposite on both counts. The expectation is that by polling day this will have developed into a tory most votes scenario. I still believe that although as Nick points out the evidence over the last 3 months is somewhat inconclusive.

As Mike repeatedly points out a narrow win on share of the vote is absolutely no use to the tories. They will lose at least 50 seats in England to Labour with a small lead. They need to be well ahead and only models based on different, inaccurate polling in very different circumstances give any credence to the idea that they will.

This is the election where anything is possible but not necessarily likely.

Yes, totting up at the moment I'm +500 Labour Minority, -200 Labour Majority when various next gov't and the overall bets are taken into account (Not counting most seats in this analysis)

For most parliaments that would be a bonkers position but I'm happy with it.

peter_from_putney said:

felix said:

SimonStClare said:

Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB - LAB desperately needs positive news from Scotland. Maybe the Good Lord will provide.

Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcrof -@MSmithsonPB - mmmmm



Arf - his lordship is such a tease…!

Things are already so bad for Labour in Scotland it would be extraordinary if Ashcroft does not give them some mild relief. Either way I see no long-term future for the Union in its present form We need a new settlement, not least for England.

Absolutely right ..... the Union as it stands is toast.
A completely new framework is required and a definitive commitment to this effect from one or more of the major parties may have a major influence at the forthcoming GE, particularly with English voters who are becoming heartily sick of being treated as second class citizens when it comes to the sharing out of the UK cake. Things have to change big time and soon.

LOL, unionists whinging that they only get 95% of the cake, you could not make it up

@JohnRentoul: EdM's spinners call Boots spat a "clarifying row". @stephenkb: "Perhaps, but not in the way that Labour would wish." https://t.co/Kxzfxj1o2b

@iainmartin1: Boots moved to Switzerland in 2008, under Gordon Brown. Did anyone attack them at the time? Rather than now (93 days from general election)

antifrank said:

DavidL said:

If Labour come first in votes they will be so close to an overall majority that they will have viable option of having a minority government. If they are (just) second but still have the most seats then EICIPM. If they are second in seats as well the tories will have won the popular vote by quite a margin and are likely to remain in government in some form.

You underestimate the challenge for the Conservatives. This is best illustrated with numbers. Imagine a Parliament roughly as follows:

Con 290
Lab 270
SNP 40
Lib Dem 25

There is no plausible Conservative-led majority that is stable. But Labour + SNP + Lib Dem would have a majority of 18, not to mention the support in practice from Plaid Cymru, the SDLP and others in all probability. So some government of that type would be formed.

Would Ed Miliband be seen as the man to lead it, given that Labour would have been seen to have underperformed and he would presumably be personally blamed for that? The point is at least open to question.

I'm not sure about that. A Con+Lib Dem coalition would have 315 seats. It'd be able to outvote any Labour+SNP arrangement.

If some sort of arrangement was reached with the DUP that'd take it to 322/323 seats, which would scrape an effective overall majority, and the government would be stable enough. At least for a couple of years until it started to internally fragment.

DavidL said:

FalseFlag said:

DavidL said:

OblitusSumMe said:

audreyanne said:

Got to say I'm pretty upbeat right now. Might have something to do with my dream when I was chatting near Downing Street with David Cameron. 'We're winning' I said to him. He didn't actually reply but it felt good saying it.

In the waking world, no reason for any despondency. Neck and neck at around 32-33 with just over three months to go against a Labour party led by EdM? I'll take that very happily thank you very much.

Watch this space.

I think it's a step forward in your relationship with reality to place the source of your confidence in a dream.

I do agree with your second paragraph. There's everything to play for in the current situation. The election can be won by either side.

Only a fool would not recognise that either side can win one of the most uncertain elections in our history. But the current polling, the boundaries, the efficiency of the Labour vote, the massive increase in the UKIP vote and the flat consistency of the tory vote that you pointed out earlier all make a Labour victory more likely than not. And yet the markets say the opposite.

The polling makes clear Labour won't win the popular vote and are unlikely to win most seats, any victory would be a pyrrhic victory.

With respect the polling shows the exact opposite on both counts. The expectation is that by polling day this will have developed into a tory most votes scenario. I still believe that although as Nick points out the evidence over the last 3 months is somewhat inconclusive.

As Mike repeatedly points out a narrow win on share of the vote is absolutely no use to the tories. They will lose at least 50 seats in England to Labour with a small lead. They need to be well ahead and only models based on different, inaccurate polling in very different circumstances give any credence to the idea that they will.

This is the election where anything is possible but not necessarily likely.

UKIP's regional variations make the English seats annoying to predict, though. Thurrock is the classic example. Not that Labour won't expect to pick up numerous seats if they keep the popular vote close.

Mr. Observer, that's a valid point (on Rose's allegiance). On the other hand, I can't recall hearing from him in a party political sense before, and he does make a good point (many FTSE bosses aren't UK-born/resident. Are their opinions irrelevant?).

DavidL said:

OblitusSumMe said:

DavidL said:

OblitusSumMe said:

audreyanne said:

Got to say I'm pretty upbeat right now. Might have something to do with my dream when I was chatting near Downing Street with David Cameron. 'We're winning' I said to him. He didn't actually reply but it felt good saying it.

In the waking world, no reason for any despondency. Neck and neck at around 32-33 with just over three months to go against a Labour party led by EdM? I'll take that very happily thank you very much.

Watch this space.

I think it's a step forward in your relationship with reality to place the source of your confidence in a dream.

I do agree with your second paragraph. There's everything to play for in the current situation. The election can be won by either side.

Only a fool would not recognise that either side can win one of the most uncertain elections in our history. But the current polling, the boundaries, the efficiency of the Labour vote, the massive increase in the UKIP vote and the flat consistency of the tory vote that you pointed out earlier all make a Labour victory more likely than not. And yet the markets say the opposite.

The Tories have some things in their favour too: They're the incumbent government, the public largely still blame Labour for the dire state of the economy, Cameron is an asset, there are enough fools in Labour ranks who believe the battle is lost that they are fighting the blame game already, etc.

That's why it is so hard to call.

I agree with all of that. It is indeed hard to say. Unlike the majority on here I think Cameron has been an excellent PM and is a far more formidable campaigner than he is given credit for. He is their best chance and Ed is Labour's biggest problem.

The absurd right wing of the tory party are to blame for the boundaries. Its painful to see the way the right wing of the tory party have behaved. Labour must think the same about their CND wing. Its correct about the incumbent and the better the devil you know movement, there are a lot of headless chickens out there. True, there may be some drift from the UKIP vote and a defensive vote against UKIP in some seats. But the split caused by UKIP is what will let Labour in.

UKIP and the SNP seem intent on trying to split the nation in different ways and never mind the election - the sores they are opening may take a long time to heal if ever.

DavidL said:

FalseFlag said:

DavidL said:

OblitusSumMe said:

audreyanne said:

Got to say I'm pretty upbeat right now. Might have something to do with my dream when I was chatting near Downing Street with David Cameron. 'We're winning' I said to him. He didn't actually reply but it felt good saying it.

In the waking world, no reason for any despondency. Neck and neck at around 32-33 with just over three months to go against a Labour party led by EdM? I'll take that very happily thank you very much.

Watch this space.

I think it's a step forward in your relationship with reality to place the source of your confidence in a dream.

I do agree with your second paragraph. There's everything to play for in the current situation. The election can be won by either side.

Only a fool would not recognise that either side can win one of the most uncertain elections in our history. But the current polling, the boundaries, the efficiency of the Labour vote, the massive increase in the UKIP vote and the flat consistency of the tory vote that you pointed out earlier all make a Labour victory more likely than not. And yet the markets say the opposite.

The polling makes clear Labour won't win the popular vote and are unlikely to win most seats, any victory would be a pyrrhic victory.

With respect the polling shows the exact opposite on both counts. The expectation is that by polling day this will have developed into a tory most votes scenario. I still believe that although as Nick points out the evidence over the last 3 months is somewhat inconclusive.

As Mike repeatedly points out a narrow win on share of the vote is absolutely no use to the tories. They will lose at least 50 seats in England to Labour with a small lead. They need to be well ahead and only models based on different, inaccurate polling in very different circumstances give any credence to the idea that they will.

This is the election where anything is possible but not necessarily likely.

That assumes voting patterns and densities are exactly the same as last time, together with voter behaviour in the marginals.

It won't be.

DavidL said:

FalseFlag said:

DavidL said:

OblitusSumMe said:

audreyanne said:

Got to say I'm pretty upbeat right now. Might have something to do with my dream when I was chatting near Downing Street with David Cameron. 'We're winning' I said to him. He didn't actually reply but it felt good saying it.

In the waking world, no reason for any despondency. Neck and neck at around 32-33 with just over three months to go against a Labour party led by EdM? I'll take that very happily thank you very much.

Watch this space.

I think it's a step forward in your relationship with reality to place the source of your confidence in a dream.

I do agree with your second paragraph. There's everything to play for in the current situation. The election can be won by either side.

Only a fool would not recognise that either side can win one of the most uncertain elections in our history. But the current polling, the boundaries, the efficiency of the Labour vote, the massive increase in the UKIP vote and the flat consistency of the tory vote that you pointed out earlier all make a Labour victory more likely than not. And yet the markets say the opposite.

The polling makes clear Labour won't win the popular vote and are unlikely to win most seats, any victory would be a pyrrhic victory.

With respect the polling shows the exact opposite on both counts. The expectation is that by polling day this will have developed into a tory most votes scenario. I still believe that although as Nick points out the evidence over the last 3 months is somewhat inconclusive.

As Mike repeatedly points out a narrow win on share of the vote is absolutely no use to the tories. They will lose at least 50 seats in England to Labour with a small lead. They need to be well ahead and only models based on different, inaccurate polling in very different circumstances give any credence to the idea that they will.

This is the election where anything is possible but not necessarily likely.

I just think the clamp down on fraud, continuing anti tactical vote unwind and UKIP Con tactical voting means the Con vote will be more efficient. Could be nonsense.

Is Cameron an asset? Yes and no, he lacks political and strategic nous, and fails to connect with ordinary voters. Better than most though.

Casino_Royale said:

antifrank said:

DavidL said:

If Labour come first in votes they will be so close to an overall majority that they will have viable option of having a minority government. If they are (just) second but still have the most seats then EICIPM. If they are second in seats as well the tories will have won the popular vote by quite a margin and are likely to remain in government in some form.

You underestimate the challenge for the Conservatives. This is best illustrated with numbers. Imagine a Parliament roughly as follows:

Con 290
Lab 270
SNP 40
Lib Dem 25

There is no plausible Conservative-led majority that is stable. But Labour + SNP + Lib Dem would have a majority of 18, not to mention the support in practice from Plaid Cymru, the SDLP and others in all probability. So some government of that type would be formed.

Would Ed Miliband be seen as the man to lead it, given that Labour would have been seen to have underperformed and he would presumably be personally blamed for that? The point is at least open to question.

I'm not sure about that. A Con+Lib Dem coalition would have 315 seats. It'd be able to outvote any Labour+SNP arrangement.

If some sort of arrangement was reached with the DUP that'd take it to 322/323 seats, which would scrape an effective overall majority, and the government would be stable enough. At least for a couple of years until it started to internally fragment.

Would the Tories want to govern as what is in effect a minority coalition government? Would the LibDems with fewer ministers, they might be better off rebuilding outside the government.

Mr. Observer, disagree vehemently. FPTP tends to lead to strong governments.

We speak of fragmentation under the current system, which is correct, but imagine if we had PR right now, and the polls equated to an electoral result.

33% Lab, 32% Con, 13% UKIP, 8% Lib Dem, 8% Green, 6% Other.

215 Labour MPs
208 Con MPs
85 UKIP MPs
52 Lib Dem MPs
52 Green MPs
38 Other MPs

For a stable coalition you're looking at a minimum of three parties. Manifesto pledges become entirely optional. The government would be determined more by the back-room political horse-trading of politicians than by the will of the people. It'd even be theoretically possible for UKIP to become the major party of government.

FPTP is not a perfect system, but it's better than the nonsense of PR.

Flightpath said:

DavidL said:

OblitusSumMe said:

DavidL said:

OblitusSumMe said:

audreyanne said:

Got to say I'm pretty upbeat right now. Might have something to do with my dream when I was chatting near Downing Street with David Cameron. 'We're winning' I said to him. He didn't actually reply but it felt good saying it.

In the waking world, no reason for any despondency. Neck and neck at around 32-33 with just over three months to go against a Labour party led by EdM? I'll take that very happily thank you very much.

Watch this space.

I think it's a step forward in your relationship with reality to place the source of your confidence in a dream.

I do agree with your second paragraph. There's everything to play for in the current situation. The election can be won by either side.

Only a fool would not recognise that either side can win one of the most uncertain elections in our history. But the current polling, the boundaries, the efficiency of the Labour vote, the massive increase in the UKIP vote and the flat consistency of the tory vote that you pointed out earlier all make a Labour victory more likely than not. And yet the markets say the opposite.

The Tories have some things in their favour too: They're the incumbent government, the public largely still blame Labour for the dire state of the economy, Cameron is an asset, there are enough fools in Labour ranks who believe the battle is lost that they are fighting the blame game already, etc.

That's why it is so hard to call.

I agree with all of that. It is indeed hard to say. Unlike the majority on here I think Cameron has been an excellent PM and is a far more formidable campaigner than he is given credit for. He is their best chance and Ed is Labour's biggest problem.

The absurd right wing of the tory party are to blame for the boundaries. Its painful to see the way the right wing of the tory party have behaved. Labour must think the same about their CND wing. Its correct about the incumbent and the better the devil you know movement, there are a lot of headless chickens out there. True, there may be some drift from the UKIP vote and a defensive vote against UKIP in some seats. But the split caused by UKIP is what will let Labour in.

UKIP and the SNP seem intent on trying to split the nation in different ways and never mind the election - the sores they are opening may take a long time to heal if ever.

If the Conservatives lose, it's because they won't have won enough votes. That will be their fault; not the fault of UKIP, the SNP, or the boundaries.

The Conservatives could have backed AV in 2011. They didn't, so they'll have to suck it up.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, disagree vehemently. FPTP tends to lead to strong governments.

We speak of fragmentation under the current system, which is correct, but imagine if we had PR right now, and the polls equated to an electoral result.

33% Lab, 32% Con, 13% UKIP, 8% Lib Dem, 8% Green, 6% Other.

215 Labour MPs
208 Con MPs
85 UKIP MPs
52 Lib Dem MPs
52 Green MPs
38 Other MPs

For a stable coalition you're looking at a minimum of three parties. Manifesto pledges become entirely optional. The government would be determined more by the back-room political horse-trading of politicians than by the will of the people. It'd even be theoretically possible for UKIP to become the major party of government.

FPTP is not a perfect system, but it's better than the nonsense of PR.

So you are not concerned about England's voice being heard, you are concerned with strong government. I cannot see how a government that is elected by 35% of English people is any more legitimate than one which elected by 33% of English people. If you are concerned that the views of the English are heard properly, then surely you should accept that what they vote for is what they get.

roserees64 said:

You Gov Scotland cross break getting closer,today 35 SNP/ 28 LAB,all to play for but in reality SNP will support Labour if Labour fails to get an overall majority.Good polls for Labour last night,feeling confident this morning.George Osbornes business chit chat strategy in tatters!

The SNP will not support Labour, but Labour can be pretty sure that the SNP will not join with the Tories to vote a Labour government down. Of course, what the SNP desperately hopes for is a Tory government. A Labour one would probably set calls for independence back a fair few years.

Scott_P said:

Flightpath said:

The absurd right wing of the tory party are to blame for the boundaries.

First time I have heard the Lib Dems described as "The absurd right wing of the tory party"

I guess your being disingenuous.

JackW said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, disagree vehemently. FPTP tends to lead to strong governments.

Rather FPTP since WWII tends to majority government rather than "strong" government.

One would hardly call the last Labour government a strong government whereas this coalition has been remarkably strong given the nature of the two parties involved and the problems they inherited.

Wouldn’t call the 1992-7 (last) Tory government particularly strong, either.

SouthamObserver said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, disagree vehemently. FPTP tends to lead to strong governments.

We speak of fragmentation under the current system, which is correct, but imagine if we had PR right now, and the polls equated to an electoral result.

33% Lab, 32% Con, 13% UKIP, 8% Lib Dem, 8% Green, 6% Other.

215 Labour MPs
208 Con MPs
85 UKIP MPs
52 Lib Dem MPs
52 Green MPs
38 Other MPs

For a stable coalition you're looking at a minimum of three parties. Manifesto pledges become entirely optional. The government would be determined more by the back-room political horse-trading of politicians than by the will of the people. It'd even be theoretically possible for UKIP to become the major party of government.

FPTP is not a perfect system, but it's better than the nonsense of PR.

So you are not concerned about England's voice being heard, you are concerned with strong government. I cannot see how a government that is elected by 35% of English people is any more legitimate than one which elected by 33% of English people. If you are concerned that the views of the English are heard properly, then surely you should accept that what they vote for is what they get.

FPTP is fine when you have two strong parties which always win 40%+ of the vote.

Now, it's in danger of delivering capricious results, as it does in Canada.

Flightpath said:

So - its being suggested down thread that Labour come second in seats having lost loads to the SNP whose party leader is not in the commons. The LDs lose over half their seats having been previously in government.
And some are suggesting we have a Lab SNP LD coalition with both Lab and LD sacking their leaders and the SNP's leader sat in Edinburgh pulling the strings.
Where is the word democracy in that?

Add up the vote shares.

OldKingCole said:

JackW said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, disagree vehemently. FPTP tends to lead to strong governments.

Rather FPTP since WWII tends to majority government rather than "strong" government.

One would hardly call the last Labour government a strong government whereas this coalition has been remarkably strong given the nature of the two parties involved and the problems they inherited.

Wouldn’t call the 1992-7 (last) Tory government particularly strong, either.

Quite .... but I was wary of @JohnO accusing me of JohnMajorphobia.

FalseFlag said:

DavidL said:

FalseFlag said:

DavidL said:

OblitusSumMe said:

audreyanne said:

I think it's a step forward in your relationship with reality to place the source of your confidence in a dream.

I do agree with your second paragraph. There's everything to play for in the current situation. The election can be won by either side.

Only a fool would not recognise that either side can win one of the most uncertain elections in our history. But the current polling, the boundaries, the efficiency of the Labour vote, the massive increase in the UKIP vote and the flat consistency of the tory vote that you pointed out earlier all make a Labour victory more likely than not. And yet the markets say the opposite.

The polling makes clear Labour won't win the popular vote and are unlikely to win most seats, any victory would be a pyrrhic victory.

With respect the polling shows the exact opposite on both counts. The expectation is that by polling day this will have developed into a tory most votes scenario. I still believe that although as Nick points out the evidence over the last 3 months is somewhat inconclusive.

As Mike repeatedly points out a narrow win on share of the vote is absolutely no use to the tories. They will lose at least 50 seats in England to Labour with a small lead. They need to be well ahead and only models based on different, inaccurate polling in very different circumstances give any credence to the idea that they will.

This is the election where anything is possible but not necessarily likely.

I just think the clamp down on fraud, continuing anti tactical vote unwind and UKIP Con tactical voting means the Con vote will be more efficient. Could be nonsense.

Is Cameron an asset? Yes and no, he lacks political and strategic nous, and fails to connect with ordinary voters. Better than most though.

I have been making the argument that the tory vote will be more efficient on here for a couple of years now so you will get no disagreement from me about that. But it is a question of degree. There is no chance that a Labour party equal with the tories in England will get an extra 90 odd seats as per 2005 but they will still get more seats for their votes.

In Scotland they run the risk of going from an extreme level of efficiency to the exact opposite running up a lot of substantial but pointless seconds. That will hurt their overall efficiency enormously.