politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Does this explain the Tory optimism about May

On the feminist side of this issue Mrs JackW opined to me last night in terms that :

Mrs Ed Miliband Will Never Be The Prime Minister 's Wife

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

Forget the pollsters, the columists, the soothsayers, and anything scientific and just remember one thing.

The British people just won't elect anyone who reminds them of Dwayne Dibbley as prime minister.

Never heard of Dwayne Dibbley, does he look like Nigel ;-)

First Saturday ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen" Projection Countdown :

1 day 2 hours 3 minutes 4 seconds

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

nigel4england said:

If the BBC are trying to discredit the Tories by featuring this as the lead story on their website I fear it will backfire:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31748422

Imagine if Ian Smiths Rhodesia still existed and had an immigration policy that allowed unrestricted immigration from Europe while strict limits were placed on immigrants from other continents.

We would have never heard the end of the screeches of "Racism2 from the left........

UK has such a discriminatory policy. UKIP want to abolish it in favour of one that treats all countries equally and dosen't give automatic preference to a batch of mainly white countries and the left denounce UKIP as racist......

That's not actually true. The proposal is to give preference to commonwealth immigrants.

Last nights poll was a terrible one for the Tories and seriously dents the hint from the start of the week that they are finally breaking away.

And yet the absolute confidence shines through the Tories and their supporters matched only by the defeatism on the Labour side.

Dave doesn't want debates with Ed because he sees no need to take the risk and give Ed a chance. Ed sounds more than a little bit desperate for that chance.

There are 9 weeks left and current polling makes Ed PM but very few believe it. It is curious.

bigjohnowls said:

Got up early for AV thread!

Kenton on Brent result
Michael David Maurice - Elected - Conservative 1097
Vincent Lo Labour 839
Michaela Lichten Green 121
Robert Wharton Liberal Democrats 70

I think an interesting thread would be a projection of the result on current polling if we'd had AV passed in 2011 *and* the new boundaries.

My guess is, for this election, the Tories wouldn't be far off an overall majority.

Casino_Royale said:

bigjohnowls said:

Got up early for AV thread!

Kenton on Brent result
Michael David Maurice - Elected - Conservative 1097
Vincent Lo Labour 839
Michaela Lichten Green 121
Robert Wharton Liberal Democrats 70

I think an interesting thread would be a projection of the result on current polling if we'd had AV passed in 2011 *and* the new boundaries.

My guess is, for this election, the Tories wouldn't be far off an overall majority.

Could be right which makes the FPTP stance look very misguided

DavidL

"And yet the absolute confidence shines through the Tories"

You have to read Tom Wolfe's 'Bonfire of the Vanities' to understand why these 'Masters of the Universe' project such confidence. It has little to do with polling numbers.

Moving average chart of the 100 most recent YouGov polls. Click to enlarge...

Roger said:

There's not really much to say so I'll post a picture instead


https://westlancashirerecord.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/chickentonight.jpg

It's an interesting attack - just cheers up the troops. Personally (whichever side it doing it) I reckon it's irritating at best.

More to the point: Cameron has thought about it and decided that the debates don't offer him an attractive risk/return. So he's not playing ball. The easy thing (the "chicken" thing if you like) would be to go along with peer pressure.

It's actually rather brave to say: No! Stop! I'll take the brickbacks for standing up for what is right!

DavidL said:

Last nights poll was a terrible one for the Tories and seriously dents the hint from the start of the week that they are finally breaking away.

And yet the absolute confidence shines through the Tories and their supporters matched only by the defeatism on the Labour side.

Dave doesn't want debates with Ed because he sees no need to take the risk and give Ed a chance. Ed sounds more than a little bit desperate for that chance.

There are 9 weeks left and current polling makes Ed PM but very few believe it. It is curious.

Simples - the UK population as a generality has accepted Jack W's guarantee.

Roger said:

DavidL

"And yet the absolute confidence shines through the Tories"

You have to read Tom Wolfe's 'Bonfire of the Vanities' to understand why these 'Masters of the Universe' project such confidence. It has little to do with polling numbers.

I keep promising myself that I will re-read that book. As a lawyer I found the Court scenes and the desperation to prosecute a white man and demonstrate, if only to themselves, that they were not racist, extremely funny. The prosecutor was a brilliantly recognisable type.

The building up of the victim as the "model student" was very clever too and something we have seen so many times since.

I remember a bit where he explains that the Masters of the Universe knew the difference between earning $1m and $2m a year. It was $1m. But one gave you an opulent life and one didn't. A masterpiece.

The reason for Labour's timidity about their future prospects is because their supporters are waiting for the leadership to show their hand.

Whereas Tory supporters from the grand old duke of York onwards just follow the leader Labour want to study the prospectus.

My sense is that they're waitig till the final five weeks when from nowhere they'll produce a campaign that's so ferocious and appealing it'll make the last few weeks of Alex Salmond's YES campaign seem sluggish.

I see that YouGov has had a go on His Lordship's Bouncy Castle of Polling!

What larks, Pip....

Roger said:

The reason for Labour's timidity about their future prospects is because their supporters are waiting for the leadership to show their hand.

Whereas Tory supporters from the grand old duke of York onwards just follow the leader Labour want to study the prospectus.

My sense is that they're waitig till the final five weeks when from nowhere they'll produce a campaign that's so ferocious and appealing it'll make the last few weeks of Alex Salmond's YES campaign seem sluggish.

I think your Aberdeen South bet has more chance of winning than your Edniburgh South bet by the way, no incumbency for Labour in Edi South makes it very tough there. Begg could hold on if, but only if she has personal votes.

Roger said:

The reason for Labour's timidity about their future prospects is because their supporters are waiting for the leadership to show their hand.

Whereas Tory supporters from the grand old duke of York onwards just follow the leader Labour want to study the prospectus.

My sense is that they're waitig till the final five weeks when from nowhere they'll produce a campaign that's so ferocious and appealing it'll make the last few weeks of Alex Salmond's YES campaign seem sluggish.

Roger, we've seen Ed's bacon-buttie face. You really think what we are now seeing is his poker face? That he has a fully-formed, knock-em-dead manifesto he is going to reveal to wild applause?

Well, it's a view...

Indigo said:

nigel4england said:

Roger said:

DavidL

"And yet the absolute confidence shines through the Tories"

You have to read Tom Wolfe's 'Bonfire of the Vanities' to understand why these 'Masters of the Universe' project such confidence. It has little to do with polling numbers.

Farage said yesterday that expects double figures in terms of MP's, though to be fair he was put on the spot for an answer and he's hardly likely to say two is he.

However I'm just wondering if private polling is showing UKIP doing better than expected in Labour strongholds and that's where the confidence is coming from.

The big thing the parties see which we don't is the consolidated canvass returns and especially the trends those show, which might tell a whole different story.

The Ashcroft 8k poll indicates UKIP really are on 16%. Since they are almost dead in Scotland that indicates ~ 18% in England.

dump trident, renationalize the railways, ban fracking.

might work...

DavidL said:

Last nights poll was a terrible one for the Tories and seriously dents the hint from the start of the week that they are finally breaking away.

And yet the absolute confidence shines through the Tories and their supporters matched only by the defeatism on the Labour side.

Dave doesn't want debates with Ed because he sees no need to take the risk and give Ed a chance. Ed sounds more than a little bit desperate for that chance.

There are 9 weeks left and current polling makes Ed PM but very few believe it. It is curious.

The two parties are basically at parity, on 33.5% each.

UKIP are holding steady on 14%. If the Conservatives can win 2% off UKIP, or. 1% off Labour, then I'd say the game is won.

We're having the same argument about debates in Broxtowe - AS has refused to debate me 1-1, though varying from Cameron she's also refused to debate before all the manifestos are published (prompting the "don't you have any views of your own? response), and just agreed to one all-party debate later in the campaign. The position is complicated by the fact that we still don't have a LibDem candidate.

The view here is the hard-headed one that it's just a matter of tactical advantage and Cameron is being smart/annoying (according to preference) by refusing because he thinks he'll win anyway and it might be a risk. I'm not sure that's true. Governments need a degree of popular consent (especially in hung Parliaments) and the debates offer the chance to cut through to people with detailed argument that nothing else really does (unless we expect voters to read all the manifestos - they won't). I think it's an important element of democracy (locally I agreed to half a dozen in 2010, and I don't regret it or think it did me any electoral harm), and it would be a sensible move to enshrine them in law, to avoid this silly squabble at every election.

Patrick said:

Think on the future implications for the Labour party and you understand their terror.

Neil Kinnock has got his party back...

NickPalmer said:

We're having the same argument about debates in Broxtowe - AS has refused to debate me 1-1, though varying from Cameron she's also refused to debate before all the manifestos are published (prompting the "don't you have any views of your own? response), and just agreed to one all-party debate later in the campaign. The position is complicated by the fact that we still don't have a LibDem candidate.

The view here is the hard-headed one that it's just a matter of tactical advantage and Cameron is being smart/annoying (according to preference) by refusing because he thinks he'll win anyway and it might be a risk. I'm not sure that's true. Governments need a degree of popular consent (especially in hung Parliaments) and the debates offer the chance to cut through to people with detailed argument that nothing else really does (unless we expect voters to read all the manifestos - they won't). I think it's an important element of democracy (locally I agreed to half a dozen in 2010, and I don't regret it or think it did me any electoral harm), and it would be a sensible move to enshrine them in law, to avoid this silly squabble at every election.

No it wouldn't, that would be anti democratic.

Labour's epic campaign.

Last Friday they announced a raid on pensions to pay for a reduction in student fees nobody wants

today

@politicshome: Miliband to court ‘grey’ vote with promise on pensioner benefits http://t.co/IWsWjq13Df http://t.co/MmLmmXYBcU

On topic I think it because punters don't like swimming against the tide. It's how bookies make their money, people back the runner that looks like it has the momentum/is the likeliest winner

As for Ukips immigration policy, I don't know what @rcs1000 is talking about, but it doesn't favour one set of oeople over another, that's the point

Two-penneth on the debates: the broadcasters seem to have forgotten that they were in a delicate negotiation to make them happen. If the debates don't happen, they see it all down to Cameron torpedoing them. None of it is down to them being shit-house negotiators.

If you go into a negotiation saying "take it or leave it...", then there is only one person who needs to examine their tactics if someone says "I'll leave it, thank you."

And the empty-chair will never happen. The broadcasters' lawyers wouldn't let them. Way too open to a charge of bias. The bigger picture is that we are not in a quarterly ratings war; are looking to elect a government for the next five years.

So the broadcasters can feck right off.

richardDodd said:

Some fools still want to get rid of Trident..they must never read the papers..watch the TV news..witness the merciless slayings of innocents in a land not too far away.

The merciless slayings for which Trident has provided not an iota of deterrence? Or do think without the protection of our trusty, continuous, at-sea deterrent that the Vostok Battalion would be shelling Sheffield?

Good morning, everyone.

I wonder whether we will see a divergence/clear lead emerge in the coming weeks, or whether the polls will remain in a dead heat.

foxinsoxuk said:

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

rcs1000 said:

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

nigel4england said:

If the BBC are trying to discredit the Tories by featuring this as the lead story on their website I fear it will backfire:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31748422

Imagine if Ian Smiths Rhodesia still existed and had an immigration policy that allowed unrestricted immigration from Europe while strict limits were placed on immigrants from other continents.

We would have never heard the end of the screeches of "Racism2 from the left........

UK has such a discriminatory policy. UKIP want to abolish it in favour of one that treats all countries equally and dosen't give automatic preference to a batch of mainly white countries and the left denounce UKIP as racist......

That's not actually true. The proposal is to give preference to commonwealth immigrants.

Yes it is true. No one would get preference, unlike the current EU (ie mainly white) preference we have now.

Personally I am not too keen on a system that sells British passports to the highest bidder. I would prefer a points system for non-EU migrants based upon ability to assimilate. Knowledge of English, respect for free speech, acceptance that UK law overrides religious law, that sort of thing.

Phillipino Nurses integrate much better than rich Wahabbi Arabs like the Bin Laden's (Osama lived in London for a couple of years back in the Seventies.

I am happy with free movement of EU citizens because of the common European values that we share, and also the pragmatic reason that I may want to migrate myself in retirement. I have always liked the Italian lakes, and Berlin is rather lovely too.

Why have a points system for Non EU migrants when EU migrants can just waltz in and out without restriction? It makes the whole process meaningless.

As long as we remain part of the EU, immigration control is nothing more than a pipe dream.

Indigo said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Personally I am not too keen on a system that sells British passports to the highest bidder. I would prefer a points system for non-EU migrants based upon ability to assimilate. Knowledge of English, respect for free speech, acceptance that UK law overrides religious law, that sort of thing.

Phillipino Nurses integrate much better than rich Wahabbi Arabs like the Bin Laden's (Osama lived in London for a couple of years back in the Seventies.

I am happy with free movement of EU citizens because of the common European values that we share, and also the pragmatic reason that I may want to migrate myself in retirement. I have always liked the Italian lakes, and Berlin is rather lovely too.

Its been 5-6 years since I looked in detail at the Australian system and concluded I didn't really have the points (mostly because I am too old), basically 60 points to get in, and you get 25 of those for being under 25 (15 for under 45, 0 over 45), 20 for fluent English, up to 15 points depending on your skill at your job, more points for relative in Aus, etc. etc. Nothing for money. The NZ system is similar, except there is a small consideration for money, but if I recall it can only get you up to 2 extra points, for $30k and $70K dollars invested in the country for a year respectively.

If the kippers introduced the Australian system as they propose the wealthy wouldn't be any better off than anyone else, skilled useful people that have plenty of working life left to benefit the state get in easily, older more experienced people with useful skills or trades also get in, those approaching retirement don't because they will be a nett cost to the state.

As I recall Australia has a system where entrepeneurs with money to invest get fast tracked. It may be a different scheme to the points system.

No scheme of migration control will work if the rules are not enforced. There is little or any effort in the UK to deport illegals, over stayers or failed asylum seekers. There is no point in stricter rules if existing rules are not enforced.

A few mass deportations would also give the right message to others preparing to break the rules.

foxinsoxuk said:

A few mass deportations would also give the right message to others preparing to break the rules.

The message being hide a bit better?

NickPalmer said:

Labour nervousness in some quarters is for exactly the same reason as Tory confidence in others - neither side quite trusts the polls, and both feel the Tory structural advantage of being in government with a predominantly supportive media may produce a late swing.

I think they're both wrong. Any reasonable view of the polls correponds precisely with the reading we're getting on the doorstep. Both parties are down to firm supporters, and there are rather more firm Labour supporters than firm Tories

That seems about right to me. A lot of Tories feel that really they should be doing better (rather than just Labour declining from where they were a few years ago), they should be being rewarded at least a little by the public, and that may even be fair, but if it is happening it is happening by the Tory vote holding up as well in government as might be hoped, not from gaining ground. Conversely, many in Labour cannot quite seem to believe that despite the enthusiasm, if it were not for the collapse in Scotland they would be winning fairly comfortably if as expected Labour can win most seats on little to no lead on the national polling.

Both therefore may feel to some degree that the polls are wrong, have to be. And in fairness there may well be some late swings, but the reasons both sides are either optimistic or pessimistic seem based more in where they feel they should be right now, not what the admittedly interpretable evidence we have shows us, which is pretty neck and neck, which spells a Labour win.

Scott_P said:

Jonathan said:

The problem Cameron faces is that five years ago he claimed they were a critical part of the democratic process.

That's why he is in trouble. And rightly so.

Ed needs a gamechanger.

No he doesn’t. He just needs to hold it together long enough to stumble over the line. He may well manage it, though it is my hope Labour are not rewarded for being lazy and learning no lessons other than the need to make a few popular sounding announcements every now and then.

isam said:

Immigration leads to 50 per cent cuts in council spending, IFS finds

Those hit by big influxes of immigrants which fuelled "faster population growth" were among those hit the hardest by the cuts

Rising population levels fuelled by large numbers of immigrants has helped to contribute to a near-50 per cent cut in council services in parts of the country, leading forecasters have found.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11452540/Immigration-leads-to-50-per-cent-cuts-in-council-spending-IFS-finds.html?WT.mc_id=e_DM3836&WT.tsrc=email&etype=frontpage&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Edi_FAM_New_2015_03_06&utm_campaign=DM3836

Telegraph Politics (@TelePolitics)
06/03/2015 08:18
England's migrant population 'soars by 565,000' since 2011 tgr.ph/1GpBq2l

Education: girls get higher marks for the same work:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-31751672

One imagines this'd be a huge scandal if it happened the other way around.