politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If teachers are as hostile to the Tories as they were 16 mo

Plato said:

I've been squinting at your avatar - what is it? I think I've watched too many tattoo shows and can't tell positive vs negative space apart any more

MarqueeMark said:

Scott_P said:

@markpack: Labour four points ahead of Tories, who in turn are four points ahead of Labour #EscherPolling http://t.co/VKtYIEKoDR

Margin of Error determined to remind people of its existence in the current polling it seems....

A mean-looking hornet. A nest of the sods took over a barn-owl nest box last summer.

Click on it for a better view....

Morning all, I've had another look at how the seat markets stack up in aggregate:

http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/the-range-of-possibilities-how.html

Labour are good value in Finchley & Golders Green 11/4. They're trying hard for it anyway.

Re: Polls

Still cannot get the 'fact' that the LDs will poll sub~10% and yet get 20-30 seats - SI on PB currently says 24-26. It will be a most peculiar result.

peter_from_putney said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ComRes London poll

Labour is set to make sweeping gains in London with both Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs losing their seats, according to a new opinion poll.

http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-03-30/big-labour-gains-forecast-for-london/

***** Betting Post *****
If this ComRes poll is right then the likelihood of Labour taking Bermondsey & Southwark from the LibDems' Simon Hughes looks like good value at 7/4 available from Betfred (and others), such that I'm making this my Bet of the Week without further ado.
DYOR

A London wide poll will tell you nothing about the prospects in any one particular seat such as Bermondsey and Southeat in London just as a nation wide poll will tell you nothing about the prospects in say Clacton .

Financier said:

Re: Polls

Still cannot get the 'fact' that the LDs will poll sub~10% and yet get 20-30 seats - SI on PB currently says 24-26. It will be a most peculiar result.

That's nothing. The SNP might get 50 MPs on 4% of the vote.

antifrank said:

Morning all, I've had another look at how the seat markets stack up in aggregate:

http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/the-range-of-possibilities-how.html

Hard to disagree with your conclusions

1) Don't bet against a hung Parliament unless you get long odds.
2) Labour most seats is a terrific value bet at 2/1.
3) Since the Conservatives look unlikely to get above 300 seats (I'd guess at least 3/1), the next Government is very likely to be a Labour-led government. Lay David Cameron as Prime Minister after the next election at anything close to, or even not very close to, current prices. He's odds on at present to keep his job. This is a crazy price. Enjoy

rcs1000 said:

Financier said:

Re: Polls

Still cannot get the 'fact' that the LDs will poll sub~10% and yet get 20-30 seats - SI on PB currently says 24-26. It will be a most peculiar result.

I think the market believes the lib dems will end up with 10-11%, rather than sub 10%.

Which market?

FrankBooth said:

SouthamObserver said:

chestnut said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@PopulusPolls: Latest Populus VI: Lab 34 (+1), Con 34 (+3), LD 8 (-1), UKIP 15 (-1), Greens 4 (-1), Others 5 (-1). Tables here: http://t.co/BHGWbE8hAf

Probably means a good Yougov for the Tories tonight. They seem to move in tandem.

I would not be at all surprised if yesterday's 36-32 for the Tories is very close to the final result.

Possibly. As much as it would depress me, seeing Cameron stay in Downing Street might not be all bad. What sort of majority are the Conservative + Lib Dems likely to have? It can't be very much and backbench rebellions on both sides would surely become the norm. The Lib Dems have been remarkably resilient at a ratio of 5:1 - how would they handle 10:1? Both leaders would need to get a new deal through their parties. A fair number of Lib Dems won't want it and does Cameron have the requisite cash in the bank on his own side? Assuming Labour get rid of Miliband and replace him with a more popular leader (not guaranteed it must be said) then a second election in the Autumn wouldn't seem too bad.

A Tory majority would depress and alarm me. if that does not happen, I am not that bothered about the result. However, I just cannot see another coalition. Cameron would love one, of course, but it makes no sense for the LDs.

A second election in November would be fascinating. If Cameron is PM after May, he will have served his second term. Does that mean he steps down? I cannot see EdM lasting if Labour is not the biggest party. He has no discernible base in the party. As a big Dan Jarvis fan, I'd like to see him take over, but this year may be too early for him.

We have now reached the equivalent point to when the polls began to move apart in 2010.

Teachers tend to be anti-government (annoyance about the employers) - I remember in 2010 someone saying "Of course I won't vote Labour - I'm a teacher and you've squeezed our pay." Nowadays it's certainly true that if someone says they're a teacher you're odds-on that the next sentence will be "so I'm not voting Tory". There is often then a short discussion about tactical voting...

rogerh said:

Do we get an ICM/Guardian poll this week.Looking back to 2010 weekly ICM polls kicked off at the end of March/early April?

Think Mike said not till after Easter.

Verulamius said:

Plato said:

LOL - big on public flogging? The history of chemistry is fascinating. I really must mug up on it again.

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Plato, Phlogiston sounds almost like a name for the Islamic State.

There is currently a series on BBC4 about the history of chemistry and the discovery of the elements.

The Periodic Table of Elements videos are good fun - by one of my non-party local endorsers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyn_Poliakoff. He was knighted for his services to popularising chemistry (he's currently the Royal Academy "Foreign Minister" and spends half his time abroad promoting British science), and is the brother of brilliant playwright Stephen P - remarkable family.

Patrick said:

Here's a question for the knowledgeable psephologists: Does ramping a particular poll result create a bandwagon or a negative reaction? We see the BBC ramping a (Yougov) Labour lead and the Daily Mail ramping a (Comres) Tory lead. Does this help their respective tribes? Or does the Labour lead scare more people into voting Tory (and vice versa)?

I think there's some evidence that if one party seems to be running away with it, wavering voters rally behind the other one - it's not that they want them to win, but they don't want them to get totally stuffed. I remember the phenomenon in 1983 (Labour) and 1997 (Conservatives), when the losing party in both cases did a bit less badly than expected. Perhaps the LibDems will benefit this time?

As for Populus: more evidence for the "It's a tie and nothing is happening!" theory.

Sean_F said:

Apparently, we'll also receive a "full Welsh" today, which sounds like something you'd pay a prostitute for.

Probably involves sheep

rcs1000 said:

Financier said:

Re: Polls

Still cannot get the 'fact' that the LDs will poll sub~10% and yet get 20-30 seats - SI on PB currently says 24-26. It will be a most peculiar result.

I think the market believes the lib dems will end up with 10-11%, rather than sub 10%.

I don't think the financial markets are pricing in the likely outcome of the GE and potential government weakness thereafter (whoever is PM) at all. The financail markets and betting markets seem to be blithely ignoring the polling reality and system bias towards Labour and saying to themselves 'we surely won't elect Ed to power will we?'. The GE result could be a shock for some.

Sean_F said:

Apparently, we'll also receive a "full Welsh" today, which sounds like something you'd pay a prostitute for.

Not much change.

http://www.itv.com/news/wales/update/2015-03-30/poll-shows-increased-labour-lead-in-wales/

Artist said:

Sean_F said:

Apparently, we'll also receive a "full Welsh" today, which sounds like something you'd pay a prostitute for.

Not much change.

http://www.itv.com/news/wales/update/2015-03-30/poll-shows-increased-labour-lead-in-wales/

The fieldwork is nearly two months old.

chestnut said:

SouthamObserver said:

I would not be at all surprised if yesterday's 36-32 for the Tories is very close to the final result.

I broadly agree.

I am edging towards the view that there will be little change in overall seat numbers for the leading two, with the real change on the under card.

I foresee Labour stronger in the North - espcially NW - and London, but weaker in Scotland.
The Tories weaker in the North and London, but stronger in the SW and West,

It does make me wonder just what position the Lib Dems would be in now if they hadn't entered coalition. First?

In the Northwest, Morecambe and Lunsdale/Bury North are two interesting ones - Morecambe looking far better for the Conservatives than Bury North to hold despite the reasonable difference in initial majority.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Artist said:

Sean_F said:

Apparently, we'll also receive a "full Welsh" today, which sounds like something you'd pay a prostitute for.

Not much change.

http://www.itv.com/news/wales/update/2015-03-30/poll-shows-increased-labour-lead-in-wales/

The fieldwork is nearly two months old.

I can't believe any "expert analysis" is being on two month old data. That is ridiculous at this point.

Welsh polling may be worth looking at again after Leanne is on the Telly anyway.

Plato said:

Aren't the LDs typically expected to revive to about 15%? Well they used to IIRC.

Will this time be so different? I just don't have any feel for this and glad I'm not a pollster. This has 1992 written all over it.

rcs1000 said:

Financier said:

Re: Polls

Still cannot get the 'fact' that the LDs will poll sub~10% and yet get 20-30 seats - SI on PB currently says 24-26. It will be a most peculiar result.

I think the market believes the lib dems will end up with 10-11%, rather than sub 10%.

The ICM Wisdom Index indicates around 14%.

Gadfly said:

We have now reached the equivalent point to when the polls began to move apart in 2010.

Interesting Gadfly. Thanks.

I might be imagining things, but if I look at it through one eye from across the room I think it spells out "Ed Miliband will never be PM"

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

antifrank said:

Morning all, I've had another look at how the seat markets stack up in aggregate:

http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/the-range-of-possibilities-how.html

Hard to disagree with your conclusions

1) Don't bet against a hung Parliament unless you get long odds.
2) Labour most seats is a terrific value bet at 2/1.
3) Since the Conservatives look unlikely to get above 300 seats (I'd guess at least 3/1), the next Government is very likely to be a Labour-led government. Lay David Cameron as Prime Minister after the next election at anything close to, or even not very close to, current prices. He's odds on at present to keep his job. This is a crazy price. Enjoy

On point 3, I do think that Labour 226-250 is an absolutely cracking bet at 11/2. The two main parties are near-as-dammit in for 550 seats now, post-SNP surge, so 301-325 for the Tories corresponds pretty neatly to 226-250 for Labour. Yet one is top price 13/5 and the other 11/2.

Kinda agree, I've been desperate to find a bookie to offer odds on Labour having fewer seats in 2015 than they did in 2010.

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/582484194711986176

logical_song said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

logical_song said:

Plato said:

AGW is a prime example of politicised science.

Morris_Dancer said:

King Cole, during the Cold War there were two competing theories of how the brain worked, both of which have some merit.

The capitalist, individualistic West favoured compartmentalisation (so, a given cortex handles speech, another dexterity, and so on). The Communist USSR preferred a more diffuse approach, whereby each neuron was equal and if the brain were damaged those that remained could adapt to it.

Both have a lot of truth to them (the brain's highly plastic, and, at the same time, certain areas seem to 'specialise'), but the science was driven by politics.

It's either happening or it's not. Science is all about testing and refining theory to explain the observed facts. Based on that scientists from around the world have concluded that AGW is real.
No politician wants to spend money if it's not necessary, so in whose interest is it to 'make up' AGW? I can see that there would be organisations who would want to do the opposite, oil companies for example.

Not true.

Indeed the 'A' portion of AGW has not been tested at all. It is based entirely upon modelling which has failed to match the observed data.

The whole debate is an utter failure of basic scientific principles which is then used as the basis for policy decisions and political posturing by those who fail to understand those basic principles.

Even if you area scientist, you are in a minority.

What does that matter? It is about the basic principles of the scientific method. How many people 'agree' or disagree with me doesn't matter at all as far as science is concerned. That comment you just made in itself shows a complete lack of understanding of what science is and what it does.

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

antifrank said:

Morning all, I've had another look at how the seat markets stack up in aggregate:

http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/the-range-of-possibilities-how.html

Hard to disagree with your conclusions

1) Don't bet against a hung Parliament unless you get long odds.
2) Labour most seats is a terrific value bet at 2/1.
3) Since the Conservatives look unlikely to get above 300 seats (I'd guess at least 3/1), the next Government is very likely to be a Labour-led government. Lay David Cameron as Prime Minister after the next election at anything close to, or even not very close to, current prices. He's odds on at present to keep his job. This is a crazy price. Enjoy

On point 3, I do think that Labour 226-250 is an absolutely cracking bet at 11/2. The two main parties are near-as-dammit in for 550 seats now, post-SNP surge, so 301-325 for the Tories corresponds pretty neatly to 226-250 for Labour. Yet one is top price 13/5 and the other 11/2.

I'm on that band at 12/1, which I got in early February. I'm on the same band for the Conservatives at 16/1.

rcs1000 said:

isam said:

rcs1000 said:

Financier said:

Re: Polls

Still cannot get the 'fact' that the LDs will poll sub~10% and yet get 20-30 seats - SI on PB currently says 24-26. It will be a most peculiar result.

I think the market believes the lib dems will end up with 10-11%, rather than sub 10%.

Which market?

Sorry, I wrote badly. I think the Sporting Index price assumes a recovery to the 10% level, maybe even a little more. I do not believe the lib dems will get more than a dozen seats if they end up on 8%, but I can see 30 if they get to 11%, and the UKIP vote holds up.

Ah I see

Well Ukip vs lib dem is 1/3 vs 9/4... I wonder what that translates as in vote share? 12 vs 10?

Richard_Tyndall said:

logical_song said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

logical_song said:

Plato said:

AGW is a prime example of politicised science.

Morris_Dancer said:

King Cole, during the Cold War there were two competing theories of how the brain worked, both of which have some merit.

The capitalist, individualistic West favoured compartmentalisation (so, a given cortex handles speech, another dexterity, and so on). The Communist USSR preferred a more diffuse approach, whereby each neuron was equal and if the brain were damaged those that remained could adapt to it.

Both have a lot of truth to them (the brain's highly plastic, and, at the same time, certain areas seem to 'specialise'), but the science was driven by politics.

It's either happening or it's not. Science is all about testing and refining theory to explain the observed facts. Based on that scientists from around the world have concluded that AGW is real.
No politician wants to spend money if it's not necessary, so in whose interest is it to 'make up' AGW? I can see that there would be organisations who would want to do the opposite, oil companies for example.

Not true.

Indeed the 'A' portion of AGW has not been tested at all. It is based entirely upon modelling which has failed to match the observed data.

The whole debate is an utter failure of basic scientific principles which is then used as the basis for policy decisions and political posturing by those who fail to understand those basic principles.

Even if you area scientist, you are in a minority.

What does that matter? It is about the basic principles of the scientific method. How many people 'agree' or disagree with me doesn't matter at all as far as science is concerned. That comment you just made in itself shows a complete lack of understanding of what science is and what it does.

Indeed

Aren't most scientists that make major breakthroughs in a minority?

Plato said:

I feel I'm missing something. Why is Labour doing so well in London now?

SouthamObserver said:

chestnut said:

SouthamObserver said:

I would not be at all surprised if yesterday's 36-32 for the Tories is very close to the final result.

I broadly agree.

I am edging towards the view that there will be little change in overall seat numbers for the leading two, with the real change on the under card.

I foresee Labour stronger in the North - espcially NW - and London, but weaker in Scotland.
The Tories weaker in the North and London, but stronger in the SW and West,

It does make me wonder just what position the Lib Dems would be in now if they hadn't entered coalition. First?

Labour is going to struggle big time in the Midlands. I had built that into my thinking about it being the largest party in a new hung Parliament, but since the collapse in Scotland I cannot see how Labour is going to win close to most seats. It'll pick up some in London and the North - and probably in almost every English and Welsh seat where it is currently second to an LD, but beyond that it is going to be a struggle. So, yes, I can see Labour staying pretty much where it is, maybe even down a tad if Scotland is real carnage. The one bright spot will be the end of EdM.

There will be a big drop in the LD vote, most of which will go to Labour. That will help it take LD and Tory seats. There may also be some slight Tory drift to UKIP.

In short, what Labour was counting on for the whole country looks like happening in London only.

JackW said:

Plato said:

Aren't the LDs typically expected to revive to about 15%? Well they used to IIRC.

Will this time be so different? I just don't have any feel for this and glad I'm not a pollster. This has 1992 written all over it.

rcs1000 said:

Financier said:

Re: Polls

Still cannot get the 'fact' that the LDs will poll sub~10% and yet get 20-30 seats - SI on PB currently says 24-26. It will be a most peculiar result.

I think the market believes the lib dems will end up with 10-11%, rather than sub 10%.

The ICM Wisdom Index indicates around 14%.

Is it really Wisdom to suggest that every 4 current LibDem voters are going to find 3 more to join them by election day?

That's doesn't require a political party, it requires press gangs....

TheScreamingEagles said:

JackW said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JackW said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

peter_from_putney said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ComRes London poll

Labour is set to make sweeping gains in London with both Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs losing their seats, according to a new opinion poll.

http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-03-30/big-labour-gains-forecast-for-london/

***** Betting Post *****
If this ComRes poll is right then the likelihood of Labour taking Bermondsey & Southwark from the LibDems' Simon Hughes looks like good value at 7/4 available from Betfred (and others), such that I'm making this my Bet of the Week without further ado.
DYOR

I agree, for a while I've been backing the Lib Dems to do badly in London, the headline polling makes grim reading for them.

Particularly as Labour are doing better in London than they are in the rest of the country.

The Lord A constituency polling says otherwise. Much tighter.

I know, but when you're polling single digits London wide/nationwide, and that you can't poll a negative share of the vote in some places, you have say they will do badly in the seats they hold as well.

I'm grateful to Lord Ashcroft, but we're putting an awful lot of faith in an untested pollster, in area of polling which is notoriously difficult to poll.

Normally I'm bullish on Lib Dem figures, but I've felt something isn't quite right with the Lib Dems in recent months.

Note the fiasco of their private polling which didn't quite live up to the hype.

You're picking and choosing your polls rather selectively.

There is no inconsistency between LibDems polling around 8-10% and polling well in their held seats. For the yellow peril it's about fighting 60 by-elections and to hell with the rest.

Another factor this time is unlike every prior general elections the LibDems have a very large war chest.

Oh Jack, I'm someone who has been backing the Lib Dems to do better than people expect for most of this parliament.

I expected the Lib Dems to improve their nationwide polling by now, so have hedged accordingly.

I concur with the output of your ARSE for the Lib Dems.

Don't get into a nowcast mindset or single poll syndrome that sometimes infests PB.

Stick to my ARSE like glue.

I am £30 @ 12.34 on the 226 - 250 band for Labour ^_^;;

Nick Clegg's a bit naughty there

antifrank said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

antifrank said:

Morning all, I've had another look at how the seat markets stack up in aggregate:

http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/the-range-of-possibilities-how.html

Hard to disagree with your conclusions

1) Don't bet against a hung Parliament unless you get long odds.
2) Labour most seats is a terrific value bet at 2/1.
3) Since the Conservatives look unlikely to get above 300 seats (I'd guess at least 3/1), the next Government is very likely to be a Labour-led government. Lay David Cameron as Prime Minister after the next election at anything close to, or even not very close to, current prices. He's odds on at present to keep his job. This is a crazy price. Enjoy

On point 3, I do think that Labour 226-250 is an absolutely cracking bet at 11/2. The two main parties are near-as-dammit in for 550 seats now, post-SNP surge, so 301-325 for the Tories corresponds pretty neatly to 226-250 for Labour. Yet one is top price 13/5 and the other 11/2.

I'm on that band at 12/1, which I got in early February. I'm on the same band for the Conservatives at 16/1.

I remember - those seat band markets always skew high.

@JackW Are you calling Torbay for Sanders ?

JackW said:

Clegg off to Buck House shortly to see HM in his role as Lord President of the Privy Council.

Taking her a farewell pressie?

Ouch

https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/582489031344283648

Plato said:

Thanx. I knew Peckham and Croydon very well in the 80/early 90s - plus the first Yuppies who moved into Canary Wharf/Dogs in the late 90s/00s. Things have changed so much in 25yrs.

chestnut said:

Plato said:

I feel I'm missing something. Why is Labour doing so well in London now?

The collapse of the Lib Dem vote is unifying the wealthy/better off left in the Hampsteads and Islingtons of London, combined with London's fairly unique demographics.

Suburban London (Enfield, Ilford, Croydon) is increasingly filling up with population overspill/migration from places like Peckham, Tottenham, East Ham etc

Pockets of Toryism are now cropping up in the middle where they were previously unheard of - see the Isle of Dogs/Canary Wharf.

You can't move for Yummy Mummies in Peckham these days. Not so many in Croydon.

JackW said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JackW said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JackW said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

peter_from_putney said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ComRes London poll

Labour is set to make sweeping gains in London with both Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs losing their seats, according to a new opinion poll.

http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-03-30/big-labour-gains-forecast-for-london/

***** Betting Post *****
If this ComRes poll is right then the likelihood of Labour taking Bermondsey & Southwark from the LibDems' Simon Hughes looks like good value at 7/4 available from Betfred (and others), such that I'm making this my Bet of the Week without further ado.
DYOR

I agree, for a while I've been backing the Lib Dems to do badly in London, the headline polling makes grim reading for them.

Particularly as Labour are doing better in London than they are in the rest of the country.

The Lord A constituency polling says otherwise. Much tighter.

I know, but when you're polling single digits London wide/nationwide, and that you can't poll a negative share of the vote in some places, you have say they will do badly in the seats they hold as well.

I'm grateful to Lord Ashcroft, but we're putting an awful lot of faith in an untested pollster, in area of polling which is notoriously difficult to poll.

Normally I'm bullish on Lib Dem figures, but I've felt something isn't quite right with the Lib Dems in recent months.

Note the fiasco of their private polling which didn't quite live up to the hype.

You're picking and choosing your polls rather selectively.

There is no inconsistency between LibDems polling around 8-10% and polling well in their held seats. For the yellow peril it's about fighting 60 by-elections and to hell with the rest.

Another factor this time is unlike every prior general elections the LibDems have a very large war chest.

Oh Jack, I'm someone who has been backing the Lib Dems to do better than people expect for most of this parliament.

I expected the Lib Dems to improve their nationwide polling by now, so have hedged accordingly.

I concur with the output of your ARSE for the Lib Dems.

Don't get into a nowcast mindset or single poll syndrome that sometimes infests PB.

Stick to my ARSE like glue.

It was the recent ICMs that got me worried for the Lib Dems.

And remember they overestimated the Lib Dems at the last election.

frpenkridge said:

NickPalmer said:

Teachers tend to be anti-government (annoyance about the employers) - I remember in 2010 someone saying "Of course I won't vote Labour - I'm a teacher and you've squeezed our pay." Nowadays it's certainly true that if someone says they're a teacher you're odds-on that the next sentence will be "so I'm not voting Tory". There is often then a short discussion about tactical voting...

rogerh said:

Do we get an ICM/Guardian poll this week.Looking back to 2010 weekly ICM polls kicked off at the end of March/early April?

Think Mike said not till after Easter.

Verulamius said:

Plato said:

LOL - big on public flogging? The history of chemistry is fascinating. I really must mug up on it again.

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Plato, Phlogiston sounds almost like a name for the Islamic State.

There is currently a series on BBC4 about the history of chemistry and the discovery of the elements.

The Periodic Table of Elements videos are good fun - by one of my non-party local endorsers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyn_Poliakoff. He was knighted for his services to popularising chemistry (he's currently the Royal Academy "Foreign Minister" and spends half his time abroad promoting British science), and is the brother of brilliant playwright Stephen P - remarkable family.

Patrick said:

Here's a question for the knowledgeable psephologists: Does ramping a particular poll result create a bandwagon or a negative reaction? We see the BBC ramping a (Yougov) Labour lead and the Daily Mail ramping a (Comres) Tory lead. Does this help their respective tribes? Or does the Labour lead scare more people into voting Tory (and vice versa)?

I think there's some evidence that if one party seems to be running away with it, wavering voters rally behind the other one - it's not that they want them to win, but they don't want them to get totally stuffed. I remember the phenomenon in 1983 (Labour) and 1997 (Conservatives), when the losing party in both cases did a bit less badly than expected. Perhaps the LibDems will benefit this time?

As for Populus: more evidence for the "It's a tie and nothing is happening!" theory.

The Poliakoff videos and Brady's films of the rest of the Nottingham University Science team are undoubtedly some of the best things on Youtube. They teach more in ten minutes than most science documentaries do in an hour.

A song about the periodic table featured in a NCIS episode. McGeek solved the puzzle I think.

philiph said:

Sean_F said:

Populus Con 34%, Lab 34%, UKIP 15%, Lib Dem 8%, Green 4%.

Sunil, who is leading in the Elbow for the two polls so far this week?

I've yet to calculate, though it must be the Tories, due to them being so far ahead in ComRes (despite smaller sample).

That sounds like a fair bit of "forecasting" from Gus O'Donnell to me.

Sunday fieldwork isn't too unusual.

Most Populus and Ashcroft polls this year have had Sunday fieldwork end-dates, and they publish the following day. Just that ComRes last night jumped the gun by about 12 hours!

So for that reason, and I know it will disappoint the more, shall we say, radicalised PB Tories, I'm going to include ComRes in this coming week's ELBOW.