politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In first post-debate poll Survation finds LAB 2% ahead and
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In first post-debate poll Survation finds LAB 2% ahead and EdM getting positive approval numbers for first time
Although the voting numbers don’t have much change the leader approval numbers could provide good pointers. Of the seven who took part last night only Clegg had negative ratings.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
"Voters’ intentions were largely unchanged from 10 days ago, with Labour two points clear of the Tories by 33% to 31%."
*grin*
Turns out the actually think he isnt all that bad ;-)
But that hasn't shifted many votes.
"The Conservatives and Labour have come under pressure over claims they could be forced into a post-election deal with the SNP or UKIP, respectively."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32176517
I assume Clegg's are still negative as they were coming from such a low base to begin with.
Labour still on course for a win. Not even the expected shake up from holidays and debates can derail that it seems.
Seriously the man is looking jaded by the day.
The country may well opt for a fresh face in a few weeks` time.
Strange campaign this one in that there's gonna be 2 or 3 big interruptions - Easter, May bank holiday and Royal baby [presumably]
In 1996, in last recession under John Major Conservative government the unemployment rate was 8.5%. When the Labour government came into government in 1997 it was 7.5%.
During the height of Credit Crunch, under Gordon Brown leadership is only reached 8%. Therefore, the Credit Crunch can be viewed as typical UK recession, in terms of employment. The length recession can viewed, on the objective facts and empirical evidence as prolonged recovery caused by the foolish Austerity Program of cuts to governmental expenditures, which delayed the recovery, until George Osborne pursued policy options akin to a return to a Credit Expansionary Bubble in assets, primarily focused on property assets.
Over the last 5 years, the Trade Union negotiated pay cuts to salaries, below the rate of RPI (inflation) of about 6%. These pay cuts allowed more people to be employed, simply by the variables of businesses hiring more stuff at the same expenditure on salaries as they did at the height of recession in 2008.
As an example, 29.4 million people are in employment, whose wages are lowered by 6.% via deflation of salaries compared to Retail Price Index (inflation). This allows more people to be employed, this allows business or the government to employ an extra 1.764 million people for the same total expenditure on salaries as the did in compared to 2008 or 2010. This largely explains why the tax income today is remaining as bad as it is in most recessions during the post war era.
1,764,000 divide by 5 (years) divided by 365 (days) equals 966 jobs created each day over the Coalition governments term in public office. Everyone is poorer, and it pays considerably less to be employment then when the Labour Party was in government.
Any idiot can cut wages and hire extra staff, but this is not why people elect political parties to govern a country - they elect a government to be paid more wages from their current employment. This is not governance, it meaningless governance, which delivers nothing (a bit like diet drinks, zero calories, yet has the aesthetic aspects of being nice to taste), it massive con-job on the UK electorate. "
Posted by victimfromsomethingorother in the last thread
Great post victim from the last thread. Excellent to read something so intelligent from the site.
UKIP should also be happy that the "vote UKIP, get Ed" will have less potency.
Fairly sure that survation have a history of under estimating Labour.
Remember - brand Labour smashes brand Tory.
Risky strategy. If Labour had a leader like Blair think they'd waltz this election.
2 weeks to approval ratings CROSSOVER at this rate!
Is there anybody left on Labour's letter that is actually a Labour supporter, who isn't a party activist, hasn't used ZHC, isn't a benefits cheat, and who hasn't' now swapped to supporting a different party...
More generally, until such time as the Tories have a clear lead in the polls, a Labour win looks likely, and time is running out. Believe me, I want Cameron to remain as PM, best of the options available, but still cannot see it. Maybe Ed and Lab will suffer in the opposition debate and that will change the narrative significantly.
Well, I didn't watch the debates last night but the comment on here and elsewhere tells me all I need to know. No one was especially good or especially bad - baseline politics if you like.
This was never going to be the decisive event billed by so many - after the events of 2010, Cameron was determined that IF he was going to have to debate it would be very early in the campaign so the Conservative machine would have time to respond to any surprises.
The QT event on the 30th is, in my view, much more important. It may surprise most on here but for very many people the election isn't on their mental radar - it's five weeks away and that for many is an eternity. Seven days before Polling Day is a different story and I wonder if there's a correlation between postal voting and clarity on for whom to vote.
The uptick in approval numbers is often seen after these debates - just to see political leaders debate in a relatively civilised manner is a positive antithesis to the weekly bear pit of PMQs and the whole Westminster goldfish bowl.
The other thought I have is this is going to be a long campaign and feel like one with saturated television coverage and the omnipresent Twitter and rolling news. How long before people disengage thus undermining the effectiveness of messages and how long before people grow weary of the sniping and point-scoring ?
Pessimist hat on, I fear this may be Labour's last poll lead of the campaign.
Perhaps,he meant Leaders` ratings.
However, Tories original letter has held up, despite what the Guardian reported. One person from the 17 extra people who "signed" it the next day, said no he didn't want to seem to support anybody.
The second case was Ladbrokes. Their chief signed it before he left and the new guy said they didn't people to think Ladbrokes was political, but that doesn't change the fact the top bod under this same is a supporter.
The only thing you can get from Labour's letter just gives you a glimpse of an unorganized rush to get something down. They didn't check the people who they were using.
But it doesn't really change much, as Tories already much more thought of as business friendly, so it isn't like they got 1000 NHS doctors to come out and sign a letter saying Labour would be terrible for the NHS.
I think the toggle button is broke, it only shows UKIP movement – If readily to hand, what are the changes from the last Survation poll pls.
What more do the press have to fire against Ed? They have shot their load and yet - and yet - he only just now trails Cameron.
Whatever the Tories are paying Crosby they should double it today.
Survation data tables. Nothing much to see. The usual high number of Con-UKIP switchers we see in their online polls. Small amount of tactical switching to the Tories at constituency level.
At least Lab people seem to get excited only over retaining actual leads.
http://order-order.com/2015/04/03/nigel-farage-is-right-about-health-tourism/#_@/Tm-fpdNTzM7mFg
Jack Blanchard @Jack_Blanchard_ · 25m 25 minutes ago
Almost half of all Tory voters (47%) and two-thirds of UKIP voters (64%) support Miliband's clampdown on zero hours contracts
And what's wrong with being happy or excited about a good poll. PBLefties should live a little and enjoy their good fortunes too!
LOL - Labours left flank opened up! have you seen what the Greens are on in this poll?
Labour was getting a kicking in Scotland before this debate - in fact all its done is make a Labour / SNP coalition more appealing to English voters.
Crosby is toxic for the Tories.
Guess everyone will be 'clamping down' by tomorrow.
Most don't even know who are ministers / shadow ministers outside the the top 4-5.
I don't mean the public don't like Crosby - therefore = toxic for the Tories. Just that his negativity doesn't work in the UK.
Pick a fight with Tim Montgomery on this as he points this out.
I look forward to that sarcasm biting me in the behind when the next poll shows Lab and Con on 29 each.
Somehow.
When is the next poll due?
http://electionforecast.co.uk/
It works depending on what you want to achieve. If you are trying to stop something - like the referendum - then yeah it can work.
If you are trying to build your first majority in the country for 23 years then - no it doesn't!
It's actually UKIP that is plus 1 not the L/Dems
LAB 33% (NC); CON 31% (NC); UKIP 18% (+1); LD 9% (NC); SNP 5% (NC); GRE 3% (-1); OTH 1% (NC)
What struck me about last night was just how well prepared he was. He knew what was at stake and put the graft in.
"Which party do you trust most on each of the following issues? Base: All Respondents
Immigration"
UKIP 37.5%, Lab 17.1%, Con 16.9%, LD 7.9%
p.22 table 19
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Full-Mirror-IV-Tables.pdf
Anyone might think that - and how he dealt with his brother did kinda give us a hint - he actually really wants to be PM.
Not so sure you can say the same as Cameron.
He is a joke.
Do you ever think it might be you?
p.41, table 38.
Con 34%, Lab 91%, LD 72%, UKIP 76%
Bottom line is that he exceeded expectations and that's why Cameron is running scared...
Yes - they still are important but *nothing* like they used to be. I mean the numbers are way down on 1992 and there is literally an infinitive number of other sources of information now.
PB did not exist in 1992!
The other leaders still won't tell it like it is (for intra-EU movement and no one believes the "free to move not free to claim" line) and every time they won't, Nige gets stronger.
Which is just as well for Nige because he was dire up until that point.
Which means?
Which means that 17-18% ain't voting for a one-trick pony.
Ed was looking (and doing) great in hedge fund attire, although his straight-to-camera technique was irritating (I expected him at any point to say: "Viewer, I married him." about one NHS doctor or other) while Cam seemed happy to let others be his attack dog.
For me, Cam didn't push hard enough on mid-Staffs and his fear-factor on the economy wasn't as take-no-prisonerish as I had wanted; Ed was far from incompetent, he could be our PM; Nick regained some of his first debate magic; Nige was limited; and the others had no right to be there.