politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The polls have the battle broadly tied – the spread betting
Comments
-
I know it isn't going to happen, but 40% Con would make me very happy....TheScreamingEagles said:
Generally speaking, there's been a swing from Lab to Con in the last week.RobD said:ICM is surely going to be bad for the Blues?
I mean, if ICM replicate that, a double digit lead for the blues is possible.
Still, not going to happen
0 -
On Easter Sunday, ELBOW gave its first (and so far only) significant Tory lead of 0.4%.
This is how it split between YG and non-YG.
YouGov only (5 polls, sample 7,236):
Con 35.2
Lab 34.3
UKIP 12.5
LD 8.0
Grn 4.6
Non-YouGov only (8 polls, sample 7,558):
Lab 33.3
Con 33.1
UKIP 14.9
LD 7.9
Grn 5.00 -
Smukesh predicted Lab on 300, which is where my figure came from. Plurality is a different matter. A lot depends on how LD seats fall.surbiton said:
Huh ?foxinsoxuk said:
To make up for 35 SLAB losses Labour in E and W would need 75 or so gains from LD and Tories. I cannot see it happening.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. SMukesh, do you see Labour making sweeping gains in England, or holding on better than expected in Scotland?
I stand by my Nojam prediction of 288 Con, 270 Lab which is very close to the consensus view, though my 14 for LD is definitely an outlier.
Let's do the maths again !
Lab 258 -35 = 223
SNP 6 + 35 = 41
Let's say Lab wins only 40 from Con in E&W.
Con 307 - 40 = 267
Lab 223+ 40 = 263
LD loses 10 to SNP makes SNP 51.
LD loses 15 to Con and 10 to Labour. LD 57 - 10 - 15 - 10 = 22
Con 267 + 15 = 278
Lab 263 + 10 = 273.
Labour does not need to make 75 gains in E&W to "make up" Scottish losses.0 -
Comparing the political debates to the Heptarchy?TheScreamingEagles said:
Sadly not. But it references modern history.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, does it include an obscure reference to classical history?
0 -
Tomorrow, according to TSE.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. D, when's it due?
0 -
I am not so sure. There is a great divide amongst pollsters. I think the ICM / Opinium methodology will produce better results for the Tories.RobD said:
Whether it is "better" or actual, only May 8th will tell us.0 -
and therein lies the rub.Smarmeron said:@JosiasJessop
There is nothing wrong with "nationalisation", you are making a monopoly work for the benefit of the public, instead of shareholders.
How you manage it is the difficult part.
The idea of a national service, run for the benefit of the nation sounds great. Making it cost effective, and as satisfactory is probably impossible. My local council can't organise bin collection. Local government is hopeless at delivering anything more complex than a lunch meeting. National government aren't much better and hopelessly bureaucratic. I remember British Rail, it is much better now.0 -
It's a reference to history all PBers will understand.kle4 said:
Comparing the political debates to the Heptarchy?TheScreamingEagles said:
Sadly not. But it references modern history.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, does it include an obscure reference to classical history?
0 -
306 - 40 + 15 = 281Speedy said:
Now here is a person who can do math (but still needs a calculator, CON seats are 306 not 307, and 267+15 =282 not 278, but a decent effort), a necessity for profitable betting.surbiton said:
Huh ?foxinsoxuk said:
To make up for 35 SLAB losses Labour in E and W would need 75 or so gains from LD and Tories. I cannot see it happening.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. SMukesh, do you see Labour making sweeping gains in England, or holding on better than expected in Scotland?
I stand by my Nojam prediction of 288 Con, 270 Lab which is very close to the consensus view, though my 14 for LD is definitely an outlier.
Let's do the maths again !
Lab 258 -35 = 223
SNP 6 + 35 = 41
Let's say Lab wins only 40 from Con in E&W.
Con 307 - 40 = 267
Lab 223+ 40 = 263
LD loses 10 to SNP makes SNP 51.
LD loses 15 to Con and 10 to Labour. LD 57 - 10 - 15 - 10 = 22
Con 267 + 15 = 278
Lab 263 + 10 = 273.
Labour does not need to make 75 gains in E&W to "make up" Scottish losses.0 -
Why are you so concerned with so called "correct odds"?SMukesh said:
Could other posters help out as I don't normally bet.peter_from_putney said:
Oh and I thought you were making a confident prediction in which you actually believed.SMukesh said:
Offer me the correct value and I will agree.peter_from_putney said:
Really? Fancy backing your prediction with hard cash?SMukesh said:Prediction:Labour over 300
Con under 250
Lib 20-30
UKIP 5
SNP45
I'll lower the bar on Labour winning >290 seats (compared with your 300+)
What do you say to a £20 even money bet on Labour seats. 290 seats or more you win, 289 seats or fewer I win. Settlement within 7 days of GE, by electronic bank transfer.
Bet to be recorded with PtP.
What do you say? Accept or reject by 9.00pm tonight.
I even offered you significantly better terms but still you declined.
You're evidently all mouth and no trousers mate!
What would be correct odds for Lab>290 seats?
You made an unqualified seats prediction.
I offered to better this in your favour and offered you an even money bet on that basis.
What's your problem exactly?
£20 too much for you ?..... thought so.0 -
Calculator and better specs !Speedy said:
Now here is a person who can do math (but still needs a calculator, CON seats are 306 not 307, and 267+15 =282 not 278, but a decent effort), a necessity for profitable betting.surbiton said:
Huh ?foxinsoxuk said:
To make up for 35 SLAB losses Labour in E and W would need 75 or so gains from LD and Tories. I cannot see it happening.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. SMukesh, do you see Labour making sweeping gains in England, or holding on better than expected in Scotland?
I stand by my Nojam prediction of 288 Con, 270 Lab which is very close to the consensus view, though my 14 for LD is definitely an outlier.
Let's do the maths again !
Lab 258 -35 = 223
SNP 6 + 35 = 41
Let's say Lab wins only 40 from Con in E&W.
Con 307 - 40 = 267
Lab 223+ 40 = 263
LD loses 10 to SNP makes SNP 51.
LD loses 15 to Con and 10 to Labour. LD 57 - 10 - 15 - 10 = 22
Con 267 + 15 = 278
Lab 263 + 10 = 273.
Labour does not need to make 75 gains in E&W to "make up" Scottish losses.0 -
There will be a swing in the last week?
Will the swing be for more of the same, or for a different direction?
If I knew the answer , I would be on a Caribbean cruise at the end of May.0 -
It's odd that Yougov should show a shift to Labour, while the rest show a shift to the Tories.Sunil_Prasannan said:
On the other hand, last week's (12th April) ELBOW split into YG and non-YG gives this:Dadge said:
I did wonder about this. The lack of variation in the YouGov polls is beginning to make their approach look quite dodgy. Asking the same question over and over again and expecting a different answer... what's that the definition of?MaxPB said:
Looks like a stale YouGov panel. It is turning into a safety blanket for Labour. I have been in the YouGov VI at least 6 times in the past couple of weeks.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Hi NemtynakhtNemtynakht said:
Sunil what does your ELBOW show if yougov is left out. Personally I think there is a possibility that they are underrepresented with regards to Tories and as they report so frequently this is driving poll averaging outSunil_Prasannan said:Labour leads in ELBOW since August - week-ending 19th April = 0.5% (-0.7%)
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/589749837446434816
I did play around with this a few weeks ago, then stopped
Anyway, here is this week's ELBOW divided into YG and non-YG
YouGov only (7 polls, sample 11,232):
Lab 34.7
Con 33.2
UKIP 13.5
LD 7.9
Grn 5.2
Non-YouGov only (9 polls, sample 8,364):
Con 34.0
Lab 33.2
UKIP 13.6
LD 8.2
Grn 5.1
YouGov only (5 polls, sample 7,631):
Lab 34.6
Con 33.9
UKIP 13.0
LD 7.9
Grn 5.0
Non-YouGov only (7 polls, sample 6,939):
Lab 33.9
Con 32.3
UKIP 14.6
LD 8.6
Grn 4.90 -
There is lots wrong with nationalisation - or indeed privatisation - if it is applied as an ideological tool rather than one of need. Sadly, that is how most people proposing renationalisation of the railways seem to see it.Smarmeron said:@JosiasJessop
There is nothing wrong with "nationalisation", you are making a monopoly work for the benefit of the public, instead of shareholders.
How you manage it is the difficult part.
The stupid "but look at East Coast" cries are an example, when other franchises also return money (in some cases much more money) to the taxpayers.
Instead perhaps they should "think out of the box" so they do not appear "thick".0 -
The Good Lord set to join PB?TheScreamingEagles said:Crossover has happened with the phone pollsters.
We should be getting two phone polls tomorrow, ICM and Lord A, exciting times.
But tomorrow, there's a great guest article by a pollster, that none of you will want to miss.
0 -
Subtract 4 UKIP gains and it's 277 vs 273 and that's on the account that the Tories gain 5 LD seats more than Labour.bigjohnowls said:
306 - 40 + 15 = 281Speedy said:
Now here is a person who can do math (but still needs a calculator, CON seats are 306 not 307, and 267+15 =282 not 278, but a decent effort), a necessity for profitable betting.surbiton said:
Huh ?foxinsoxuk said:
To make up for 35 SLAB losses Labour in E and W would need 75 or so gains from LD and Tories. I cannot see it happening.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. SMukesh, do you see Labour making sweeping gains in England, or holding on better than expected in Scotland?
I stand by my Nojam prediction of 288 Con, 270 Lab which is very close to the consensus view, though my 14 for LD is definitely an outlier.
Let's do the maths again !
Lab 258 -35 = 223
SNP 6 + 35 = 41
Let's say Lab wins only 40 from Con in E&W.
Con 307 - 40 = 267
Lab 223+ 40 = 263
LD loses 10 to SNP makes SNP 51.
LD loses 15 to Con and 10 to Labour. LD 57 - 10 - 15 - 10 = 22
Con 267 + 15 = 278
Lab 263 + 10 = 273.
Labour does not need to make 75 gains in E&W to "make up" Scottish losses.
Largest party will probably be whoever crosses the 275 line or even lower if swings in scotland towards the SNP and to LAB in E&W that the polls show are replicated.0 -
Well as LAB most seats is 2.96 on Betfair about 3.5 would be fair on 290+ seats.peter_from_putney said:
Why are you so concerned with so called "correct odds"?SMukesh said:
Could other posters help out as I don't normally bet.peter_from_putney said:
Oh and I thought you were making a confident prediction in which you actually believed.SMukesh said:
Offer me the correct value and I will agree.peter_from_putney said:
Really? Fancy backing your prediction with hard cash?SMukesh said:Prediction:Labour over 300
Con under 250
Lib 20-30
UKIP 5
SNP45
I'll lower the bar on Labour winning >290 seats (compared with your 300+)
What do you say to a £20 even money bet on Labour seats. 290 seats or more you win, 289 seats or fewer I win. Settlement within 7 days of GE, by electronic bank transfer.
Bet to be recorded with PtP.
What do you say? Accept or reject by 9.00pm tonight.
I even offered you significantly better terms but still you declined.
You're evidently all mouth and no trousers mate!
What would be correct odds for Lab>290 seats?
You made an unqualified seats prediction.
I offered to better this in your favour and offered you an even money bet on that basis.
What's your problem exactly?
£20 too much for you ?..... thought so.
I think PFP you are trying to take advantage or make a point maybe would be fairer.0 -
Illusory? Victorian simplification that probably never existed?TheScreamingEagles said:
It's a reference to history all PBers will understand.kle4 said:
Comparing the political debates to the Heptarchy?TheScreamingEagles said:
Sadly not. But it references modern history.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, does it include an obscure reference to classical history?
0 -
Nope it's from an NOP pollster.GIN1138 said:
The Good Lord set to join PB?TheScreamingEagles said:Crossover has happened with the phone pollsters.
We should be getting two phone polls tomorrow, ICM and Lord A, exciting times.
But tomorrow, there's a great guest article by a pollster, that none of you will want to miss.0 -
I actually know next to nothing about the anglo-saxon period of the heptarchy to be honest. But 7 political leaders vs 7 anglo saxon kingdoms was the best I could come up with on the fly for something not really modern I could pretend was modern compared to classical antiquity.TheScreamingEagles said:
It's a reference to history all PBers will understand.kle4 said:
Comparing the political debates to the Heptarchy?TheScreamingEagles said:
Sadly not. But it references modern history.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, does it include an obscure reference to classical history?
0 -
That's always the case for landslide elections. The Tories were overestimated in 1983.david_herdson said:
Too good.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Herdson, are you saying they were sixty seats too good for Labour, or too bad?
In 1997, the nine polls in the three last days before the election gave Labour leads varying between 10% and 24%, with only two at less than 17%, and all bar one gave Labour 46% or more.
In 2001, they were a little better but all the bias was still top-side for Labour.0 -
No, Keiran Pedley of GFK NOP.GIN1138 said:
The Good Lord set to join PB?TheScreamingEagles said:Crossover has happened with the phone pollsters.
We should be getting two phone polls tomorrow, ICM and Lord A, exciting times.
But tomorrow, there's a great guest article by a pollster, that none of you will want to miss.
They were the pollsters who were the most accurate pollster at the 2005 GE, and worked on the 2010 and the 2015 exit polls.0 -
-
He is already here in spirit, if one will only listen, I am sure.GIN1138 said:
The Good Lord set to join PB?TheScreamingEagles said:Crossover has happened with the phone pollsters.
We should be getting two phone polls tomorrow, ICM and Lord A, exciting times.
But tomorrow, there's a great guest article by a pollster, that none of you will want to miss.0 -
Meanwhile in Finland the Finns might get into the government with demands such as euro membership referendum and kicking Greece out.TheScreamingEagles said:
Peter Spiegel ✔ @SpiegelPeter
Can a 3rd #Greece bailout get through #Finland's parliament with True Finns in govt? I suspect not. #finelec20150 -
@JosiasJessop
It is idealogical insanity to argue which is best, both private and public ownership have their place, what we need to do is work out where each works the best.0 -
I don't understand the criticism of YouGov's new methodology, even if YouGov is only taking into account participants who took part in surveys in January and February, that'll still be a larger number of people compared to the size of the panels of other online companies wouldn't it?0
-
Size isn't important, it's what you do with it that counts.Artist said:I don't understand the criticism of YouGov's new methodology, even if YouGov is only taking into account participants who took part in surveys in January and February, that'll still a bigger number of people compared to the size of the panels of other online companies wouldn't it?
The final YouGov poll for the 2010 General Election had a sample size of over 6,000.
It wasn't as accurate as other pollsters, with a smaller sample size0 -
Mr. kle4, there was a time when six chaps claimed to be emperor or 'an' emperor of the Roman Empire, when Diocletian's tetrarchy collapsed.
Mr. Eagles, the supremacy of Hannibal over Caesar?
Also, Dawkins is wrong.
Mr. D, cheers.0 -
One thing the Sturgeon phenomenon shows is that a federal UK ought to be able to produce a greater pool of leaders with real experience before moving to the national level.0
-
What is GFK? Thought it was an airport.TheScreamingEagles said:
No, Keiran Pedley of GFK NOP.GIN1138 said:
The Good Lord set to join PB?TheScreamingEagles said:Crossover has happened with the phone pollsters.
We should be getting two phone polls tomorrow, ICM and Lord A, exciting times.
But tomorrow, there's a great guest article by a pollster, that none of you will want to miss.
They were the pollsters who were the most accurate pollster at the 2005 GE, and worked on the 2010 and the 2015 exit polls.
Next to a grassy knoll0 -
Maybe, but I doubt it. Reckon it will be a Midlands Con-Lab marginal myself.state_go_away said:would love there to be a fun market on the smallest majority seat. I don't know why but I think it will be Torbay
0 -
I was going to say what odds a politician believing the same thing, but of course many clearly do, even if they cannot be so blunt about it.TheScreamingEagles said:
Personally I don't think the public can be trusted to weight up the issues of a GE properly, given the indecisive nature of the last and almost certainly this forthcoming election.
0 -
Not by the end. Polls in the last fortnight picked up the rise in support for the Alliance.Danny565 said:
That's always the case for landslide elections. The Tories were overestimated in 1983.david_herdson said:
Too good.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Herdson, are you saying they were sixty seats too good for Labour, or too bad?
In 1997, the nine polls in the three last days before the election gave Labour leads varying between 10% and 24%, with only two at less than 17%, and all bar one gave Labour 46% or more.
In 2001, they were a little better but all the bias was still top-side for Labour.0 -
0
-
Now that would be nonsense on stilts.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. kle4, there was a time when six chaps claimed to be emperor or 'an' emperor of the Roman Empire, when Diocletian's tetrarchy collapsed.
Mr. Eagles, the supremacy of Hannibal over Caesar?
Also, Dawkins is wrong.
Mr. D, cheers.0 -
I trust the Great and the Good even less than I trust the public.kle4 said:
I was going to say what odds a politician believing the same thing, but of course many clearly do, even if they cannot be so blunt about it.TheScreamingEagles said:
Personally I don't think the public can be trusted to weight up the issues of a GE properly, given the indecisive nature of the last and almost certainly this forthcoming election.0 -
That what I tell Mrs BJ.TheScreamingEagles said:
Size isn't important, it's what you do with it that counts.Artist said:I don't understand the criticism of YouGov's new methodology, even if YouGov is only taking into account participants who took part in surveys in January and February, that'll still a bigger number of people compared to the size of the panels of other online companies wouldn't it?
The final YouGov poll for the 2010 General Election had a sample size of over 6,000.
It wasn't as accurate as other pollsters, with a smaller sample size
In terms of harems presumably size is quite important (more than 2)0 -
But why would you choose to further restrict that panel? I just don't get their logic.Artist said:I don't understand the criticism of YouGov's new methodology, even if YouGov is only taking into account participants who took part in surveys in January and February, that'll still be a larger number of people compared to the size of the panels of other online companies wouldn't it?
0 -
In 2010.Smarmeron said:@TheScreamingEagles
How far out was You Gov for the two major parties?
Lab -1, Con -2, LD +3.0 -
Understated Labour by 1.7% and the Tories by 1.9% and Overstated the Lib Dems by 3.4%Smarmeron said:@TheScreamingEagles
How far out was You Gov for the two major parties?0 -
Mr. F, Sallust felt similarly.
Mr. Eagles, did you know Caesar had his men use stilts during the Gallic War?
Presuming that's what you meant by nonsense on stilts
0 -
Oh!TheScreamingEagles said:
No, Keiran Pedley of GFK NOP.GIN1138 said:
The Good Lord set to join PB?TheScreamingEagles said:Crossover has happened with the phone pollsters.
We should be getting two phone polls tomorrow, ICM and Lord A, exciting times.
But tomorrow, there's a great guest article by a pollster, that none of you will want to miss.
They were the pollsters who were the most accurate pollster at the 2005 GE, and worked on the 2010 and the 2015 exit polls.
It would be nice to have NOP doing regular polls again. And Gallop. And Harris. And Angus Reid.
#bringiton
0 -
In 238 AD, they managed six emperors in one year.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. kle4, there was a time when six chaps claimed to be emperor or 'an' emperor of the Roman Empire, when Diocletian's tetrarchy collapsed.
Mr. Eagles, the supremacy of Hannibal over Caesar?
Also, Dawkins is wrong.
Mr. D, cheers.
0 -
In 2005, NOP were the most accurate pollster, and after the election the Independent dropped them.GIN1138 said:
Oh!TheScreamingEagles said:
No, Keiran Pedley of GFK NOP.GIN1138 said:
The Good Lord set to join PB?TheScreamingEagles said:Crossover has happened with the phone pollsters.
We should be getting two phone polls tomorrow, ICM and Lord A, exciting times.
But tomorrow, there's a great guest article by a pollster, that none of you will want to miss.
They were the pollsters who were the most accurate pollster at the 2005 GE, and worked on the 2010 and the 2015 exit polls.
It would be nice to have NOP doing regular polls again. And Gallop. And Harris. And Angus Reid.
#bringiton
They were replaced by a company called Communications Research. Now better known as ComRes0 -
Mr. F, the murder of Alexander Severus was one of the more stupid regicides in imperial history.0
-
Not at all ..... I was simply responding to a big mouth who wasn't prepared to back his judgement and tried to hide behind "market odds" as if that had anything to do with the price of fish. We can all make outlandish, unsubstantiated claims. In doing so SMukesh should remember that PB.com is first and foremost a political betting site.bigjohnowls said:
Well as LAB most seats is 2.96 on Betfair about 3.5 would be fair on 290+ seats.peter_from_putney said:
Why are you so concerned with so called "correct odds"?SMukesh said:
Could other posters help out as I don't normally bet.peter_from_putney said:
Oh and I thought you were making a confident prediction in which you actually believed.SMukesh said:
Offer me the correct value and I will agree.peter_from_putney said:
Really? Fancy backing your prediction with hard cash?SMukesh said:Prediction:Labour over 300
Con under 250
Lib 20-30
UKIP 5
SNP45
I'll lower the bar on Labour winning >290 seats (compared with your 300+)
What do you say to a £20 even money bet on Labour seats. 290 seats or more you win, 289 seats or fewer I win. Settlement within 7 days of GE, by electronic bank transfer.
Bet to be recorded with PtP.
What do you say? Accept or reject by 9.00pm tonight.
I even offered you significantly better terms but still you declined.
You're evidently all mouth and no trousers mate!
What would be correct odds for Lab>290 seats?
You made an unqualified seats prediction.
I offered to better this in your favour and offered you an even money bet on that basis.
What's your problem exactly?
£20 too much for you ?..... thought so.
I think PFP you are trying to take advantage or make a point maybe would be fairer.
It's wholly academic now anyway since my 9.00pm deadline has passed, conveniently for him.0 -
12bigjohnowls said:
That what I tell Mrs BJ.TheScreamingEagles said:
Size isn't important, it's what you do with it that counts.Artist said:I don't understand the criticism of YouGov's new methodology, even if YouGov is only taking into account participants who took part in surveys in January and February, that'll still a bigger number of people compared to the size of the panels of other online companies wouldn't it?
The final YouGov poll for the 2010 General Election had a sample size of over 6,000.
It wasn't as accurate as other pollsters, with a smaller sample size
In terms of harems presumably size is quite important (more than 2)0 -
Angus Reid they were very funny.GIN1138 said:
Oh!TheScreamingEagles said:
No, Keiran Pedley of GFK NOP.GIN1138 said:
The Good Lord set to join PB?TheScreamingEagles said:Crossover has happened with the phone pollsters.
We should be getting two phone polls tomorrow, ICM and Lord A, exciting times.
But tomorrow, there's a great guest article by a pollster, that none of you will want to miss.
They were the pollsters who were the most accurate pollster at the 2005 GE, and worked on the 2010 and the 2015 exit polls.
It would be nice to have NOP doing regular polls again. And Gallop. And Harris. And Angus Reid.
#bringiton
Huge Tory Majority nailed on.
Rod Crosby is the AR of 2015 IMO or it could be me of course.0 -
I trust 'the Great and the Good' to look after their own interests at the expense of those of everyone else.Sean_F said:
I trust the Great and the Good even less than I trust the public.kle4 said:
I was going to say what odds a politician believing the same thing, but of course many clearly do, even if they cannot be so blunt about it.TheScreamingEagles said:
Personally I don't think the public can be trusted to weight up the issues of a GE properly, given the indecisive nature of the last and almost certainly this forthcoming election.
Lord Janner will confirm.
0 -
Well with Anonymous hijacking the finnelec2015 feed, I'm off.
Goodnight.0 -
You'll be delighted to know there is a thread which compares a British politician to Hannibal and the second Punic WarMorris_Dancer said:Mr. F, Sallust felt similarly.
Mr. Eagles, did you know Caesar had his men use stilts during the Gallic War?
Presuming that's what you meant by nonsense on stilts0 -
If you can read Finnish, the state broadcaster: http://yle.fi/uutiset/AndyJS said:Does anyone have a link to the Finnish election live results page?
update: Speedy got there first, and in English.
.. living up to his/her name !!0 -
0
-
So it isn't actually short for Comedy Results? Shame.TheScreamingEagles said:
In 2005, NOP were the most accurate pollster, and after the election the Independent dropped them.GIN1138 said:
Oh!TheScreamingEagles said:
No, Keiran Pedley of GFK NOP.GIN1138 said:
The Good Lord set to join PB?TheScreamingEagles said:Crossover has happened with the phone pollsters.
We should be getting two phone polls tomorrow, ICM and Lord A, exciting times.
But tomorrow, there's a great guest article by a pollster, that none of you will want to miss.
They were the pollsters who were the most accurate pollster at the 2005 GE, and worked on the 2010 and the 2015 exit polls.
It would be nice to have NOP doing regular polls again. And Gallop. And Harris. And Angus Reid.
#bringiton
They were replaced by a company called Communications Research. Now better known as ComRes0 -
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/19/us-finland-election-advancevotes-idUSKBN0NA0VZ20150419MP_SE said:What a shame:
Finnish election early votes show defeat for pro-Europe PM
Perhaps they can just run it again until they get a pro Europe answer?0 -
All pollsters got it wrong back then within the margin of error , except ICM whose methodology is more resistant to sudden changes from past elections, that is why they were the only pollster to say that the LD had not collapsed since 2010 or that UKIP is non existent and became one of the worst accurate poll company since 2010 (we will see if their bad streak ends in 2 weeks).Smarmeron said:@Speedy
Margin of error then?0 -
I think that may well be the first thing that Dawkins has said that I agree with.
Like Mrs T, I am not a fan of referenda. Deciding such issues is what we elect MPs for. The AV referendum was a case in point, it became all about bashing the LibDems rather than an intelligent discussion of how to elect our representatives.
0 -
Sturgeon gets involved in northern England politics:
http://news.sky.com/story/1467977/sturgeon-to-make-manifesto-offer-to-the-north0 -
I always fear that is the fate that awaits ICM at The Guardian...TheScreamingEagles said:
In 2005, NOP were the most accurate pollster, and after the election the Independent dropped them.GIN1138 said:
Oh!TheScreamingEagles said:
No, Keiran Pedley of GFK NOP.GIN1138 said:
The Good Lord set to join PB?TheScreamingEagles said:Crossover has happened with the phone pollsters.
We should be getting two phone polls tomorrow, ICM and Lord A, exciting times.
But tomorrow, there's a great guest article by a pollster, that none of you will want to miss.
They were the pollsters who were the most accurate pollster at the 2005 GE, and worked on the 2010 and the 2015 exit polls.
It would be nice to have NOP doing regular polls again. And Gallop. And Harris. And Angus Reid.
#bringiton
0 -
What would that be in terms of odds?bigjohnowls said:
Well as LAB most seats is 2.96 on Betfair about 3.5 would be fair on 290+ seats.peter_from_putney said:
Why are you so concerned with so called "correct odds"?SMukesh said:
Could other posters help out as I don't normally bet.peter_from_putney said:
Oh and I thought you were making a confident prediction in which you actually believed.SMukesh said:
Offer me the correct value and I will agree.peter_from_putney said:
Really? Fancy backing your prediction with hard cash?SMukesh said:Prediction:Labour over 300
Con under 250
Lib 20-30
UKIP 5
SNP45
I'll lower the bar on Labour winning >290 seats (compared with your 300+)
What do you say to a £20 even money bet on Labour seats. 290 seats or more you win, 289 seats or fewer I win. Settlement within 7 days of GE, by electronic bank transfer.
Bet to be recorded with PtP.
What do you say? Accept or reject by 9.00pm tonight.
I even offered you significantly better terms but still you declined.
You're evidently all mouth and no trousers mate!
What would be correct odds for Lab>290 seats?
You made an unqualified seats prediction.
I offered to better this in your favour and offered you an even money bet on that basis.
What's your problem exactly?
£20 too much for you ?..... thought so.
I think PFP you are trying to take advantage or make a point maybe would be fairer.
1:3.5 or 1:2.5.0 -
Nah, the Guardian value their relationship with ICM. Goes back 31 years.GIN1138 said:
I always fear that is the fate that awaits ICM at The Guardian...TheScreamingEagles said:
In 2005, NOP were the most accurate pollster, and after the election the Independent dropped them.GIN1138 said:
Oh!TheScreamingEagles said:
No, Keiran Pedley of GFK NOP.GIN1138 said:
The Good Lord set to join PB?TheScreamingEagles said:Crossover has happened with the phone pollsters.
We should be getting two phone polls tomorrow, ICM and Lord A, exciting times.
But tomorrow, there's a great guest article by a pollster, that none of you will want to miss.
They were the pollsters who were the most accurate pollster at the 2005 GE, and worked on the 2010 and the 2015 exit polls.
It would be nice to have NOP doing regular polls again. And Gallop. And Harris. And Angus Reid.
#bringiton0 -
Yeah but money is money at the end of the day and ICM must be very expensive for a newspaper that looks like it could go bust at any moment...TheScreamingEagles said:
Nah, the Guardian value their relationship with ICM. Goes back 31 years.GIN1138 said:
I always fear that is the fate that awaits ICM at The Guardian...TheScreamingEagles said:
In 2005, NOP were the most accurate pollster, and after the election the Independent dropped them.GIN1138 said:
Oh!TheScreamingEagles said:
No, Keiran Pedley of GFK NOP.GIN1138 said:
The Good Lord set to join PB?TheScreamingEagles said:Crossover has happened with the phone pollsters.
We should be getting two phone polls tomorrow, ICM and Lord A, exciting times.
But tomorrow, there's a great guest article by a pollster, that none of you will want to miss.
They were the pollsters who were the most accurate pollster at the 2005 GE, and worked on the 2010 and the 2015 exit polls.
It would be nice to have NOP doing regular polls again. And Gallop. And Harris. And Angus Reid.
#bringiton
0 -
5/2 you should win £50 plus your stake on £20SMukesh said:
What would that be in terms of odds?bigjohnowls said:
Well as LAB most seats is 2.96 on Betfair about 3.5 would be fair on 290+ seats.peter_from_putney said:
Why are you so concerned with so called "correct odds"?SMukesh said:
Could other posters help out as I don't normally bet.peter_from_putney said:
Oh and I thought you were making a confident prediction in which you actually believed.SMukesh said:
Offer me the correct value and I will agree.peter_from_putney said:
Really? Fancy backing your prediction with hard cash?SMukesh said:Prediction:Labour over 300
Con under 250
Lib 20-30
UKIP 5
SNP45
I'll lower the bar on Labour winning >290 seats (compared with your 300+)
What do you say to a £20 even money bet on Labour seats. 290 seats or more you win, 289 seats or fewer I win. Settlement within 7 days of GE, by electronic bank transfer.
Bet to be recorded with PtP.
What do you say? Accept or reject by 9.00pm tonight.
I even offered you significantly better terms but still you declined.
You're evidently all mouth and no trousers mate!
What would be correct odds for Lab>290 seats?
You made an unqualified seats prediction.
I offered to better this in your favour and offered you an even money bet on that basis.
What's your problem exactly?
£20 too much for you ?..... thought so.
I think PFP you are trying to take advantage or make a point maybe would be fairer.
1:3.5 or 1:2.5.0 -
Mr. Eagles, one shudders to think what cruel marring of history your ignorance will inflict upon the site.
Mr. Speedy, goodnight. That seems a weird thing for a group to do.0 -
One does wonder at what point the EU bureaucracy will consider that they actually have to reverse course or at least halt for the time being their relentless absorption of power and increasing interference across the continent. At some point making weak or glib remarks about understanding concerns but then doing whatever they had planned on doing before will not work, and their reputation could cross a line from mild dislike to active hostility with too many nations to continue on.
Given their utter contempt for any hint of even mild reform however, I am not certain they would acknowledge what they 'know' to be best for the continent is not wanted until the barbarians of euro-scepticism were knowing down the gates.
But then, even now, it seems a majority of governments at the least are opposed to even talking about genuine reform, so they are probably safe for awhile yet.0 -
I thought political polls were essentially produced as PR for the polling companies? Free, or nearly free, for the newspapers.TheScreamingEagles said:
Nah, the Guardian value their relationship with ICM. Goes back 31 years.GIN1138 said:
I always fear that is the fate that awaits ICM at The Guardian...TheScreamingEagles said:
In 2005, NOP were the most accurate pollster, and after the election the Independent dropped them.GIN1138 said:
Oh!TheScreamingEagles said:
No, Keiran Pedley of GFK NOP.GIN1138 said:
The Good Lord set to join PB?TheScreamingEagles said:Crossover has happened with the phone pollsters.
We should be getting two phone polls tomorrow, ICM and Lord A, exciting times.
But tomorrow, there's a great guest article by a pollster, that none of you will want to miss.
They were the pollsters who were the most accurate pollster at the 2005 GE, and worked on the 2010 and the 2015 exit polls.
It would be nice to have NOP doing regular polls again. And Gallop. And Harris. And Angus Reid.
#bringiton0 -
So what about Scottish independence? Should that have been left to the politicians? And if so, would an SNP government running Scotland and an army of SNP MPs at Westminster be enough for Sturgeon to demand immediate secession?foxinsoxuk said:I think that may well be the first thing that Dawkins has said that I agree with.
Like Mrs T, I am not a fan of referenda. Deciding such issues is what we elect MPs for. The AV referendum was a case in point, it became all about bashing the LibDems rather than an intelligent discussion of how to elect our representatives.0 -
Am I the only person bored with the election campaign ?
With postal votes now being returned and all the debates done things might fizzle out somewhat as more people become bored.
Which means that the GOTV operation will become more important.
0 -
This is my offer to you sir.peter_from_putney said:
Not at all ..... I was simply responding to a big mouth who wasn't prepared to back his judgement and tried to hide behind "market odds" as if that had anything to do with the price of fish. We can all make outlandish, unsubstantiated claims. In doing so SMukesh should remember that PB.com is first and foremost a political betting site.bigjohnowls said:
Well as LAB most seats is 2.96 on Betfair about 3.5 would be fair on 290+ seats.peter_from_putney said:
Why are you so concerned with so called "correct odds"?SMukesh said:
Could other posters help out as I don't normally bet.peter_from_putney said:
Oh and I thought you were making a confident prediction in which you actually believed.SMukesh said:
Offer me the correct value and I will agree.peter_from_putney said:
Really? Fancy backing your prediction with hard cash?SMukesh said:Prediction:Labour over 300
Con under 250
Lib 20-30
UKIP 5
SNP45
I'll lower the bar on Labour winning >290 seats (compared with your 300+)
What do you say to a £20 even money bet on Labour seats. 290 seats or more you win, 289 seats or fewer I win. Settlement within 7 days of GE, by electronic bank transfer.
Bet to be recorded with PtP.
What do you say? Accept or reject by 9.00pm tonight.
I even offered you significantly better terms but still you declined.
You're evidently all mouth and no trousers mate!
What would be correct odds for Lab>290 seats?
You made an unqualified seats prediction.
I offered to better this in your favour and offered you an even money bet on that basis.
What's your problem exactly?
£20 too much for you ?..... thought so.
I think PFP you are trying to take advantage or make a point maybe would be fairer.
It's wholly academic now anyway since my 9.00pm deadline has passed, conveniently for him.
You can choose any amount of upto £1000 at odds of 1:2.5 that Lab win>290 seats.(If Lab win <290 I will give you x,if Lab win>290,you give me 2.5 times x).
Deadline tomorrow night 9 pm.0 -
No.another_richard said:Am I the only person bored with the election campaign ?
With postal votes now being returned and all the debates done things might fizzle out somewhat as more people become bored.
Which means that the GOTV operation will become more important.0 -
In a way the polls partly contributed to that. They showed a massive lead which when reported reduced the reason for those voters to actually bother.david_herdson said:
Too good.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Herdson, are you saying they were sixty seats too good for Labour, or too bad?
In 1997, the nine polls in the three last days before the election gave Labour leads varying between 10% and 24%, with only two at less than 17%, and all bar one gave Labour 46% or more.
In 2001, they were a little better but all the bias was still top-side for Labour.
0 -
lol noanotherDave said:
I thought political polls were essentially produced as PR for the polling companies? Free, or nearly free, for the newspapers.TheScreamingEagles said:
Nah, the Guardian value their relationship with ICM. Goes back 31 years.GIN1138 said:
I always fear that is the fate that awaits ICM at The Guardian...TheScreamingEagles said:
In 2005, NOP were the most accurate pollster, and after the election the Independent dropped them.GIN1138 said:
Oh!TheScreamingEagles said:
No, Keiran Pedley of GFK NOP.GIN1138 said:
The Good Lord set to join PB?TheScreamingEagles said:Crossover has happened with the phone pollsters.
We should be getting two phone polls tomorrow, ICM and Lord A, exciting times.
But tomorrow, there's a great guest article by a pollster, that none of you will want to miss.
They were the pollsters who were the most accurate pollster at the 2005 GE, and worked on the 2010 and the 2015 exit polls.
It would be nice to have NOP doing regular polls again. And Gallop. And Harris. And Angus Reid.
#bringiton
You're talking around 10 to 15k per phone poll.0 -
Well, tomorrow is the end of registration - when do we get national data on comparative levels? Our postal votes go out on Tuesday when PV registration closes.
Idle anecdotia: I found an SNP voter last week, pondering what to do as sadly they've not put someone up here. The "oh God you might join the evil Nats" line doesn't seem to be manifesting itself here much, though I'm getting the slightly uncomfortable opposite from time to time ("Why have you ruled out a coalition with Sturgeon, she seems quite sensible?"). The Tories have switched their billboards from Salmond to "Labour will cost you £3205.63" or something like that.
After doing the first three debates, Ms Soubry is skipping the next two, so we'll have opposition-only debates just like the BBC. One Tory garden stake has appeared (vs 80 Labour ones) and one window poster (vs hundreds of Labour ones). I don't get the strategy of having just one printed and erected in a random place - surely either they should make an effort and have lots (there are more than two Conservatives in Broxtowe), or make a virtue of having none ("we do not concern ourselves with such trivia, we are debating the issues", etc.)? Perhaps more will yet appear.
And yeah, Flightpath, this is not a neutral commentary - just idle chatter after a busy day.
0 -
They sayMarqueeMark said:
But why would you choose to further restrict that panel? I just don't get their logic.Artist said:I don't understand the criticism of YouGov's new methodology, even if YouGov is only taking into account participants who took part in surveys in January and February, that'll still be a larger number of people compared to the size of the panels of other online companies wouldn't it?
''This means that we can be confident that any material change in the polls from that position reflects a genuine shift in public opinion since January & February. There will be still be some random sample variation from poll to poll - it can never be eliminated completely - but it will mean any substantial change in the polls will be down to individual people changing their minds (or making their minds ups) since we interviewed them in February.''
But if they were wrong then, well it exaggerates it now - doesn't it? They are going out of their way to be less random (??)0 -
another_richard said:
Am I the only person bored with the election campaign ?
With postal votes now being returned and all the debates done things might fizzle out somewhat as more people become bored.
Which means that the GOTV operation will become more important.
I have had a visit from my Tory wannabe MP and loadsa Labour leaflets (and one UKIP).
People may be bored, but the parties seem keen enough to make the best impression they can.
0 -
Is the Comres phone poll in tonight or do we have to wait until tomorrow for something worthwhile?
0 -
@Peter_from_Putney
I have become slightly disconcerted that one of our most level headed, long standing contributors has been venturing into pbCOM Tory mould recently.
Snap out of it and return back to your consensual (albeit blue tinged self)
BTW- I still am sorry for giving you that very bad Tommy Haas tip many moons again versus Nadal. I managed to scrape out of that on evens, but now I only bet on Federer matches. He has been so consistent of late, and usually only loses to outsiders he has a problem with such as Montfils0 -
Is there a reason why there wasn't any county cricket on Saturday ?
0 -
That is how the Irish Free state was formed. It seemed to be accepted as the will of the people.FrankBooth said:
So what about Scottish independence? Should that have been left to the politicians? And if so, would an SNP government running Scotland and an army of SNP MPs at Westminster be enough for Sturgeon to demand immediate secession?foxinsoxuk said:I think that may well be the first thing that Dawkins has said that I agree with.
Like Mrs T, I am not a fan of referenda. Deciding such issues is what we elect MPs for. The AV referendum was a case in point, it became all about bashing the LibDems rather than an intelligent discussion of how to elect our representatives.0 -
This will sink Labour in the GE, in my opinion. The issue will dominate the remainder of the campaign. Expect a grave and statesmanlike intervention from John Major.peter_from_putney said:
Sorry, there's also an important 5th factor which I omitted to mention and which is new to this particular GE.peter_from_putney said:It's not necessarily about a late swing as such. Rather it has more to do with voting factors:
1. The elderly and more Tory-inclined's propensity to vote.
2. The young, under 30, and more Labour-inclined's propensity not to bother registering to vote.
3. The Tories' better organisation in getting their vote out generally, assisted by a hugely bigger war chest.
4. The "Shy Tory" factor (as ever).
None of the above factors on their own is huge, but taken together thet probably account for far more than the 18 seat difference identified in this thread berween what the polls are suggesting and the prices on offer from the spread-betting firms and ultimately explains how and why John Major won quite comfotably in 1992.
Let's call it the English anti-Sturgeon/SNP Money Grubbing Very Left Wing vote. This is what it says on the can. The English voters, taken as a whole, must be sick and tired of the Scots taking an ever increasing share of social benefits across a wide range at the English taxpayers' expense.
How do they best curtail this? Certainly not by voting Labour who are very likely to need to get into bed with the SNP after the GE in order to establish a workable government and equally not by voting LibDem who are on the point of becomig an irrelevance.
No, the only way the English are likely to be able to limit the influence of the SNP is by voting Conservative - this fact is likely to become ever more evident as the campaign draws towards its close and is likely to be reflected in the polls.
0 -
Looks like it's just YouGov tonight.chestnut said:Is the Comres phone poll in tonight or do we have to wait until tomorrow for something worthwhile?
Makes you wonder why the ComRes/IoS poll got pushed back if ComRes hasn't been polling for the Mail....?
Perhaps the IoS just want to keep their poll to as close to the election as possible?
0 -
In many places it just isn't socially advisable or acceptable to publicise how you vote.NickPalmer said:One Tory garden stake has appeared (vs 80 Labour ones) and one window poster (vs hundreds of Labour ones). I don't get the strategy of having just one printed and erected in a random place - surely either they should make an effort and have lots (there are more than two Conservatives in Broxtowe), or make a virtue of having none ("we do not concern ourselves with such trivia, we are debating the issues", etc.)? Perhaps more will yet appear.
I wonder what kind of person does this. It really seems a bit abnormal.
Perhaps someone similar to a man with a white van with an England flag hanging out of their window does it?0 -
Did you know that Dawkins came out as the most unpopular face in America? He revels in playing the pantomime villain on Fox News a la Katie Hopkins here.foxinsoxuk said:I think that may well be the first thing that Dawkins has said that I agree with.
Like Mrs T, I am not a fan of referenda. Deciding such issues is what we elect MPs for. The AV referendum was a case in point, it became all about bashing the LibDems rather than an intelligent discussion of how to elect our representatives.
I find his sneery anti religion stuff quite obnoxious and adolescent- akin to reading the Communist Manifesto and thinking one knows it all. I have friends who are religious, and thoughtful and intelligent and compassionate.
0 -
Cons would be 20 seats down on their current position, so whilst the seat gap would be the same the "Majority mathematics" would be different.RobD said:
But that is just to get back to square one.Speedy said:As a reminder to all about the SNP impact on Labour most seats:
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · Apr 17
In terms of plurality LAB losses all 40 Scottish seats it could be offset by taking 20 CON seats in England & Wales.0 -
That's a very good call indeed.PeterC said:Expect a grave and statesmanlike intervention from John Major.
Major saved Cameron in 2007 when he intervened when Brown went to Afghanistan during the Con conference.
Lab/SNP is absolutely perfect for Major.
The only question is the timing. Cameron will know that Major will be guaranteed to be the number 1 news story as long as it doesn't clash with anything mega. But which day to do it?
Too soon and it loses effect but mustn't be too late either - certainly not the final day (as it may not lead news programmes then due to impartiality).
I would say maybe the final Monday.0 -
As a committed adherent to the pessimistic tory view of modern politics, I cannot help but suspect that the hatred of the Tories will trump fear/dislike of the SNP having too much influence in England. If anything plenty of those on the left seem to like the idea that Labour should be more openly and stridently lefty, and the SNP are promising to make that happen, shoring up the Labour vote, or that part of it at least, in some areas. Is that part of the vote bigger than the part which does not want to face the SNP dictating terms?PeterC said:
This will sink Labour in the GE, in my opinion. The issue will dominate the remainder of the campaign. Expect a grave and statesmanlike intervention from John Major.peter_from_putney said:
Sorry, there's also an important 5th factor which I omitted to mention and which is new to this particular GE.peter_from_putney said:It's not necessarily about a late swing as such. Rather it has more to do with voting factors:
1. The elderly and more Tory-inclined's propensity to vote.
2. The young, under 30, and more Labour-inclined's propensity not to bother registering to vote.
3. The Tories' better organisation in getting their vote out generally, assisted by a hugely bigger war chest.
4. The "Shy Tory" factor (as ever).
None of the above factors on their own is huge, but taken together thet probably account for far more than the 18 seat difference identified in this thread berween what the polls are suggesting and the prices on offer from the spread-betting firms and ultimately explains how and why John Major won quite comfotably in 1992.
Let's call it the English anti-Sturgeon/SNP Money Grubbing Very Left Wing vote. This is what it says on the can. The English voters, taken as a whole, must be sick and tired of the Scots taking an ever increasing share of social benefits across a wide range at the English taxpayers' expense.
How do they best curtail this? Certainly not by voting Labour who are very likely to need to get into bed with the SNP after the GE in order to establish a workable government and equally not by voting LibDem who are on the point of becomig an irrelevance.
No, the only way the English are likely to be able to limit the influence of the SNP is by voting Conservative - this fact is likely to become ever more evident as the campaign draws towards its close and is likely to be reflected in the polls.0 -
As my Honorius reference shows, I have a great and unrivalled knowledge of Classical History on PB.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, one shudders to think what cruel marring of history your ignorance will inflict upon the site.
Mr. Speedy, goodnight. That seems a weird thing for a group to do.
I shall display all the humility of Crassus at Carrhae in my future classical history references.0 -
It's hard to believe that the Conservatives have had five years to plan their election campaign. From the outside it looks like a daily panic.PeterC said:
This will sink Labour in the GE, in my opinion. The issue will dominate the remainder of the campaign. Expect a grave and statesmanlike intervention from John Major.peter_from_putney said:
Sorry, there's also an important 5th factor which I omitted to mention and which is new to this particular GE.peter_from_putney said:It's not necessarily about a late swing as such. Rather it has more to do with voting factors:
1. The elderly and more Tory-inclined's propensity to vote.
2. The young, under 30, and more Labour-inclined's propensity not to bother registering to vote.
3. The Tories' better organisation in getting their vote out generally, assisted by a hugely bigger war chest.
4. The "Shy Tory" factor (as ever).
None of the above factors on their own is huge, but taken together thet probably account for far more than the 18 seat difference identified in this thread berween what the polls are suggesting and the prices on offer from the spread-betting firms and ultimately explains how and why John Major won quite comfotably in 1992.
Let's call it the English anti-Sturgeon/SNP Money Grubbing Very Left Wing vote. This is what it says on the can. The English voters, taken as a whole, must be sick and tired of the Scots taking an ever increasing share of social benefits across a wide range at the English taxpayers' expense.
How do they best curtail this? Certainly not by voting Labour who are very likely to need to get into bed with the SNP after the GE in order to establish a workable government and equally not by voting LibDem who are on the point of becomig an irrelevance.
No, the only way the English are likely to be able to limit the influence of the SNP is by voting Conservative - this fact is likely to become ever more evident as the campaign draws towards its close and is likely to be reflected in the polls.
0 -
The left leaning friends who've discussed this with me share my opinion, rather quite liking the idea of a labour government backed up informally by the SNP.NickPalmer said:Well, tomorrow is the end of registration - when do we get national data on comparative levels? Our postal votes go out on Tuesday when PV registration closes.
Idle anecdotia: I found an SNP voter last week, pondering what to do as sadly they've not put someone up here. The "oh God you might join the evil Nats" line doesn't seem to be manifesting itself here much, though I'm getting the slightly uncomfortable opposite from time to time ("Why have you ruled out a coalition with Sturgeon, she seems quite sensible?"). The Tories have switched their billboards from Salmond to "Labour will cost you £3205.63" or something like that.
After doing the first three debates, Ms Soubry is skipping the next two, so we'll have opposition-only debates just like the BBC. One Tory garden stake has appeared (vs 80 Labour ones) and one window poster (vs hundreds of Labour ones). I don't get the strategy of having just one printed and erected in a random place - surely either they should make an effort and have lots (there are more than two Conservatives in Broxtowe), or make a virtue of having none ("we do not concern ourselves with such trivia, we are debating the issues", etc.)? Perhaps more will yet appear.
And yeah, Flightpath, this is not a neutral commentary - just idle chatter after a busy day.
Hear their manifesto will call for significant investment in the north of England, on a par with the level seen in the south east, this will see a lot of labour supporters in the north quite liking the idea of them having some influence.0 -
I share a building with an ex Tory MP, and, at the last election, my friend, a LD councillor asked me to put a "LD winning here" stake out at the front shared garden (well we all make mistakes don't we). I asked for his permission and he looked at me as if I had asked to murder and eat his grand children. He never even gave me a response. And I never put out the stake. We are still on friendly terms mind.chestnut said:
In many places it just isn't socially advisable or acceptable to publicise how you vote.NickPalmer said:One Tory garden stake has appeared (vs 80 Labour ones) and one window poster (vs hundreds of Labour ones). I don't get the strategy of having just one printed and erected in a random place - surely either they should make an effort and have lots (there are more than two Conservatives in Broxtowe), or make a virtue of having none ("we do not concern ourselves with such trivia, we are debating the issues", etc.)? Perhaps more will yet appear.
I wonder what kind of person does this. It really seems a bit abnormal.
Perhaps someone similar to a man with a white van with an England flag hanging out of their window does it?
0 -
Perhaps the only call regarding this disconnect between much of the polling and the seat markets is the view that Labour are going to ship so many seats in Scotland that they just cant make up the deficit.
Thats a risky assumption on both counts.0 -
Strident lefty types are small beer compared to the floating voters in the middle England marginals.kle4 said:
As a committed adherent to the pessimistic tory view of modern politics, I cannot help but suspect that the hatred of the Tories will trump fear/dislike of the SNP having too much influence in England. If anything plenty of those on the left seem to like the idea that Labour should be more openly and stridently lefty, and the SNP are promising to make that happen, shoring up the Labour vote, or that part of it at least, in some areas. Is that part of the vote bigger than the part which does not want to face the SNP dictating terms?PeterC said:
This will sink Labour in the GE, in my opinion. The issue will dominate the remainder of the campaign. Expect a grave and statesmanlike intervention from John Major.peter_from_putney said:
Sorry, there's also an important 5th factor which I omitted to mention and which is new to this particular GE.peter_from_putney said:It's not necessarily about a late swing as such. Rather it has more to do with voting factors:
1. The elderly and more Tory-inclined's propensity to vote.
2. The young, under 30, and more Labour-inclined's propensity not to bother registering to vote.
3. The Tories' better organisation in getting their vote out generally, assisted by a hugely bigger war chest.
4. The "Shy Tory" factor (as ever).
None of the above factors on their own is huge, but taken together thet probably account for far more than the 18 seat difference identified in this thread berween what the polls are suggesting and the prices on offer from the spread-betting firms and ultimately explains how and why John Major won quite comfotably in 1992.
Let's call it the English anti-Sturgeon/SNP Money Grubbing Very Left Wing vote. This is what it says on the can. The English voters, taken as a whole, must be sick and tired of the Scots taking an ever increasing share of social benefits across a wide range at the English taxpayers' expense.
How do they best curtail this? Certainly not by voting Labour who are very likely to need to get into bed with the SNP after the GE in order to establish a workable government and equally not by voting LibDem who are on the point of becomig an irrelevance.
No, the only way the English are likely to be able to limit the influence of the SNP is by voting Conservative - this fact is likely to become ever more evident as the campaign draws towards its close and is likely to be reflected in the polls.
0 -
ManchesterKurt said:
The left leaning friends who've discussed this with me share my opinion, rather quite liking the idea of a labour government backed up informally by the SNP.NickPalmer said:Well, tomorrow is the end of registration - when do we get national data on comparative levels? Our postal votes go out on Tuesday when PV registration closes.
Idle anecdotia: I found an SNP voter last week, pondering what to do as sadly they've not put someone up here. The "oh God you might join the evil Nats" line doesn't seem to be manifesting itself here much, though I'm getting the slightly uncomfortable opposite from time to time ("Why have you ruled out a coalition with Sturgeon, she seems quite sensible?"). The Tories have switched their billboards from Salmond to "Labour will cost you £3205.63" or something like that.
After doing the first three debates, Ms Soubry is skipping the next two, so we'll have opposition-only debates just like the BBC. One Tory garden stake has appeared (vs 80 Labour ones) and one window poster (vs hundreds of Labour ones). I don't get the strategy of having just one printed and erected in a random place - surely either they should make an effort and have lots (there are more than two Conservatives in Broxtowe), or make a virtue of having none ("we do not concern ourselves with such trivia, we are debating the issues", etc.)? Perhaps more will yet appear.
And yeah, Flightpath, this is not a neutral commentary - just idle chatter after a busy day.
Hear their manifesto will call for significant investment in the north of England, on a par with the level seen in the south east, this will see a lot of labour supporters in the north quite liking the idea of them having some influence.
What investment in the South East?
0
