politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Could shy Kippers become a problem for pollsters like shy T
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Could shy Kippers become a problem for pollsters like shy Tories in the 90s was?
Shy isn’t the first adjective I’d normally associate with UKIP supporters, but ever since David Cameron’s (in)famous comment about UKIP being a bunch of “fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists mostly” there’s been a perception that UKIP are the BNP in blazers.
Comments
-
First!0
-
I would have been first - but I've actually written a genuine post!
Personally I'm not embarrassed to tells friends and family that I'm voting Ukip. But under no circumstances would I want my work colleagues to know!
Ukip's share of the vote will be one of the interesting things on the night - though it probably won't make much difference to the number of seats that Ukip wins.
Of course, Ukip's performance could be vital in determining the outcome of Tory-Labour marginals.0 -
Pulpster linked to an LSE post the other day that suggests 'shy kippers' are more likely to be in Labour seats than Con seats.
"... the by-election polls (all of which are conducted by phone) that have underestimated UKIP’s vote share have tended to be in more “Labour” areas (Barnsley, Wythenshawe & Sale East and Heywood & Middleton), whereas in contests with the Conservatives (Newark, Clacton and Rochester & Strood) the polls have relatively accurately measured the UKIP vote share, or even modestly overestimated it."
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/generalelection/polling-divergence-phone-versus-online-and-established-versus-new/
Although this might also be that in Labour seats UKIP is drawing support from 2010 non-voters rather than 2010 converts, and they are being down-weighted by the pollsters.
The recent Mellon/Evans article said that Labour do not have to worry so much about UKIP eating into their current vote, as they appeal more to the Old Labour supporters who stopped voting Labour during the New Labour years.0 -
Are tactical voters more likely to admit to intending to vote UKIP, or less? Consider, for example, one of the rare Conservative supporter in Rotherham planning to vote UKIP on the theory they've got the best chance of hurting Labour there
Such a person may well be less embarrassed to admit voting UKIP, since they don't really support them, but they're probably less likely to say they're proud of voting UKIP than a genuine supporter.0 -
The number and quality of second places achieved by Ukip in safe Labour seats will be interesting. For too long Labour have been able to put a red rosette on a donkey and win; that may not be the case after May 7th.anotherDave said:Pulpster linked to an LSE post the other day that suggests 'shy kippers' are more likely to be in Labour seats than Con seats.
"... the by-election polls (all of which are conducted by phone) that have underestimated UKIP’s vote share have tended to be in more “Labour” areas (Barnsley, Wythenshawe & Sale East and Heywood & Middleton), whereas in contests with the Conservatives (Newark, Clacton and Rochester & Strood) the polls have relatively accurately measured the UKIP vote share, or even modestly overestimated it."
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/generalelection/polling-divergence-phone-versus-online-and-established-versus-new/
Thinking ahead to May 7th/8th, some of the early declarations are unlikely to be useful in determining how the election is going to pan out. In those Sunderland seats the rise of Ukip could give a false impression of the swing from the Tories to Labour in the rest of the country, though I'm not sure in which direction. Still, it could be fun watching politicians getting overly excited about something that means very little!0 -
That's annoying. It's looking like I might have to stay up to watch the results come in rather than get some sleep. :-(tlg86 said:
Thinking ahead to May 7th/8th, some of the early declarations are unlikely to be useful in determining how the election is going to pan out. In those Sunderland seats the rise of Ukip could give a false impression of the swing from the Tories to Labour in the rest of the country, though I'm not sure in which direction. Still, it could be fun watching politicians getting overly excited about something that means very little!anotherDave said:Pulpster linked to an LSE post the other day that suggests 'shy kippers' are more likely to be in Labour seats than Con seats.
"... the by-election polls (all of which are conducted by phone) that have underestimated UKIP’s vote share have tended to be in more “Labour” areas (Barnsley, Wythenshawe & Sale East and Heywood & Middleton), whereas in contests with the Conservatives (Newark, Clacton and Rochester & Strood) the polls have relatively accurately measured the UKIP vote share, or even modestly overestimated it."
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/generalelection/polling-divergence-phone-versus-online-and-established-versus-new/
0 -
One time I will be glad of being on GMT+8, I will be getting up just as the polls close, I can spend the day at the beach bar trying to keep up with results on my woeful 3G connection, its tough but someone has to do it.anotherDave said:
That's annoying. It's looking like I might have to stay up to watch the results come in rather than get some sleep. :-(tlg86 said:
Thinking ahead to May 7th/8th, some of the early declarations are unlikely to be useful in determining how the election is going to pan out. In those Sunderland seats the rise of Ukip could give a false impression of the swing from the Tories to Labour in the rest of the country, though I'm not sure in which direction. Still, it could be fun watching politicians getting overly excited about something that means very little!anotherDave said:Pulpster linked to an LSE post the other day that suggests 'shy kippers' are more likely to be in Labour seats than Con seats.
"... the by-election polls (all of which are conducted by phone) that have underestimated UKIP’s vote share have tended to be in more “Labour” areas (Barnsley, Wythenshawe & Sale East and Heywood & Middleton), whereas in contests with the Conservatives (Newark, Clacton and Rochester & Strood) the polls have relatively accurately measured the UKIP vote share, or even modestly overestimated it."
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/generalelection/polling-divergence-phone-versus-online-and-established-versus-new/0 -
Sleep? What's that? And whyever would you want any?anotherDave said:
That's annoying. It's looking like I might have to stay up to watch the results come in rather than get some sleep. :-(tlg86 said:
Thinking ahead to May 7th/8th, some of the early declarations are unlikely to be useful in determining how the election is going to pan out. In those Sunderland seats the rise of Ukip could give a false impression of the swing from the Tories to Labour in the rest of the country, though I'm not sure in which direction. Still, it could be fun watching politicians getting overly excited about something that means very little!anotherDave said:Pulpster linked to an LSE post the other day that suggests 'shy kippers' are more likely to be in Labour seats than Con seats.
"... the by-election polls (all of which are conducted by phone) that have underestimated UKIP’s vote share have tended to be in more “Labour” areas (Barnsley, Wythenshawe & Sale East and Heywood & Middleton), whereas in contests with the Conservatives (Newark, Clacton and Rochester & Strood) the polls have relatively accurately measured the UKIP vote share, or even modestly overestimated it."
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/generalelection/polling-divergence-phone-versus-online-and-established-versus-new/
On topic: the first table shows more clearly than anything else I've seen the problem that all our politicians have. It also suggests that, despite the widest choice in living memory, turnout may well be at the lower end of expectations. Solidaristic voting is a thing of the past...
0 -
Looking at Euro 2014, ICM were the only pollster to substantially understate UKIP, while TNS, Opinium, Survation and Comres (online?) all overstated by 3.5-5.5%.
I had a look at Ashcroft's Thurrock numbers yesterday.
On the basis of 2010 voters, UKIP are a distant third. They need the disengaged to turn out in substantial numbers and are locked in a two way fight with Labour for the C2DE vote, the Tories are comfortably ahead among ABC1.0 -
The EU Parliament result is distorted by 'an independence from europe'.chestnut said:Looking at Euro 2014, ICM were the only pollster to substantially understate UKIP, while TNS, Opinium, Survation and Comres (online?) all overstated by 3.5-5.5%.
They seem to have been trying to pass themselves off as UKIP, so it's certainly possible that their voters had told pollsters they intended to vote for UKIP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014_(United_Kingdom)#Results
0 -
Credit where credit's due. Even in these difficult times the super rich have doubled their wealth since this government came to power.
http://news.yahoo.com/rich-richer-uk-index-wealthiest-people-213733069.html0 -
All ukip people I speak to have remarked on a discernible uplift in support in the last week. This may be natural enthusiasm and optimism but Nigel and people in HQ are noticeably more cheerful.0
-
OGH tweets: At GE10 CON had 10.2% vote lead over LAB in England+Wales & are nowhere near replicating that. Inevitably this will lead to losses to LAB
Any other party's poll results changed significantly? :|Innocent Face|:0 -
One of the reasons why they are paying more tax than they did under Labour.....Roger said:Credit where credit's due. Even in these difficult times the super rich have doubled their wealth since this government came to power.
http://news.yahoo.com/rich-richer-uk-index-wealthiest-people-213733069.html0 -
Thought for the day: Anyone know why 'Wings over Scotland' have based their logo on the Waffen SS?
http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/5981/thirdreicheagle.jpg
http://wingsoverscotland.com/0 -
Apparently this has happened worldwide and with the ability of the super rich to move throughout various jurisdictions it is an issue that needs a worldwide solution - no country will be able to do anything about it on their ownRoger said:Credit where credit's due. Even in these difficult times the super rich have doubled their wealth since this government came to power.
http://news.yahoo.com/rich-richer-uk-index-wealthiest-people-213733069.html0 -
Is there a National Socialist kit, where you customise a prepared blank?Roger said:Thought for the day: Anyone know why 'Wings over Scotland' have based their logo on the Waffen SS?
http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/5981/thirdreicheagle.jpg
http://wingsoverscotland.com/0 -
Morning Carlotta. Have you decided who you're voting for yet?0
-
On Rogerdamus 'the Tory story about Labour-SNP will put voters off Tory'........
Powers of prediction undiminished.
I think Party X would do a deal with Party Y it would put me off Party X:
Con + UKIP: 27
Con + LD: 20
Lab + LD: 18
Lab + SNP: 40
If the SNP do manage to win a large number of seats at the general election - thirty, forty or more - do you think it will be a good or bad thing for British politics?
Net 'good thing'
E&W: -41
Scot: +6
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/jermn7st06/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-250415.pdf0 -
Another Dave
"Is there a National Socialist kit, where you customise a prepared blank?"
I think you're right. All Nationalist/fascist movements seem to base their logos on the Nazi symbol of an eagle above a swastika0 -
'5p a litre fuel rise with Mili at No10'
Sun in utter panic now0 -
This is one of the polling problems that UKIP throws up.0
-
Sun Politics @SunPolitics 3m3 minutes ago
EXCL - The Bozfather: Boris blasts back-stabbing Ed
Counterproductive bollox IMO0 -
Maybe so. The Sun doesn't like backing the losing horse in elections. But I fear they have done in this election, and they probably know it.bigjohnowls said:'5p a litre fuel rise with Mili at No10'
Sun in utter panic now
Of course none of the newspapers have the readership they once enjoyed, so whoever they back it's never going to have the influence it once did. All the printed press are down more than 50% on their numbers in the 90s. And The Sun puts its articles behind a paywall, which further limits their impact. I'd imagine internet and social media is much more influential these days. The Sun may tweet out all their stories, but you need to be signed up to Sun+ to read the actual content.0 -
Pride in hypothetically voting Green runs way ahead of their actual polling levels.0
-
The day before the Heywood by-election Election Data (who was working with the Labour campaign there) put up a post saying that Labour were going to cruise to a win, because UKIP's strong wards were all chock full of non-voters. Whoops!antifrank said:This is one of the polling problems that UKIP throws up.
0 -
It is utterly extraordinary that the Tories are not romping home. Ed is still crap (relatively), Labour is about to get destroyed in Scotland, the economy is improving, the rise of the SNP is said to be terrifying right of centre English voters - and yet even though they'll easily get most seats the Tories seem to be struggling to get close to a majority. This is not the way it should have been.
And before we get all the BS about Labour's unfair advantage under the current electoral map, let's remember that FPTP also gives the Tories a huge advantage over most other parties, so that 35% of the vote will deliver for more than 35% of MPs.0 -
Boris will get away with it. I am surprised he hasn't been all over the campaign but maybe that's to do with internal politics in the conservative partybigjohnowls said:Sun Politics @SunPolitics 3m3 minutes ago
EXCL - The Bozfather: Boris blasts back-stabbing Ed
Counterproductive bollox IMO0 -
The Conservatives' big problem is that they are seen as the party of the rich, for the rich. That excludes a lot of the electorate.SouthamObserver said:It is utterly extraordinary that the Tories are not romping home. Ed is still crap (relatively), Labour is about to get destroyed in Scotland, the economy is improving, the rise of the SNP is said to be terrifying right of centre English voters - and yet even though they'll easily get most seats the Tories seem to be struggling to get close to a majority. This is not the way it should have been.
And before we get all the BS about Labour's unfair advantage under the current electoral map, let's remember that FPTP also gives the Tories a huge advantage over most other parties, so that 35% of the vote will deliver for more than 35% of MPs.0 -
Doesn't this show the opposite of shy kippers?
Yougov often ask the embarrassed/proud question on all sorts of market research. Would you be proud/embarrassed to work for the BBC/Channel 4/Daily Express type question.
The top bar chart looks as if it was asked of all respondents, not just kippers, so an LD like me would say they would be embarrassed to vote UKIP. Not a meaningful question really, and it explains why voters are embarrassed by all parties, with the bigger two showing less embarrassment. I do not believe that there are many shy Greens either!
The second question shows there is not much shy about kippers. They are proud of their party and beliefs. They are a marmite party that brings out strong feelings in one direction or another.
0 -
It's quite likely that much of the non-Labour vote will coalesce around UKIP in safe Labour seats. Whether they manage to get direct switchers from Labour is less certain. However, if the Tories are losing votes in places it does not matter, if the polls are right that means they are holding onto and even gaining votes where it does matter.antifrank said:This is one of the polling problems that UKIP throws up.
0 -
Carlotta.
"On Rogerdamus 'the Tory story about Labour-SNP will put voters off Tory'........
Powers of prediction undiminished."
Thanks Carlotta. Your praise is always welcome. As it happens in this instance I don't believe their questions could reach those conclusions. The only way you could would be through a complex questionaire or face to face in a focus group.0 -
Or in the ballot box on the 7th MayRoger said:Carlotta.
"On Rogerdamus 'the Tory story about Labour-SNP will put voters off Tory'........
Powers of prediction undiminished."
Thanks Carlotta. Your praise is always welcome. As it happens in this instance I don't believe their questions could reach those conclusions. The only way you could would be through a complex questionaire or face to face in a focus group.0 -
Today's Mail headline shows that Theresa May is probably ever so slightly mad.0
-
If the all voters question skews to one party, you might expect UKIP supporters in safe seats for that party to be 'shy'.foxinsoxuk said:Doesn't this show the opposite of shy kippers?
Yougov often ask the embarrassed/proud question on all sorts of market research. Would you be proud/embarrassed to work for the BBC/Channel 4/Daily Express type question.
The top bar chart looks as if it was asked of all respondents, not just kippers, so an LD like me would say they would be embarrassed to vote UKIP. Not a meaningful question really, and it explains why voters are embarrassed by all parties, with the bigger two showing less embarrassment. I do not believe that there are many shy Greens either!
The second question shows there is not much shy about kippers. They are proud of their party and beliefs. They are a marmite party that brings out strong feelings in one direction or another.
I can't seem to find the post now, but UKIP Wales did have a piece up detailing some of the intimidation they/their candidates have experienced. If I recall correctly two UKIP shops have burned down, and candidates have been 'approached' either with commercial threats (losing public sector contracts) or open physical threats to themselves/their families.
0 -
Has the economy really recovered that much ? Inflation is low, but then it is low in many other countries. Many people in the public sector have not received pay rises for years now. Many of the new jobs created, are not that well paid. The cost of housing and energy are higher than they were 5 years ago, but many do not have the extra pay to afford this.SouthamObserver said:It is utterly extraordinary that the Tories are not romping home. Ed is still crap (relatively), Labour is about to get destroyed in Scotland, the economy is improving, the rise of the SNP is said to be terrifying right of centre English voters - and yet even though they'll easily get most seats the Tories seem to be struggling to get close to a majority. This is not the way it should have been.
And before we get all the BS about Labour's unfair advantage under the current electoral map, let's remember that FPTP also gives the Tories a huge advantage over most other parties, so that 35% of the vote will deliver for more than 35% of MPs.
The polling question by Yougov about being in touch with the concerns of ordinary people is always revealing for the Tories. Unless you can evidence that you are looking after most people and understand their lifes, then votes will go to other parties.0 -
Colour me a bit sceptical. The evidence is that Tory voters are notoriously unlikely to vote tactically. If this were different then Danny Alexander would be likely to keep his seat. So would Clegg in Sheffield Hallam.SouthamObserver said:
It's quite likely that much of the non-Labour vote will coalesce around UKIP in safe Labour seats. Whether they manage to get direct switchers from Labour is less certain. However, if the Tories are losing votes in places it does not matter, if the polls are right that means they are holding onto and even gaining votes where it does matter.antifrank said:This is one of the polling problems that UKIP throws up.
UKIP are not picking up tactical votes in Labour safe seats. I think that they are winning genuine converts there.0 -
You keep pushing this meme, but it simply isn't true, and suggests a huge sense of entitlement. The Tories have no right to "romp home": they simply have to persuade enough voters that they are the best option. Personally, I think that, from a purely rational analysis, the Tories have absolutely deserve re-election, but if voters don't want to listen, or want to make their judgement on other criteria, then that is their prerogative.SouthamObserver said:It is utterly extraordinary that the Tories are not romping home. Ed is still crap (relatively), Labour is about to get destroyed in Scotland, the economy is improving, the rise of the SNP is said to be terrifying right of centre English voters - and yet even though they'll easily get most seats the Tories seem to be struggling to get close to a majority. This is not the way it should have been.
And before we get all the BS about Labour's unfair advantage under the current electoral map, let's remember that FPTP also gives the Tories a huge advantage over most other parties, so that 35% of the vote will deliver for more than 35% of MPs.
What is actually happening is that the right is going through one of those spasms that happen every couple of generations or so* (1825s-1835s, 1846-1864, 1908-1913 for instance) and that will make it very difficult for them to win. UKIP are this generation's Ultras* and this generation's Ditchers*: irrelevant in the long term as they will fade away as society continues to change, but passionate about defending their (principally) social values.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-Tories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ditchers
0 -
Super rich bad: Rich goodRoger said:Credit where credit's due. Even in these difficult times the super rich have doubled their wealth since this government came to power.
http://news.yahoo.com/rich-richer-uk-index-wealthiest-people-213733069.html
Eton bad: Minor public school good
It's interesting where you draw the line and build the barricade, Roger.
0 -
The impact of coalition:
http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-findings/the-impact-of-coalition-on-the-2015-general-election/#.VTyJWiFVhHw
This shows that people are much more likely to vote for the smaller parties if they expect a hung parliament.
0 -
Usually just after where you stand personally...frpenkridge said:
Super rich bad: Rich goodRoger said:Credit where credit's due. Even in these difficult times the super rich have doubled their wealth since this government came to power.
http://news.yahoo.com/rich-richer-uk-index-wealthiest-people-213733069.html
Eton bad: Minor public school good
It's interesting where you draw the line and build the barricade, Roger.0 -
Didn't Theresa May campaign for a continuation of FPTP in 2011?0
-
Slightly ! The way she behaves sometimes is odd. e.g the nonsence in parliament where she promised a vote on the European arrest warrant and then decided not to bother, without giving an explanation in advance of the debate. This then led to a massive argument, which could have been avoided, if she had bothered to just explain the technical reason why a vote could not take place.SouthamObserver said:Today's Mail headline shows that Theresa May is probably ever so slightly mad.
0 -
Hmm. So the Conservatives pushing the SNP in government line might actually drive up support for UKIP/Greens/LDs? That would be funny.logical_song said:The impact of coalition:
http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-findings/the-impact-of-coalition-on-the-2015-general-election/#.VTyJWiFVhHw
This shows that people are much more likely to vote for the smaller parties if they expect a hung parliament.
0 -
So, we'd expect Labour's vote to go down in its safe seats? Or maybe the LD switchers are making up for UKIP ones? If it's the former - and Labour does not lose any seats as a result - it's very good news for them in terms of this election.foxinsoxuk said:
Colour me a bit sceptical. The evidence is that Tory voters are notoriously unlikely to vote tactically. If this were different then Danny Alexander would be likely to keep his seat. So would Clegg in Sheffield Hallam.SouthamObserver said:
It's quite likely that much of the non-Labour vote will coalesce around UKIP in safe Labour seats. Whether they manage to get direct switchers from Labour is less certain. However, if the Tories are losing votes in places it does not matter, if the polls are right that means they are holding onto and even gaining votes where it does matter.antifrank said:This is one of the polling problems that UKIP throws up.
UKIP are not picking up tactical votes in Labour safe seats. I think that they are winning genuine converts there.
0 -
The Mellon/Evans argument is that UKIP should win over ex-Labour voters that Labour has already pushed away 1997-2010.SouthamObserver said:
So, we'd expect Labour's vote to go down in its safe seats? Or maybe the LD switchers are making up for UKIP ones? If it's the former - and Labour does not lose any seats as a result - it's very good news for them in terms of this election.foxinsoxuk said:
Colour me a bit sceptical. The evidence is that Tory voters are notoriously unlikely to vote tactically. If this were different then Danny Alexander would be likely to keep his seat. So would Clegg in Sheffield Hallam.SouthamObserver said:
It's quite likely that much of the non-Labour vote will coalesce around UKIP in safe Labour seats. Whether they manage to get direct switchers from Labour is less certain. However, if the Tories are losing votes in places it does not matter, if the polls are right that means they are holding onto and even gaining votes where it does matter.antifrank said:This is one of the polling problems that UKIP throws up.
UKIP are not picking up tactical votes in Labour safe seats. I think that they are winning genuine converts there.
That suggests 2005/2010 low turnout seats might be the surprises on election night.
0 -
Postal Votes done.
Pen hovered over Trade Union Socialist Coalition and Green but ended up in Lab box.0 -
Yes looks that way. Quite surprising, but I guess that it negates the 'wasted vote' idea. Also it makes it more likely that it will continue to happen.anotherDave said:
Hmm. So the Conservatives pushing the SNP in government line might actually drive up support for UKIP/Greens/LDs? That would be funny.logical_song said:The impact of coalition:
http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-findings/the-impact-of-coalition-on-the-2015-general-election/#.VTyJWiFVhHw
This shows that people are much more likely to vote for the smaller parties if they expect a hung parliament.0 -
Is it me or are the polls at the moment all over the place ? I thought that a few weeks ago, they were starting to settle down neck/neck Lab/Con. But in the last week the different polls are saying different things. Yougov changed their method about a month ago and they now mostly show a small Labour lead, whereas other polls are not as steady.0
-
To be fair to the Tories, they have delivered for all of us top rate taxpayers, haven't they? Markets booming, property prices soaring, top rate tax cut, dividend tax rate cut and so on. There's never been a better time to be well off.Charles said:
Usually just after where you stand personally...frpenkridge said:
Super rich bad: Rich goodRoger said:Credit where credit's due. Even in these difficult times the super rich have doubled their wealth since this government came to power.
http://news.yahoo.com/rich-richer-uk-index-wealthiest-people-213733069.html
Eton bad: Minor public school good
It's interesting where you draw the line and build the barricade, Roger.
0 -
Moving average chart of the 100 most recent YouGov polls. Click to enlarge...
0 -
SO
"It is utterly extraordinary that the Tories are not romping home."
Even after the most incoherent campaign anyone can remember and the visible flowering of Ed over the last four weeks?
I get a real sense that Labour have become 'the hope over fear' party which as you suggest is a miracle. And I think most of it is down to the reflected glow of Ed's backing group Nicola Leanne and Natalie making the left look fashionable0 -
UKIP doesn't just take support from the Conservatives, unlike the Ditchers and Ultras. I'd have thought the social changes that have fuelled UKIP's support (globalisation, radical Islam, mass migration) won't be going away any time soon.Charles said:
You keep pushing this meme, but it simply isn't true, and suggests a huge sense of entitlement. The Tories have no right to "romp home": they simply have to persuade enough voters that they are the best option. Personally, I think that, from a purely rational analysis, the Tories have absolutely deserve re-election, but if voters don't want to listen, or want to make their judgement on other criteria, then that is their prerogative.SouthamObserver said:It is utterly extraordinary that the Tories are not romping home. Ed is still crap (relatively), Labour is about to get destroyed in Scotland, the economy is improving, the rise of the SNP is said to be terrifying right of centre English voters - and yet even though they'll easily get most seats the Tories seem to be struggling to get close to a majority. This is not the way it should have been.
And before we get all the BS about Labour's unfair advantage under the current electoral map, let's remember that FPTP also gives the Tories a huge advantage over most other parties, so that 35% of the vote will deliver for more than 35% of MPs.
What is actually happening is that the right is going through one of those spasms that happen every couple of generations or so* (1825s-1835s, 1846-1864, 1908-1913 for instance) and that will make it very difficult for them to win. UKIP are this generation's Ultras* and this generation's Ditchers*: irrelevant in the long term as they will fade away as society continues to change, but passionate about defending their (principally) social values.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-Tories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ditchers
Matthew Parris thought the Conservatives could ditch places like Clacton and other struggling towns, because they don't represent the future. But, perhaps the Clactons, Grimsbys, Great Yarmouths etc. (as well as Tower Hamlets and Rotherham) do represent the future0 -
Indeed. And I expect this process to accelerate during the final 72 hours of the campaign, delivering Cammo a 1992-sized majority or thereabouts.SouthamObserver said:
It's quite likely that much of the non-Labour vote will coalesce around UKIP in safe Labour seats. Whether they manage to get direct switchers from Labour is less certain. However, if the Tories are losing votes in places it does not matter, if the polls are right that means they are holding onto and even gaining votes where it does matter.antifrank said:This is one of the polling problems that UKIP throws up.
0 -
If I do vote Ukip,and I probably will, it won't be a matter of pride. It will be because I feel insulted by the mainstream politicians. It may be my getting older, but I feel increasingly annoyed by childish politics.
A recent example ... Ed and his article in the Muslim newspaper saying he is going to outlaw Isamophobia. Extra punishments for insulting a selected group who are special. Je ne suis Charlie indeed.
Why not pick out Christianophobia? Why not Jewishphobia? Oh wait a minute, there is something called antisemitismy - something some of my Muslim colleagues, although otherwise affable, are certainly guilty of. So he's talking about selective protection for a favoured group.
Or more likely, and giving him the benefit of the doubt, he will hope to garner a few votes and then quietly ignore his promise.
Being all things to all men is an LD pastime and Cameron is no slouch, but why do they think it works. Because the voters are fools.
Nicola has some odd policies but she tends to say it as she sees it. Even the Greens are deluded but honest.
Lie to me by all means, I expect you to, but don't insult my intelligence by treating us all as children.0 -
Dave's heart isn't in it. The PMs lack of ambition/ideas is keeping Labour in the game.SouthamObserver said:It is utterly extraordinary that the Tories are not romping home. Ed is still crap (relatively), Labour is about to get destroyed in Scotland, the economy is improving, the rise of the SNP is said to be terrifying right of centre English voters - and yet even though they'll easily get most seats the Tories seem to be struggling to get close to a majority. This is not the way it should have been.
And before we get all the BS about Labour's unfair advantage under the current electoral map, let's remember that FPTP also gives the Tories a huge advantage over most other parties, so that 35% of the vote will deliver for more than 35% of MPs.0 -
Only if Tory voters vote tactically and turnout increases, surely. On that basis, the Sunderland seats could reveal quite a lot.anotherDave said:
The Mellon/Evans argument is that UKIP should win over ex-Labour voters that Labour has already pushed away 1997-2010.SouthamObserver said:
So, we'd expect Labour's vote to go down in its safe seats? Or maybe the LD switchers are making up for UKIP ones? If it's the former - and Labour does not lose any seats as a result - it's very good news for them in terms of this election.foxinsoxuk said:
Colour me a bit sceptical. The evidence is that Tory voters are notoriously unlikely to vote tactically. If this were different then Danny Alexander would be likely to keep his seat. So would Clegg in Sheffield Hallam.SouthamObserver said:
It's quite likely that much of the non-Labour vote will coalesce around UKIP in safe Labour seats. Whether they manage to get direct switchers from Labour is less certain. However, if the Tories are losing votes in places it does not matter, if the polls are right that means they are holding onto and even gaining votes where it does matter.antifrank said:This is one of the polling problems that UKIP throws up.
UKIP are not picking up tactical votes in Labour safe seats. I think that they are winning genuine converts there.
That suggests 2005/2010 low turnout seats might be the surprises on election night.
0 -
I think that's crucial. Cameron's been there, done that, and got the T-Shirt, and has no hunger for the job any more.Jonathan said:
Dave's heart isn't in it. The PMs lack of ambition/ideas is keeping Labour in the game.SouthamObserver said:It is utterly extraordinary that the Tories are not romping home. Ed is still crap (relatively), Labour is about to get destroyed in Scotland, the economy is improving, the rise of the SNP is said to be terrifying right of centre English voters - and yet even though they'll easily get most seats the Tories seem to be struggling to get close to a majority. This is not the way it should have been.
And before we get all the BS about Labour's unfair advantage under the current electoral map, let's remember that FPTP also gives the Tories a huge advantage over most other parties, so that 35% of the vote will deliver for more than 35% of MPs.0 -
Wow.10 days to go.Exciting!0
-
What's keeping Labour in the game are the LD switchers and EdM not (yet) having a meltdown.Sean_F said:
I think that's crucial. Cameron's been there, done that, and got the T-Shirt, and has no hunger for the job any more.Jonathan said:
Dave's heart isn't in it. The PMs lack of ambition/ideas is keeping Labour in the game.SouthamObserver said:It is utterly extraordinary that the Tories are not romping home. Ed is still crap (relatively), Labour is about to get destroyed in Scotland, the economy is improving, the rise of the SNP is said to be terrifying right of centre English voters - and yet even though they'll easily get most seats the Tories seem to be struggling to get close to a majority. This is not the way it should have been.
And before we get all the BS about Labour's unfair advantage under the current electoral map, let's remember that FPTP also gives the Tories a huge advantage over most other parties, so that 35% of the vote will deliver for more than 35% of MPs.
0 -
Mili is the new Mickle Jagger.His swagger is what's carrying Lab through at this time0
-
Great Grimsby. Labour vote.SouthamObserver said:
Only if Tory voters vote tactically and turnout increases, surely. On that basis, the Sunderland seats could reveal quite a lot.anotherDave said:
The Mellon/Evans argument is that UKIP should win over ex-Labour voters that Labour has already pushed away 1997-2010.SouthamObserver said:
So, we'd expect Labour's vote to go down in its safe seats? Or maybe the LD switchers are making up for UKIP ones? If it's the former - and Labour does not lose any seats as a result - it's very good news for them in terms of this election.foxinsoxuk said:
Colour me a bit sceptical. The evidence is that Tory voters are notoriously unlikely to vote tactically. If this were different then Danny Alexander would be likely to keep his seat. So would Clegg in Sheffield Hallam.SouthamObserver said:
It's quite likely that much of the non-Labour vote will coalesce around UKIP in safe Labour seats. Whether they manage to get direct switchers from Labour is less certain. However, if the Tories are losing votes in places it does not matter, if the polls are right that means they are holding onto and even gaining votes where it does matter.antifrank said:This is one of the polling problems that UKIP throws up.
UKIP are not picking up tactical votes in Labour safe seats. I think that they are winning genuine converts there.
That suggests 2005/2010 low turnout seats might be the surprises on election night.
1997: 25,000
2001: 19,000
2005: 15,000
2010: 10,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Grimsby_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s
0 -
I disagree: asset price inflation is never good for people who are still looking to build their asset portfolio for utility rather than financial reasons (e.g. buying a bigger house to live in). But it is an inevitable consequence of QE. I personally believe (hope!) that the current valuations will not be sustained in future.SouthamObserver said:
To be fair to the Tories, they have delivered for all of us top rate taxpayers, haven't they? Markets booming, property prices soaring, top rate tax cut, dividend tax rate cut and so on. There's never been a better time to be well off.Charles said:
Usually just after where you stand personally...frpenkridge said:
Super rich bad: Rich goodRoger said:Credit where credit's due. Even in these difficult times the super rich have doubled their wealth since this government came to power.
http://news.yahoo.com/rich-richer-uk-index-wealthiest-people-213733069.html
Eton bad: Minor public school good
It's interesting where you draw the line and build the barricade, Roger.
The top rate is still higher than it was under Labour. It's an indication of the direction of travel, nothing more. The people who have really benefited under this government are those that have benefited from the substantial increases in the personal allowance.0 -
Looks like Lab are funked in Scotland.They must be hoping for 10 seats atleast.Maybe Brown and unionist tactical voting will deliver them some seats in Scotland.0
-
I haven't dug into the precise numbers, but I suspect if someone did they would find that Labour---> UKIP switchers are the type of people who voted for Thatcher in the 1980s. So they should be viewed as "potential Conservatives" even if they are not current voters.Sean_F said:
UKIP doesn't just take support from the Conservatives, unlike the Ditchers and Ultras. I'd have thought the social changes that have fuelled UKIP's support (globalisation, radical Islam, mass migration) won't be going away any time soon.Charles said:
You keep pushing this meme, but it simply isn't true, and suggests a huge sense of entitlement. The Tories have no right to "romp home": they simply have to persuade enough voters that they are the best option. Personally, I think that, from a purely rational analysis, the Tories have absolutely deserve re-election, but if voters don't want to listen, or want to make their judgement on other criteria, then that is their prerogative.SouthamObserver said:It is utterly extraordinary that the Tories are not romping home. Ed is still crap (relatively), Labour is about to get destroyed in Scotland, the economy is improving, the rise of the SNP is said to be terrifying right of centre English voters - and yet even though they'll easily get most seats the Tories seem to be struggling to get close to a majority. This is not the way it should have been.
And before we get all the BS about Labour's unfair advantage under the current electoral map, let's remember that FPTP also gives the Tories a huge advantage over most other parties, so that 35% of the vote will deliver for more than 35% of MPs.
What is actually happening is that the right is going through one of those spasms that happen every couple of generations or so* (1825s-1835s, 1846-1864, 1908-1913 for instance) and that will make it very difficult for them to win. UKIP are this generation's Ultras* and this generation's Ditchers*: irrelevant in the long term as they will fade away as society continues to change, but passionate about defending their (principally) social values.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-Tories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ditchers
Matthew Parris thought the Conservatives could ditch places like Clacton and other struggling towns, because they don't represent the future. But, perhaps the Clactons, Grimsbys, Great Yarmouths etc. (as well as Tower Hamlets and Rotherham) do represent the future
And Matthew Paris speaks for no one but himself. His job is to be amusing and controversial.0 -
Good morning, everyone.
If that's accurate, shy Lib Dems could be a factor as well [less embarrassed than Kippers, but also less proud].0 -
Not really. They have seen many of their tax credits cut or frozen, while the VAT rise has had a much bigger effect than it has on folk further up the income scale. I think if us top rate taxpayers were being honest we'd say we have done extremely well over recent years and it is thanks to the government. In the unlikely event of Labour getting in things would become tougher.Charles said:
I disagree: asset price inflation is never good for people who are still looking to build their asset portfolio for utility rather than financial reasons (e.g. buying a bigger house to live in). But it is an inevitable consequence of QE. I personally believe (hope!) that the current valuations will not be sustained in future.SouthamObserver said:
To be fair to the Tories, they have delivered for all of us top rate taxpayers, haven't they? Markets booming, property prices soaring, top rate tax cut, dividend tax rate cut and so on. There's never been a better time to be well off.Charles said:
Usually just after where you stand personally...frpenkridge said:
Super rich bad: Rich goodRoger said:Credit where credit's due. Even in these difficult times the super rich have doubled their wealth since this government came to power.
http://news.yahoo.com/rich-richer-uk-index-wealthiest-people-213733069.html
Eton bad: Minor public school good
It's interesting where you draw the line and build the barricade, Roger.
The top rate is still higher than it was under Labour. It's an indication of the direction of travel, nothing more. The people who have really benefited under this government are those that have benefited from the substantial increases in the personal allowance.
0 -
Good news! Ruth Davidson is following me on Twitter.
I've had some unexpected politicians follow me. The Venezuelan minister was perhaps the most surprising.
Edited extra bit: incidentally, what commonly happens is getting followed, then unfollowed as politicians seek to increase their follower numbers. Some dubious fellow by the name of Grant Shapps did that, I think.0 -
After 25 days, what do I know about the Tory party from their campaign?
They don't like the SNP.
They might flog off social housing in a Thatcher lite kind of way.
Possibly a few extra quid here and there to garner some votes.
Er, that's it.
0 -
A Rich person is always someone with more money than you.frpenkridge said:
Super rich bad: Rich goodRoger said:Credit where credit's due. Even in these difficult times the super rich have doubled their wealth since this government came to power.
http://news.yahoo.com/rich-richer-uk-index-wealthiest-people-213733069.html
Eton bad: Minor public school good
It's interesting where you draw the line and build the barricade, Roger.0 -
2010 Turnout map.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8672976.stm
2014 UKIP EU Parliament support map.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014_(United_Kingdom)0 -
Charles,
"Labour---> UKIP switchers are the type of people who voted for Thatcher in the 1980s."
As Oscar Wilde nearly said, I seem to have travelled from socialism in my youth through to possibly Ukip now without an intervening period of madness (Tory). Socialism always had an illogical feel to me as a scientist because free speech always equalled selective free speech.
I may go back to voting LD in the future - who knows?0 -
Are you sure yo do not have a Michael Green follower?Morris_Dancer said:Good news! Ruth Davidson is following me on Twitter.
I've had some unexpected politicians follow me. The Venezuelan minister was perhaps the most surprising.
Edited extra bit: incidentally, what commonly happens is getting followed, then unfollowed as politicians seek to increase their follower numbers. Some dubious fellow by the name of Grant Shapps did that, I think.0 -
That's an extraordinary decline.anotherDave said:
Great Grimsby. Labour vote.SouthamObserver said:
Only if Tory voters vote tactically and turnout increases, surely. On that basis, the Sunderland seats could reveal quite a lot.anotherDave said:
The Mellon/Evans argument is that UKIP should win over ex-Labour voters that Labour has already pushed away 1997-2010.SouthamObserver said:
So, we'd expect Labour's vote to go down in its safe seats? Or maybe the LD switchers are making up for UKIP ones? If it's the former - and Labour does not lose any seats as a result - it's very good news for them in terms of this election.foxinsoxuk said:
Colour me a bit sceptical. The evidence is that Tory voters are notoriously unlikely to vote tactically. If this were different then Danny Alexander would be likely to keep his seat. So would Clegg in Sheffield Hallam.SouthamObserver said:
It's quite likely that much of the non-Labour vote will coalesce around UKIP in safe Labour seats. Whether they manage to get direct switchers from Labour is less certain. However, if the Tories are losing votes in places it does not matter, if the polls are right that means they are holding onto and even gaining votes where it does matter.antifrank said:This is one of the polling problems that UKIP throws up.
UKIP are not picking up tactical votes in Labour safe seats. I think that they are winning genuine converts there.
That suggests 2005/2010 low turnout seats might be the surprises on election night.
1997: 25,000
2001: 19,000
2005: 15,000
2010: 10,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Grimsby_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s0 -
Ed was scared of the Chester Hens; a young Mick would have dived right in.SMukesh said:Mili is the new Mickle Jagger.His swagger is what's carrying Lab through at this time
0 -
I think it's unlikely many of that 10,000 will vote UKIP. A combination of Tory tacticals and returning 2010 non-voters is what may do the job. Frankly, Labour deserves a kicking in its safe, working class English bastions, just as it does in Scotland. The only trouble is in England it will deliver right wing MPs that despise trade unions, social solidarity, the welfare state, the NHS and so on.anotherDave said:
Great Grimsby. Labour vote.SouthamObserver said:
Only if Tory voters vote tactically and turnout increases, surely. On that basis, the Sunderland seats could reveal quite a lot.anotherDave said:
The Mellon/Evans argument is that UKIP should win over ex-Labour voters that Labour has already pushed away 1997-2010.SouthamObserver said:
So, we'd expect Labour's vote to go down in its safe seats? Or maybe the LD switchers are making up for UKIP ones? If it's the former - and Labour does not lose any seats as a result - it's very good news for them in terms of this election.foxinsoxuk said:
Colour me a bit sceptical. The evidence is that Tory voters are notoriously unlikely to vote tactically. If this were different then Danny Alexander would be likely to keep his seat. So would Clegg in Sheffield Hallam.SouthamObserver said:
It's quite likely that much of the non-Labour vote will coalesce around UKIP in safe Labour seats. Whether they manage to get direct switchers from Labour is less certain. However, if the Tories are losing votes in places it does not matter, if the polls are right that means they are holding onto and even gaining votes where it does matter.antifrank said:This is one of the polling problems that UKIP throws up.
UKIP are not picking up tactical votes in Labour safe seats. I think that they are winning genuine converts there.
That suggests 2005/2010 low turnout seats might be the surprises on election night.
1997: 25,000
2001: 19,000
2005: 15,000
2010: 10,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Grimsby_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s
0 -
It may be because I am not asset rich SO but I really don't recognise your description. Under this government I have lost my CB, my PA and I am paying a lot more in VAT. I don't really have a problem with any of this. The last Labour government left the country in such a mess that it was inevitable that the better paid would have to pay a lot more to protect public services. What I do have a problem with is the widely held perception that there is any truth at all in what you say.SouthamObserver said:
Not really. They have seen many of their tax credits cut or frozen, while the VAT rise has had a much bigger effect than it has on folk further up the income scale. I think if us top rate taxpayers were being honest we'd say we have done extremely well over recent years and it is thanks to the government. In the unlikely event of Labour getting in things would become tougher.Charles said:
I disagree: asset price inflation is never good for people who are still looking to build their asset portfolio for utility rather than financial reasons (e.g. buying a bigger house to live in). But it is an inevitable consequence of QE. I personally believe (hope!) that the current valuations will not be sustained in future.SouthamObserver said:
To be fair to the Tories, they have delivered for all of us top rate taxpayers, haven't they? Markets booming, property prices soaring, top rate tax cut, dividend tax rate cut and so on. There's never been a better time to be well off.Charles said:
Usually just after where you stand personally...frpenkridge said:
Super rich bad: Rich goodRoger said:Credit where credit's due. Even in these difficult times the super rich have doubled their wealth since this government came to power.
http://news.yahoo.com/rich-richer-uk-index-wealthiest-people-213733069.html
Eton bad: Minor public school good
It's interesting where you draw the line and build the barricade, Roger.
The top rate is still higher than it was under Labour. It's an indication of the direction of travel, nothing more. The people who have really benefited under this government are those that have benefited from the substantial increases in the personal allowance.0 -
I do not know if Sunday Politics (Lincs and Humber) is on iplayer, but anyone interested in Great Grimsby should watch it. Victoria Ayling for UKIP is awful. The Labour candidate is personable and local. Easy win for Labour, UKIP could be 3rd.anotherDave said:
Great Grimsby. Labour vote.SouthamObserver said:
Only if Tory voters vote tactically and turnout increases, surely. On that basis, the Sunderland seats could reveal quite a lot.anotherDave said:
The Mellon/Evans argument is that UKIP should win over ex-Labour voters that Labour has already pushed away 1997-2010.SouthamObserver said:
So, we'd expect Labour's vote to go down in its safe seats? Or maybe the LD switchers are making up for UKIP ones? If it's the former - and Labour does not lose any seats as a result - it's very good news for them in terms of this election.foxinsoxuk said:
Colour me a bit sceptical. The evidence is that Tory voters are notoriously unlikely to vote tactically. If this were different then Danny Alexander would be likely to keep his seat. So would Clegg in Sheffield Hallam.SouthamObserver said:
It's quite likely that much of the non-Labour vote will coalesce around UKIP in safe Labour seats. Whether they manage to get direct switchers from Labour is less certain. However, if the Tories are losing votes in places it does not matter, if the polls are right that means they are holding onto and even gaining votes where it does matter.antifrank said:This is one of the polling problems that UKIP throws up.
UKIP are not picking up tactical votes in Labour safe seats. I think that they are winning genuine converts there.
That suggests 2005/2010 low turnout seats might be the surprises on election night.
1997: 25,000
2001: 19,000
2005: 15,000
2010: 10,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Grimsby_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s0 -
What have we learnt about Labour?
Ed is up for it and better than we thought.
A little bit nicer in every way, but not recklessly nice
Can't answer the SNP challenge
LibDems
Wants to be a head or heart...
... But still an arse.0 -
What have we learnt about UKIP?
Not as mad as 2010
Not as interesting as 20140 -
I don't know your specifics, but if you are a top rate taxpayer the chances are that you have not really felt the "sacrifices" you have been asked to make and that the overall rise in your "wealth" has more than offset them. The lower down the scale you go, the less so this will be.DavidL said:
It may be because I am not asset rich SO but I really don't recognise your description. Under this government I have lost my CB, my PA and I am paying a lot more in VAT. I don't really have a problem with any of this. The last Labour government left the country in such a mess that it was inevitable that the better paid would have to pay a lot more to protect public services. What I do have a problem with is the widely held perception that there is any truth at all in what you say.SouthamObserver said:
Not really. They have seen many of their tax credits cut or frozen, while the VAT rise has had a much bigger effect than it has on folk further up the income scale. I think if us top rate taxpayers were being honest we'd say we have done extremely well over recent years and it is thanks to the government. In the unlikely event of Labour getting in things would become tougher.Charles said:
I disagree: asset price inflation is never good for people who are still looking to build their asset portfolio for utility rather than financial reasons (e.g. buying a bigger house to live in). But it is an inevitable consequence of QE. I personally believe (hope!) that the current valuations will not be sustained in future.SouthamObserver said:
To be fair to the Tories, they have delivered for all of us top rate taxpayers, haven't they? Markets booming, property prices soaring, top rate tax cut, dividend tax rate cut and so on. There's never been a better time to be well off.Charles said:
Usually just after where you stand personally...frpenkridge said:
Super rich bad: Rich goodRoger said:Credit where credit's due. Even in these difficult times the super rich have doubled their wealth since this government came to power.
http://news.yahoo.com/rich-richer-uk-index-wealthiest-people-213733069.html
Eton bad: Minor public school good
It's interesting where you draw the line and build the barricade, Roger.
The top rate is still higher than it was under Labour. It's an indication of the direction of travel, nothing more. The people who have really benefited under this government are those that have benefited from the substantial increases in the personal allowance.
0 -
Mr. Jonathan, you missed off outlawing Islamophobia for Miliband.
Mr. Owls, I did go through them a while ago and unfollowed a fair few. I followed Davidson back, and will see whether she abandons me.0 -
All that is clear is:
1. Online polls mostly small Labour lead.
2. Phone polls slightly bigger Con lead.
3. Regional, age, registered swings and turnout could easily produce results very different from the pollsters.
4. Unnecessary panic among some Tories.
5. Bizarre complacency among some Labourites - not least NPXMP
6. I have no clue as to how it will all turn out.
7. The £ could be in for a bumpy ride.
8. Scotland is pretty clearly another country now but we may have to move the border north to accommodate the current blue border towns.
0 -
What have I picked up from the campaigns so far?
Conservatives: Scotland! (The horror)
SNP: Scotland! (Fantastic)
Labour: OK, we can't tax and spend, but we don't like businessmen. We'll make the rich pay somehow.
Lib Dems: we can't find the unmute button.
UKIP: unfocused ranting and HIV stats.0 -
Personally, as a Labour inclined voter, I'd find it a lot easier to vote for a Labour candidate who is not Austin Mitchell.foxinsoxuk said:
I do not know if Sunday Politics (Lincs and Humber) is on iplayer, but anyone interested in Great Grimsby should watch it. Victoria Ayling for UKIP is awful. The Labour candidate is personable and local. Easy win for Labour, UKIP could be 3rd.anotherDave said:
Great Grimsby. Labour vote.SouthamObserver said:
Only if Tory voters vote tactically and turnout increases, surely. On that basis, the Sunderland seats could reveal quite a lot.anotherDave said:
The Mellon/Evans argument is that UKIP should win over ex-Labour voters that Labour has already pushed away 1997-2010.SouthamObserver said:
So, we'd expect Labour's vote to go down in its safe seats? Or maybe the LD switchers are making up for UKIP ones? If it's the former - and Labour does not lose any seats as a result - it's very good news for them in terms of this election.foxinsoxuk said:
Colour me a bit sceptical. The evidence is that Tory voters are notoriously unlikely to vote tactically. If this were different then Danny Alexander would be likely to keep his seat. So would Clegg in Sheffield Hallam.SouthamObserver said:
It's quite likely that much of the non-Labour vote will coalesce around UKIP in safe Labour seats. Whether they manage to get direct switchers from Labour is less certain. However, if the Tories are losing votes in places it does not matter, if the polls are right that means they are holding onto and even gaining votes where it does matter.antifrank said:This is one of the polling problems that UKIP throws up.
UKIP are not picking up tactical votes in Labour safe seats. I think that they are winning genuine converts there.
That suggests 2005/2010 low turnout seats might be the surprises on election night.
1997: 25,000
2001: 19,000
2005: 15,000
2010: 10,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Grimsby_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s0 -
Tories & tactical voting. Today's YouGov.
Party I am voting for is not my first choice - but stands better chance of beating someone I like even less:
Con: 9
Lab: 12
Lib Dem: 20
UKIP: 14
So, just to be clear, Conservative voters are least likely to vote tactically.....0 -
Full day of snooker for me now
Trump, Murphy, Ronnie can't wait.0 -
@Felix - your point 3 is the crucial one. There are five more or less mainstream choices in England now, six in Wales, and big regional differences. Ecen if the pollsters get the percentages right, UNS is almost certainly dead in the water.0
-
How does this Rent Cap thing work..what will be the result.0
-
Mr. Owls, been ages since I watched snooker [I do recall the two biggest tournaments, UK and World, happened when I was meant to be revising for summer and winter exams]. Any more Chinese chaps on the scene?0
-
Plenty but only Ding left in WCMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Owls, been ages since I watched snooker [I do recall the two biggest tournaments, UK and World, happened when I was meant to be revising for summer and winter exams]. Any more Chinese chaps on the scene?
0 -
She did eventually. But she waited until later on when she had her time. Before then, she sat hearing people complaining for half an hour and even the Speaker made comments towards her. She would not budge and just sat on the benches. Up to the morning of the debate, there was going to be a specific vote on the arrest warrant and that is what the Speaker, as well as all MP's were led to believe. Then about an hour before, it became apparent there would be no such vote.Scott_P said:
She did. At length. Read Hansard.hucks67 said:which could have been avoided, if she had bothered to just explain the technical reason why a vote could not take place.
0 -
It's on iPlayer, I watched it after seeing it mentioned on here. Complete meltdown by Ayling, she does seem like a particularly nasty sort of Tory, the type which used to give the Tories a bad name but now seems to be the predominant image of Kippers.foxinsoxuk said:
I do not know if Sunday Politics (Lincs and Humber) is on iplayer, but anyone interested in Great Grimsby should watch it. Victoria Ayling for UKIP is awful. The Labour candidate is personable and local. Easy win for Labour, UKIP could be 3rd.anotherDave said:
Great Grimsby. Labour vote.SouthamObserver said:
Only if Tory voters vote tactically and turnout increases, surely. On that basis, the Sunderland seats could reveal quite a lot.anotherDave said:
The Mellon/Evans argument is that UKIP should win over ex-Labour voters that Labour has already pushed away 1997-2010.SouthamObserver said:
So, we'd expect Labour's vote to go down in its safe seats? Or maybe the LD switchers are making up for UKIP ones? If it's the former - and Labour does not lose any seats as a result - it's very good news for them in terms of this election.foxinsoxuk said:
Colour me a bit sceptical. The evidence is that Tory voters are notoriously unlikely to vote tactically. If this were different then Danny Alexander would be likely to keep his seat. So would Clegg in Sheffield Hallam.SouthamObserver said:
It's quite likely that much of the non-Labour vote will coalesce around UKIP in safe Labour seats. Whether they manage to get direct switchers from Labour is less certain. However, if the Tories are losing votes in places it does not matter, if the polls are right that means they are holding onto and even gaining votes where it does matter.antifrank said:This is one of the polling problems that UKIP throws up.
UKIP are not picking up tactical votes in Labour safe seats. I think that they are winning genuine converts there.
That suggests 2005/2010 low turnout seats might be the surprises on election night.
1997: 25,000
2001: 19,000
2005: 15,000
2010: 10,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Grimsby_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s0 -
We could ask the Shadow housing minsterrichardDodd said:How does this Rent Cap thing work..what will be the result.
@EmmaReynoldsMP: To be clear Mark and others, it is not Labour party policy to introduce rent controls. @Markfergusonuk
Oh0 -
Yes, agreed and I cannot see how the pollsters can conceivably get the right handle on this - local polling may or may not be reliable although I'd have some faith in regional polling to get closer to the mark.SouthamObserver said:@Felix - your point 3 is the crucial one. There are five more or less mainstream choices in England now, six in Wales, and big regional differences. Ecen if the pollsters get the percentages right, UNS is almost certainly dead in the water.
0 -
Mr. Owls, hmm. Still awaiting a Chinese driver in F1 (had a chap who did some practice for HRT, I think).0
-
Who are tactical voters voting against (bearing in mind there aren't that many of them - 13% of the panel)
E&W:
Con: 32
Lab: 48
LibD: 2
UKIP: 8
Scotland
Con: 19
Lab: 18
LibD: 1
SNP: 59
So what tactical voting there is is anti-SNP in Scotland, and predominantly anti-Labour in England....
What happened to the 'anti-Tory majority'?0 -
One other point of course - pretty much anything could happen in the last few days which changes the narrative and/or the don't knows, etc could swing one way or the other suddenly. Of course everyone should not get so absurdly carried away on the strength of one poll or subsets or, as we see so much of in the thread headers here - the wishful thinking mentality leading to a priori commentaries.0
