politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Meanwhile LAB’s Scottish tICM have 3% CON lead while Populu

OblitusSumMe said:

SeanT said:

It needs to go. Rightwingers should drop their sentimental attachment to it, and start thinking about the best form of PR.

Socrates, late of this parish, favoured STV with three-member constituencies.

It's an interesting compromise as the three-member limit still favours large parties able to win broad support, but it does sweep away the majority of the perversities associated with FPTP. I think it fails the Liverpool test though, ie, does it make it worthwhile for the Tories to campaign in Liverpool?

Or Scottish Labour in Glasgow?

surbiton said:

I cannot believe abject racism is being propagated against the Scots !

Just wondered, any particular reason for saying that? (I'm not being ironic. Not sure if you are, mind.)

I see that Sporting Index still has a midpoint of SNP at 46. Looks like a buy to me.

Interesting game on the Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11562365/Election-2015-Coalition-Builder-pick-your-own-government.html

A grand coalition may not be too far fetched

@OldKingCole

' I suspect the LD’s will recover a lot of losses South of the border and make some gains nas well. Suspect it won’t make much difference to anyone N or the border.'

Why?

They have now lost their USP as the protest party with UKIP,Greens, SNP & Plaid filling that role.

Also doubtful that voters will have such short term memories.

Carnyx said:

SeanT said:

Here's the Kerevan statement, in different form, if it isn't a hoax then it is astonishing, but something feels a bit fishy

http://tinyurl.com/neessu5

I think it's just being deliberately misread in the way I suggested. Scraping the barrel, like the dolls and huns stuff.

Really?

So how do you explain the 'enemy camp' bit then?

Grandiose said:

Pulpstar said:

MikeK said:

I've had a private bet that more than 200 MP's will lose their seats in this GE. The most ever, I believe.

You think Labour will end up with 340 seats ?!!!

How many people are in a position to "lose" their seat, having won before? Must be 50 people standing down? That leaves six hundred. A third of those is a bold prediction. Say 40 norther of the border, 20 other Libdem losses... still 140 to go!

Say 40 LDs, 35 Lab in Scotland, 40 Lab gains from Con in England. That's 115 - how many are standing down that haven't already been counted?

RodCrosby said:

SeanT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

If the result of the election is Tories most seats (and an English majority), Lab second but EICIPM because of SNP ... who thinks that government would last a full five years.

Say what you want of the coalition, the Tories and LD's have worked together competently for a full five years. I simply can't see that happening next term if EICIPM - regardless of the fixed term act.

Exactly.

Ed will crawl to a plurality, but he will be the weakest PM with the worst mandate in modern British history, and dependant on the "goodwill" of a separatist party determined on forever destroying Labour in its heartland - and halfway to doing that. Sturgeon will have him by the cullions. She'll milk the English taxpaper.

And Ed cannot do a "formal" deal with a party that wants to kill Labour in its homeland, he would be signing SLAB's death warrant.

So he will edge along a cliffpath, and by the 2016 Holyrood elections he will fall over and we'll have a second GE.

The only happy people will be the Scots, sucking up the largesse, which, ironically, makes them less likely to vote want indy or desire a referendum, so even the Nats lose out in the end.

An election where EVERYONE loses. Wow.

Now you see why FPTP is bonkers? Sensible, grown-up politician, like in most of Europe, would have sorted out their coalition deals well in advance of the election, and voters would largely know what the options were.

Instead, these idiots cling to the FPTP random number generator, hoping it throws out a majority (for them), uncaring whether it might throw out dangerous rubbish instead...

You're a broken record aren't you.

Unfortunately even a broken clock is right twice a day, a broken record just keeps repeating the same tune though even once its been rejected. We have a sensible grown-up electoral system like in sensible nations like Canada, not messed up Europe.

Ed Brown has got an interesting post about the Labour stamp duty policy on the Newsnight blog. He says that the benefits will overwhelmingly go to people in the south of England, and that richer first-time buyers will gain more than poorer ones. It is on the Newsnight blog at 11.58am.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/election-2015-32482641

SeanT said:

Here's the Kerevan statement, in different form, if it isn't a hoax then it is astonishing, but something feels a bit fishy

http://tinyurl.com/neessu5

The Scotsman have an excerpt here, so I expect it's genuine:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/secret-dossier-lays-bare-snp-push-for-indyref-1-3755156

For those wot missed it yesterday:

The Sunil on Sunday's ELBOW (Electoral LeaderBoard Of the Week) for week-ending 26th April 2015 - a record bumper week with 17 separate polls total sample 20,360.

Lab 33.6 (-0.4)
Con 33.1 (-0.5)
UKIP 13.8 (+0.3)
LD 8.2 (+0.1)
Green 5.3 (+0.2)

Lab lead 0.6 (+0.1)

Two main parties each down somewhat, all three smaller parties up a touch. Greens have a mini-surge it seems. UKIP stabilising a touch under 14%. Lab lead maintained.

But wait! There's more! This week, just for a bit of fun, compiled data for YouGov only and Non-YouGov-only going back to August (see the version of the Labour lead chart with three lines plotted).

YouGov only this week:

Lab 34.4 (-0.3)
Con 33.0 (-0.2)
UKIP 13.2 (-0.3)
LD 7.8 (-0.1)
Green 5.7 (+0.5)

Lab lead 1.4 (-0.1)

Non-YouGov this week:

Con 33.1 (-0.9)
Lab 32.6 (-0.6)
UKIP 14.6 (+1.0)
LD 8.7 (+0.5)
Green 4.8 (-0.3)

CON lead 0.5 (-0.3)

In the JC article Bennett doesn't back the cultural boycott explicitly & personally, though she backs the broader policy of an Israeli boycott.

The cultural boycott of Israel is one of the far left's more ludicrous and enduring boondoggles, so patently stupid, totalitarian and anti-free-speech that it does nothing but alienate those sensible lefties with green tendencies who might help shift the party into the mainstream.

As it is, we only have two options at the ballot box: bland or bonkers.

Philip_Thompson said:

RodCrosby said:

SeanT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

If the result of the election is Tories most seats (and an English majority), Lab second but EICIPM because of SNP ... who thinks that government would last a full five years.

Say what you want of the coalition, the Tories and LD's have worked together competently for a full five years. I simply can't see that happening next term if EICIPM - regardless of the fixed term act.

Exactly.

Ed will crawl to a plurality, but he will be the weakest PM with the worst mandate in modern British history, and dependant on the "goodwill" of a separatist party determined on forever destroying Labour in its heartland - and halfway to doing that. Sturgeon will have him by the cullions. She'll milk the English taxpaper.

And Ed cannot do a "formal" deal with a party that wants to kill Labour in its homeland, he would be signing SLAB's death warrant.

So he will edge along a cliffpath, and by the 2016 Holyrood elections he will fall over and we'll have a second GE.

The only happy people will be the Scots, sucking up the largesse, which, ironically, makes them less likely to vote want indy or desire a referendum, so even the Nats lose out in the end.

An election where EVERYONE loses. Wow.

Now you see why FPTP is bonkers? Sensible, grown-up politician, like in most of Europe, would have sorted out their coalition deals well in advance of the election, and voters would largely know what the options were.

Instead, these idiots cling to the FPTP random number generator, hoping it throws out a majority (for them), uncaring whether it might throw out dangerous rubbish instead...

You're a broken record aren't you.

Unfortunately even a broken clock is right twice a day, a broken record just keeps repeating the same tune though even once its been rejected. We have a sensible grown-up electoral system like in sensible nations like Canada, not messed up Europe.

The Canadian system, even more than ours, is like playing Russian Roulette. Dominant parties can disappear within a couple of elections. Who remembers the Progressive Conservatives, or Union National, or Social Credit?

Grandiose said:

Depends if you believe Lord Roskill. It is not obvious that the power to dissolve parliament would be amenable to any ground for judicial review, nor any (if that is different - depending on your understanding of JR law) calculus when that ground is invoked.

True, but the one way ratchet might well start with the seemingly undeniable proposition that the discretion to dissolve had to be used to promote the policy and objects of the Act, and end up with implying an obligation on the decision maker to consult on alternative proposals before exercising the power...

As for the Conservatives' plans on the ECHR, the manifesto is short on detail. On the one hand, the Party promises (at p. 76) to support universal human rights, yet (at pp. 60 & 73) it devises exemptions for this country from the universality of human rights. There are the old canards of the promise to break the formal link between the British Courts and Strasbourg, when the only one on the table was proposed by the Conservatives in the last Parliament (see draft protocol no. 16 to the Convention), and to make the Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of human rights in the UK, when it is already. Then there is the specious promise of a British Bill of Rights whose provisions are left unclear save that it will be easier to deport foreign criminals. It is incoherent nonsense.

Scott_P said:

Ed Brown has got an interesting post about the Labour stamp duty policy on the Newsnight blog. He says that the benefits will overwhelmingly go to people in the south of England, and that richer first-time buyers will gain more than poorer ones. It is on the Newsnight blog at 11.58am.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/election-2015-32482641

Another one of Ed's brainwaves proves to be counter-productive populist nonsense? Shocking.

Mr. CD13, easily done. As with the S/Z issue [Z, apparently, is also correct in English, but S is not in American (for words like crystallises), so people assume Z = American and S = English].

Mind you, I was astounded, when writing a piece a few weeks ago that apparently marshmellow is spelt marshmallow.

surbiton said:

Pulpstar said:

AndyJS said:

Ed's going to lose all bar one of his seats in Scotland and still become PM? Pull the other one.

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.116758783

Ed Miliband freely available to lay at 1.7.

Scotland is a side show to next PM - even the SW is to some degree mind. I'm not ruling Ed in, or out - just saying...

Pulpstar is absolutely correct. The Con - Lab numbers have become irrelevant. It is really Coalition and Anti Coalition. Any seats changes within the same camp means very little.

Unless, Clegg loses !

I have laid off a touch of Ed today Surby though, 1.7 is a bit short I reckon.
But yes this is forces of the right vs forces of the left.

Lib Dems to remain in the "right" camp unless they absolutely have to switch.

''Of course not. Stop being a halfwit. If this isn't a hoax, it's a horrible mis-step by an SNP candidate.''

Ten minutes after Scotland went independent they would be having Christina Kirchner on a state visit.

Then Nicola and Alex would be off to Moscow in search of finance.

The Conservatives should leap upon that SNP document. I suspect they will.

Artist said:

I think Great Grimsby is one of the marginals Ashcroft has polled.

I hope so - one of the seats I expect 2010 LDs to vote Tory and see them surge through the middle with a 2k+ maj.

SeanT said:

Carnyx said:

SeanT said:

Here's the Kerevan statement, in different form, if it isn't a hoax then it is astonishing, but something feels a bit fishy

http://tinyurl.com/neessu5

I think it's just being deliberately misread in the way I suggested. Scraping the barrel, like the dolls and huns stuff.

"Scraping the barrel"?? Is that what you'd say if a Tory document emerged talking, optimistically and eagerly, of the Scottish economy "imploding"??

Of course not. Stop being a halfwit. If this isn't a hoax, it's a horrible mis-step by an SNP candidate.

Actually, that is pretty much what the Tories do! Just look at any thread on indyref on PB.

I cna see that the document is actually fairly realistic in its analysis

- get home rule to start with
- forget about indyref till the conditions are right (this is actually an important issue within the SNP and one wants to know where one's candidates stand on this)
- the economy is going to tank (most of us think that)
- that is then an opportunity to go for indyref

but he's obviously edited it down to fit the word count just too far and it does not read clearly or, on one interpretation, well. Certainly vaguely enough for the current crop of articles. And that, I will agree, is more than enpugh for the current media frenzy.

SeanT said:

If this isn't a hoax, it's a horrible mis-step by an SNP candidate.

That is the other risk for Nicola. If a large number of her new MPs turn out to be bampots on the National stage

Although you may not now believe it, ELBOW data shows it was actually the YouGov polls wot gave the biggest lead to the Tories (1.3%), during week-ending 15th March.

Sean_F said:

Boris is campaigning outside my office in Enfield.

Well, don't just sit there, invite him in and get a selfie!

DavidL said:

OblitusSumMe said:

DavidL said:

OblitusSumMe said:

SeanT said:

It needs to go. Rightwingers should drop their sentimental attachment to it, and start thinking about the best form of PR.

Socrates, late of this parish, favoured STV with three-member constituencies.

It's an interesting compromise as the three-member limit still favours large parties able to win broad support, but it does sweep away the majority of the perversities associated with FPTP. I think it fails the Liverpool test though, ie, does it make it worthwhile for the Tories to campaign in Liverpool?

Or Scottish Labour in Glasgow?

Ha, yes! I would have said Glasgow before, but circumstances were different then.

I still fear that Tory gains in Glasgow is a long term aspiration to be honest. And that is despite Ruth being a list MSP from there.

I think the Scottish top up system works quite well. It still gives an edge to those that win the constituencies (hence the SNP majority) but it tempers it quite significantly with the lists. Having 5m sized regions would incentivise both the Tories in the north west and Labour in the south east. That would be a good thing.

There are a few of glaring problems with the Scottish system. Firstly it's possible to game it, as being advocated by (I think) Dair on here. Secondly the list is a closed list, which means the electorate have little control over who is elected from it, particularly as it is so dependent on which candidates are elected in the constituencies.

One thing that small STV constituencies wouldn't do all that much is give the Tories electoral credit for high turnouts in their safe seats. Top-up lists covering large regional areas would do that, but does create other problems.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Although you may not now believe it, ELBOW data shows it was actually the YouGov polls wot gave the biggest lead to the Tories (1.3%), during week-ending 15th March.

Before their "adjustment"?

What are Tory-Red Tory councils??

SeanT said:

Carnyx said:

SeanT said:

Carnyx said:

SeanT said:

Here's the Kerevan statement, in different form, if it isn't a hoax then it is astonishing, but something feels a bit fishy

http://tinyurl.com/neessu5

I think it's just being deliberately misread in the way I suggested. Scraping the barrel, like the dolls and huns stuff.

"Scraping the barrel"?? Is that what you'd say if a Tory document emerged talking, optimistically and eagerly, of the Scottish economy "imploding"??

Of course not. Stop being a halfwit. If this isn't a hoax, it's a horrible mis-step by an SNP candidate.

Actually, that is pretty much what the Tories do! Just look at any thread on indyref on PB.

I cna see that the document is actually fairly realistic in its analysis

- get home rule to start with
- forget about indyref till the conditions are right (this is actually an important issue within the SNP and one wants to know where one's candidates stand on this)
- the economy is going to tank (most of us think that)
- that is then an opportunity to go for indyref

but he's obviously edited it down to fit the word count just too far and it does not read clearly or, on one interpretation, well. Certainly vaguely enough for the current crop of articles. And that, I will agree, is more than enpugh for the current media frenzy.

"it does not read clearly or, on one interpretation, well."

Yes, you could put it that way, or you could just admit that an SNP so hates the rest of us British ("the enemy camp") that he eagerly hopes for the UK economy to "implode", so the Scots can then go for full independence.

We can agree to differ - but i do think you are being unfair there: the 'enemy camp' is plainly Westminster (or the L and T parties ensconced therein) - not England or rUK. Quite a difference.

Peak Kipper

https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/592702933885657089

https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/592703122948136963
https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/592703259711799296

SouthamObserver said:

AndyJS said:

Ed Miliband being propped up by the SNP is such a bad outcome for English Labour that I wouldn't be surprised if the likes of David Blunkett actually speak out against it on election night itself. (I know he isn't standing this time).

The outcome is only bad if it alienates English Labour voters or leads other voters to coalesce around a single opposition.

But I suspect you are right: when Ed delivers a result that sees Labour stand still or go slightly backwards there will be more than enough MPs and senior figures ready to say that Labour should stick to opposition and, by strong implication get a new leader. This is what happened in 2010.

A weak Tory government, dependent on the LDs and the DUP, is not a nightmare scenario from a Labour perspective.

Oh come off it, how on earth is a Centrist party with the odd extra pound spent in NI a nightmare scenario. Unless your nightmare is more employment, fewer inefficient public sector jobs, a growing economy and a higher tax take?

Oh wait, is it because it would mean that the country would see the benefits of reducing deficit spending, cutting debt and some personal responsibility, and you'd never get reelected again. Ever.

Labour 17% ahead in Great Grimsby?

https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/592703592236240898

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

Grandiose said:

Pulpstar said:

MikeK said:

I've had a private bet that more than 200 MP's will lose their seats in this GE. The most ever, I believe.

You think Labour will end up with 340 seats ?!!!

How many people are in a position to "lose" their seat, having won before? Must be 50 people standing down? That leaves six hundred. A third of those is a bold prediction. Say 40 norther of the border, 20 other Libdem losses... still 140 to go!

Say 40 LDs, 35 Lab in Scotland, 40 Lab gains from Con in England. That's 115 - how many are standing down that haven't already been counted?

I think 15 LibDem MPs are retiring, so to lose another 40 means to lose all their seats. If you assume they keep 15 seats, then you've got about 25-30 MPs who lose. Are 35 Labour MPs standing again in Scotland? Seems high.

I was coming at it from the other side. How many of the other 535 (650-115) MPs are resigning, apart from those who will lose their seats anyway, or to put it another way how many safe seats will change MP if not party?

Do Ilford North! Do Ilford North

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Do Ilford North! Do Ilford North

No point polling a safe Tory hold

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Do Ilford North! Do Ilford North

No point polling a safe Tory hold

Lab were just 1.9% behind Cons in the Redbridge Local Council elections last year!

https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/588025567427043330

snigger....

Lord A and ICM = hand-held at the finish joint gold standards.

Meanwhile, John Curtice has put up another post on the super soaraway SNP:

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2015/04/tns-bmrb-put-snp-support-even-higher/

TheScreamingEagles said:

Lord Ashcroft National Poll

Con 36 (+2) Lab 30 (nc) LD 9 (nc) UKIP 11 (-2) Greens 7 (+3)

Someone has jumped the shark.
No change since 2010?