politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The whole narrative of this campaign would have been very d
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The whole narrative of this campaign would have been very different if YouGov had been a weekly poll not a daily one
For poll watchers there’s a ritual every night at 10.30pm. We go into Twitter an wait for the Tweet from the Sun politics team giving the headline numbers from the latest YouGov daily poll findings. Fieldwork for the surveys starts early evening the previous day and continues to the following afternoon.
Comments
-
Really good thread. My biggest worry is the lack of movement with YG. There just should be more churn & shift. It does suggest a static panel which could be more decideds who signed up. We know they're more politically active than general population so could be.
The point about how YG has dominated the polling agenda is so good. If we took YG out would we view the election differently? Would we definitely say its neck & neck? Not sure tbh.
0 -
Good post Mike, it's clear the YouGovs are going a long way in firming up the labour position in the betting markets, but in meta terms they aren't *that* out of line with phone pollsters0
-
I don't for a minute doubt each polling company sincerely believes that their methodology is robust and we won't know until May 8 which is closest. That said, it's interesting to reflect on Nate Silver's observation that around one in twenty polls should be a "rogue" or outlier - and if they aren't that should give pause for thought. Fortunately, outside the anoraks & politicians I doubt many pay much attention to the polls - so even if one polling company has, because of its frequency, had a disproportionate influence on the narrative, I doubt it's shifted many votes.0
-
I find the similarity between the IPOS / MORI and Ashcroft polls quite striking; IIRC Lord A contracts out his polling, perhaps the Ashcroft and last MORI poll are done by the same people with the same methodologies ?0
-
Leads don't matter, look at the shares a wise man once said......
Here's an interesting fact, if you aggregate the all the polling for the last 7 days then remove the YouGovs from the dataset, the tory vote share goes from 33.55% to 33.55%. Absolutely zero change.
The labour vote share goes from 33.57% to 32.91%
So, I guess you can ask if YouGov are very slightly over reporting labour, but given that their polling is pretty much exactly in line with the non YouGov polling, I really don't get the YouGov are busted meme. There is no basis for it in the numbers.
We're at the cool heads and look at the numbers phase, emotion isn't the punters friend right now0 -
What's irked me most is the whole of great Britain poll. It was clear some months ago that Scotland was polling quite differently to England and Wales. The GB poll, and the even more anachronistic GB UNS have outlived their usefulness as prediction tools.
One has to feel a little sympathy for yougov and their sponsors. They devised a system that would cut out the noise and simply report on the trend. They put in place frequency to ensure that yougov was the one who would show trending as it happened. THE place to go to spot the trend.
And then there was no trend to see.0 -
So far as they are aware of them at all, the public will see the polls in the media giving the line that the parties are neck and neck. Certainly for England and Wales.
We are also told there are as many as 10 million undecideds. That looks quite plausible, from my experience of door-knocking.
And whilst he has narrowed the gap some, it is clear that Ed Miliband is a considerable way behind David Cameron as the preferred Prime Minister. A common thread amongst the undecideds I have spoken to is their dislike of Ed.
So come Thursday, the message the voters will get from the polls is that there is still a very real risk of Prime Minister Ed Miliband - supported by the SNP....unless you vote to prevent it. The normal rule of thumb is that the undecideds break 2 to 1 for the incumbent. I suspect that could be a little higher. Maybe 70:30. In which case incumbent Tories (and LibDems) could get a very late-breaking net boost of several million votes over Labour. And the polls will not have picked it up.0 -
I put YouGov in the populus/panelbase/survation category. 1-2% regular Labour leads on an (averaged) weekly basis, with some fluctuations.
Somebody's right, and somebody's wrong. And I don't mean the fickle electorate.
0 -
Logic suggests that of all the pollsters YouGov will have the most accurate analysis of their panel and therefore how opinion is shifting.
As against this phone pollsters reach the parts internet pollsters cannot reach but this is tempered by the possibility that people don't want to show their darker side.
Do UKIP fare badly in phone polls?
There's so much phone selling and scams these days that I imagine only saints don't hang up on them.
Do the Greens do better in phone polls?
(I wonder what the phone pollsters opening line is? It'd have to be good. )
0 -
AsJohnstone I think your missing the point bud. There should at least be outliers as Carlotta says. Its all wrong that theres almost no variation. Even if the share it the land were 34/34 with daily polling we should get "rogues" throwing up 5% leads. We don't with YG & thats very worrying for their methodology or specifically there self-selected panel.
Marquee Marks posted a really good comment. Ive met lots of people still undecideds quite a lot of them saying they'll probably vote Cameron so a reluctant tory vote. Lots of them mention not liking Miliband & not wanting the SNP.0 -
Last comment before I go to work but if SNP do wipe the floor in Scotland or come close to it I think thats a real constitutional crisis we have on our hands. I don't see how Westminster can operate under those circumstances without further changes to the union.0
-
Reflecting on Nicola Sturgeon's Question Time last night, it's suddenly struck me what a boon the Second Referendum question is for the SNP.
Regardless of the genuine strong support for another Referendum (often apparently lost completely to media commentators who seem to prefer "the opinion of potentially biased audiences" to actual polling showing 48% support for another within 5 years and 60-odd percent within 10 years) the main benefit isn't this. The main benefit is that it offers Sturgeon and the SNP a "free ride" in the coverage.
While handling them well, there were genuinely difficult questions for Nicola in the Question Time. But coverage on BBC bulletins has only mentioned the Referendum question. Nothing on an NHS employee in the audience who was fired (albeit a management post) or any of other potential banana skins thrown at the FM.
It seems bizarre but the overwhelming bias of BBC Scotland in their attempts to sabotage the SNP campaign they have ended up helping the SNP by completely misunderstanding the relevant issues. They've created a narrative to discredit the SNP which, in the public's mind, isn't at all discrediting to start with.0 -
Survation have now had three straight Tory leads, while Opinium have had the Tories ahead for a couple of months. TNS hop about but Tories were four clear using Ipsos 10/10 to vote standard.
The fieldwork for 6/7 April is when YG implemented their methodological change. That's when the regular Tory leads ceased and the regular Labour ones started.
Weighting the sample back to Jan/Feb respondents and assuming a one point Lab lead may well measure change, but possibly from an inaccurate starting point. The phone polls had a 0.71% Tory lead at that time.
A one point Tory lead now is really a +2 for the Tories from whatever the true base position was in February.
0 -
Moving average chart of the 100 most recent YouGov polls. The blue upward trend continues notwithstanding last night's 1 point deficit due to the nature of the moving average. Click to enlarge...
YouGov's methology changed at data point number 77 and took 5 days to fully impact upon the moving average.0 -
PB
"Even if the share it the land were 34/34 with daily polling we should get "rogues" throwing up 5% leads."
I don't see the logic in that. If the data on your panel is accurate enough then I would think the chances of a rogue poll would be severely reduced.0 -
MM
"We are also told there are as many as 10 million undecideds. That looks quite plausible, from my experience of door-knocking."
Wouldn't you interpret someone telling you they were undecided as suggesting they didn't want to hurt your feelings?0 -
"You read a lot of polling conspiracy theories on social media which are just rubbish. The most precious asset of each firm is their reputation which they are not going to jeopardise by acting in a manner that is anything other than totally professional."
That's true, but it can also drive a nervous desire to cluster round the mean. If noone's really sure what the election result is going to be, and they don't have full confidence in their methodology, then they might not want to be the one pollster who's miles out.
Better for everyone to risk getting it similarly wrong than take the business risk of being the lone wolf.0 -
I've been reading this site for many years and in almost election I've seen Con and Lab supporters (depending on who YouGov is showing is behind) trying to dismiss YouGov on the basis "it's just an online poll." And every time they are proven wrong.0
-
YouGov's Peter Kellner was on the Daily Politics show a couple of days back, and said that although his polls were producing rather static results, they were seeing a lot of underlying churning going on in the base figures. IIRC he also appeared to fence sit about the final outcome.0
-
Excellent post.
A major consequence for me of the dead hand of Yougov is that it has been impossible for the Tories to build any kind of narrative of momentum in their favour. So very good polls for them like the ICM before last and Ipsos MORI yesterday are swiftly trumped in the way Mike describes indicating that there is no change.
This does not mean that Yougov is wrong. There was another excellent thread a few days ago which showed if you compared like with like none of the pollsters were picking up any movement outside the MoE. The illusion of movement came when the results of one polling company were compared with others.
I think it is fair to conclude that Yougov are right in this in that, like most campaigns, there is very little evidence that this one is changing anything (outside Scotland). There has also been no evidence of swing back since the start of the year which is why the initially very favourable Fisher type models have progressively become less so for the Tories.
So the question that arises is which polling company is right? Is it ICM, whose methodology indicates that the Tories have a modest lead of 3-4% or Yougov who indicate it is a dead heat? The short answer is that we will not know until after 10 on Thursday when the exit poll comes out. If it is ICM the Tories will have a modest plurality although it is beyond me how they could form a government. If it is Yougov then Labour will have the most seats and a Labour/SNP co-operation will have a majority.0 -
The lack of churn is the expected consequence of the way they're sampling/weighting. I'll repost the explanation FPT.Purseybear said:Really good thread. My biggest worry is the lack of movement with YG. There just should be more churn & shift. It does suggest a static panel which could be more decideds who signed up. We know they're more politically active than general population so could be.
The point about how YG has dominated the polling agenda is so good. If we took YG out would we view the election differently? Would we definitely say its neck & neck? Not sure tbh.0 -
YouGov is just boring. Daily polls of the same people are always going to be. It is not far out of line with the others though.asjohnstone said:Leads don't matter, look at the shares a wise man once said......
Here's an interesting fact, if you aggregate the all the polling for the last 7 days then remove the YouGovs from the dataset, the tory vote share goes from 33.55% to 33.55%. Absolutely zero change.
The labour vote share goes from 33.57% to 32.91%
So, I guess you can ask if YouGov are very slightly over reporting labour, but given that their polling is pretty much exactly in line with the non YouGov polling, I really don't get the YouGov are busted meme. There is no basis for it in the numbers.
We're at the cool heads and look at the numbers phase, emotion isn't the punters friend right now0 -
FPT on YouGov:
For any poll with weighting or sampling the normal rules of random sampling (chi squared etc) are actually an over-simplification. If the thing you weight to exactly corresponds to the thing you're trying to find out, sampling error should be zero.
For example, say you're taking a poll of Argentians and Brits on who owns the Falklands. Say for the sake of argument that the Argentinians unanimously say Argentina, and the Brits unanimously say Britain. Say you call Brits and Argentinians in exact proportion to their populations. Since nobody ever changes their mind, and you have exact correspndance to your weighting variable (nationality) you will get exactly the same result every time.
What YouGov are doing is weighting to declared voting intention in Jan/Feb (which was in turn weighted/sampled to be representative of the population). This varies randomly a little bit each time because even without the overall vote shares changing, some Jan/Feb Labs will go Con and vice versa, so the weighting variable (Jan/Feb VI) isn't an exact proxy for the thing you're measuring (May VI). But it's pretty close, so it doesn't change much from day to day unless those people's voting intention changes.0 -
Ironically, those mourning the lack of a momentum narrative might be wrong and the appearance of deadlock might help Conservatives if wavering kippers feel obliged to switch back to the Tories in order to oppose Labour, whereas they might feel a resurgent Cameron letting it rip in the opinion polls does not need their vote.0
-
Some will be as you say, but others will say they are undecided because they are undecided.Roger said:MM
"We are also told there are as many as 10 million undecideds. That looks quite plausible, from my experience of door-knocking."
Wouldn't you interpret someone telling you they were undecided as suggesting they didn't want to hurt your feelings?
0 -
On topic, an interesting observation from Mike.
There are two things which are striking about this elections polling and both are to do with the online/phone divide. Firstly, the phone polls are producing consistently better scores for Con and the online ones favouring Lab; secondly, the online polls are incredibly static while the phone polls have shown quite a bit of movement. Are the two related through some internal methodology? I don't know but I'm suspicious of any results that come back with metronomic regularity in a field that should be inherently changing and uncertain.
But the point is an important one. Does the fact that YouGov and Populus have reported suspiciously consistent results mean that we should also be sceptical about their small Lab leads? Or are the two features independent? Or are the two right? Alternatively, do the swings reported by ICM, Mori and Ashcroft give them more credibility or less, and if more, does that mean we can put more store in their Con leads or is that too a separate matter?
Ultimately it probably comes down to gut instinct. We can't know until it's too late and there are arguments on both sides though my own take is that the phone companies are producing more believable results: I just don't think opinion is that static throughout an election campaign.0 -
Thanks for that. Very good explanation.edmundintokyo said:FPT on YouGov:
For any poll with weighting or sampling the normal rules of random sampling (chi squared etc) are actually an over-simplification. If the thing you weight to exactly corresponds to the thing you're trying to find out, sampling error should be zero.
For example, say you're taking a poll of Argentians and Brits on who owns the Falklands. Say for the sake of argument that the Argentinians unanimously say Argentina, and the Brits unanimously say Britain. Say you call Brits and Argentinians in exact proportion to their populations. Since nobody ever changes their mind, and you have exact correspndance to your weighting variable (nationality) you will get exactly the same result every time.
What YouGov are doing is weighting to declared voting intention in Jan/Feb (which was in turn weighted/sampled to be representative of the population). This varies randomly a little bit each time because even without the overall vote shares changing, some Jan/Feb Labs will go Con and vice versa, so the weighting variable (Jan/Feb VI) isn't an exact proxy for the thing you're measuring (May VI). But it's pretty close, so it doesn't change much from day to day unless those people's voting intention changes.-1 -
Good article from Nate Silver on 'poll bias' in the US:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-might-be-skewed-against-democrats-or-republicans/
In brief - don't count on it, and if they are, they may not be biased in the direction you'd prefer...0 -
I've seen this chart several times now:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2015/04/question-time-will-ed-miliband-take-his-lectern-with-him/
Has Call me Dave really done that many more appearances than Miliband in the campaign?0 -
I've always wondered how many 'I might not bother to vote' Unionists were galvanised by YOUGov's rogue in SindyRef....DecrepitJohnL said:Ironically, those mourning the lack of a momentum narrative might be wrong and the appearance of deadlock might help Conservatives if wavering kippers feel obliged to switch back to the Tories in order to oppose Labour, whereas they might feel a resurgent Cameron letting it rip in the opinion polls does not need their vote.
0 -
Video exclusive: ‘Green activists’ in Brighton Pavilion rip off UKIP advertisements
B & H Independent @BrightonIndy 11h11 hours ago
Supposing Green activists had burned @UKIP adverts: http://bit.ly/1EUvtLe ? Non-story? Or central to free democracy?0 -
Its possible that opinion is not static - but churning, and broadly equal - but then I'd expect to see more (any) outliers, when the 'snapshot' randomly favoured one party.....david_herdson said:I just don't think opinion is that static throughout an election campaign.
0 -
Some activists are idiots. The Green's official response was proper.MikeK said:Video exclusive: ‘Green activists’ in Brighton Pavilion rip off UKIP advertisements
B & H Independent @BrightonIndy 11h11 hours ago
Supposing Green activists had burned @UKIP adverts: http://bit.ly/1EUvtLe ? Non-story? Or central to free democracy?0 -
Demonstrating their love of democracy and free speech.MikeK said:Video exclusive: ‘Green activists’ in Brighton Pavilion rip off UKIP advertisements
B & H Independent @BrightonIndy 11h11 hours ago
Supposing Green activists had burned @UKIP adverts: http://bit.ly/1EUvtLe ? Non-story? Or central to free democracy?0 -
In the context of a national UK election, the referendum issue is what counts because it affects everyone in the UK. The SNP's poor record on the NHS, education and failure to offer any redistributive policies during its seven years in charge in Scotland are matters for the next year. This year they are not running for government.Dair said:Reflecting on Nicola Sturgeon's Question Time last night, it's suddenly struck me what a boon the Second Referendum question is for the SNP.
Regardless of the genuine strong support for another Referendum (often apparently lost completely to media commentators who seem to prefer "the opinion of potentially biased audiences" to actual polling showing 48% support for another within 5 years and 60-odd percent within 10 years) the main benefit isn't this. The main benefit is that it offers Sturgeon and the SNP a "free ride" in the coverage.
While handling them well, there were genuinely difficult questions for Nicola in the Question Time. But coverage on BBC bulletins has only mentioned the Referendum question. Nothing on an NHS employee in the audience who was fired (albeit a management post) or any of other potential banana skins thrown at the FM.
It seems bizarre but the overwhelming bias of BBC Scotland in their attempts to sabotage the SNP campaign they have ended up helping the SNP by completely misunderstanding the relevant issues. They've created a narrative to discredit the SNP which, in the public's mind, isn't at all discrediting to start with.
0 -
The dark forces are lining up against the plucky kippers
Lord Ashcroft@LordAshcroft·16s16 seconds ago
Well @Nigel_Farage just said on Sky that my South Thanet poll involved "some voodoo"! That's a first. Thanks Nigel.....0 -
A point about the ICM poll from last night.
If you bear in mind that the VI of the sample was (as expected for a TV audience) more favourable to Labour (a 5% lead over the Tories) then Cameron did even better than the headline 6% lead over Miliband (and a 14% lead on the forced question of who would be the better PM).
See tables 3 & 9: http://www.icmunlimited.com/data/media/pdf/Flash-Poll-30th-April.pdf0 -
Unite doing level best to endorse bent mayor.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/30/unite-leader-len-mccluskey-backs-dismissed-mayor-lutfur-rahman0 -
So the years 2000-10 saw the size of the state soar from 34pc to 50pc – a rise of 16 points. This is a faster rise than any other country, over any other postwar decade. ......And even now, Miliband can’t bring himself to recognise what he did. As the lady from the Question Time audience so beautifully put it, if he can’t, why should voters let him do it again?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/04/the-truth-about-labour-and-overspending/0 -
I've got news for Mr Kevin Smith, UKIP candidate for Hove. No one ever joined UKIP who wasn't a racist, although few of them are much good at looking into their own souls. And with souls like theirs, who can blame them?AndyJS said:
Demonstrating their love of democracy and free speech.MikeK said:Video exclusive: ‘Green activists’ in Brighton Pavilion rip off UKIP advertisements
B & H Independent @BrightonIndy 11h11 hours ago
Supposing Green activists had burned @UKIP adverts: http://bit.ly/1EUvtLe ? Non-story? Or central to free democracy?
0 -
A 1% shift in support is equal to just 500 votes in the average contituency. Non-scientifically that seems like quite a small number of votes.0
-
Loved BYOL
RobD said:I've seen this chart several times now:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2015/04/question-time-will-ed-miliband-take-his-lectern-with-him/
Has Call me Dave really done that many more appearances than Miliband in the campaign?0 -
That wasn't my point. I understand those issues are Holyrood issues but that doesn't stop their opposition from using them if they feel there is traction (whch there might be).SouthamObserver said:
In the context of a national UK election, the referendum issue is what counts because it affects everyone in the UK. The SNP's poor record on the NHS, education and failure to offer any redistributive policies during its seven years in charge in Scotland are matters for the next year. This year they are not running for government.Dair said:Reflecting on Nicola Sturgeon's Question Time last night, it's suddenly struck me what a boon the Second Referendum question is for the SNP.
Regardless of the genuine strong support for another Referendum (often apparently lost completely to media commentators who seem to prefer "the opinion of potentially biased audiences" to actual polling showing 48% support for another within 5 years and 60-odd percent within 10 years) the main benefit isn't this. The main benefit is that it offers Sturgeon and the SNP a "free ride" in the coverage.
While handling them well, there were genuinely difficult questions for Nicola in the Question Time. But coverage on BBC bulletins has only mentioned the Referendum question. Nothing on an NHS employee in the audience who was fired (albeit a management post) or any of other potential banana skins thrown at the FM.
It seems bizarre but the overwhelming bias of BBC Scotland in their attempts to sabotage the SNP campaign they have ended up helping the SNP by completely misunderstanding the relevant issues. They've created a narrative to discredit the SNP which, in the public's mind, isn't at all discrediting to start with.
My point was that a Second Referendum is not a handicap for the SNP. Leading with that argument their opponents cannot win, firstly because they're doing their campaign so badly that the SNP is just batting them off but more importantly, even if they did trap the FM or another SNP senior into saying "it might happen in 2016 Manifesto", there is too much actual, real support for this in Scotland for it to hurt the SNP.
The attacks made on them are "no win" for Labour/Tories/Libs.0 -
Read in the round, the polls indicate a close result, but one which should see the Tories with most seats. The issue is by what margin. Given the kicking Labour is going to get in Scotland, a 30 seat lead looks about right to me.0
-
So that means after 20 polls there is a 1 in 3 chance that there will be NO outliers, the thing about random chance is that it is not predictable.Philip_Thompson said:
Random sampling should have random errors. Outliers aren't a flaw of random polls there part and parcel of how it works. In a healthy sample of polls a certain proportion should be outside the margins of error. At a 5% confidence interval one in twenty will be.Chris123 said:
I find YouGov to be the most credible. The underlying fact is that the race has been incredibly static. I don't think the dial has moved very much. And pollsters that are all over the place from week to week are just showing us that their overall methodology isn't as tight as that of YouGov.kle4 said:
Well, we feel like there should have been more movement, but if they end up calling the election better than anyone else, it will have been our expectations that were wrong, not them. I don't think anyone should be certain YouGov must be wrong.Purseybear said:
YG static & dead as a floorboard. Can we all agree to bin YG? Regardless of opinions no polling 7 days a week should have this little movement. Somethings badly wrong there.Danny565 said:Populus will be the test tomorrow. Even as stable as they usually are, surely there'll be a Tory lead or atleast a tie if there genuinely has been movement this week.
I don't see how that is particularly sad. A little inconvenient, but parties and their supporters whinge incessantly about balance, surely worth an individual's inconvenience.MikeK said:Sad story of the night.
MissLeahMarie @LittleMissUKIP 4h4 hours ago
The BBC are disgusting. Decided to tell everyone WHEN WE GOT THERE that only some of us are allowed in for "balance" reasons. BBC bastards.
YouGov aren't acting randomly. That means something is wrong. YouGov clearly aren't randomly selecting a sample of the UK under standard distributions.0 -
Mr Herdson, this is probably accounted for somewhere, but if YouGov or whoever email me and say “wiill you take part in this poll” I almost certainly will,. I’m in control, I know who they are. However, if the phone rings and I don’t recognise the number, or it’s 'withheld" I almost certainly won’t answer it, not wishing to be rude to some poor call-centre sod who is simply doing what they can to earn a living with their solar panel or whatever script..david_herdson said:On topic, an interesting observation from Mike.
There are two things which are striking about this elections polling and both are to do with the online/phone divide. Firstly, the phone polls are producing consistently better scores for Con and the online ones favouring Lab; secondly, the online polls are incredibly static while the phone polls have shown quite a bit of movement. Are the two related through some internal methodology? I don't know but I'm suspicious of any results that come back with metronomic regularity in a field that should be inherently changing and uncertain.
But the point is an important one. Does the fact that YouGov and Populus have reported suspiciously consistent results mean that we should also be sceptical about their small Lab leads? Or are the two features independent? Or are the two right? Alternatively, do the swings reported by ICM, Mori and Ashcroft give them more credibility or less, and if more, does that mean we can put more store in their Con leads or is that too a separate matter?
Ultimately it probably comes down to gut instinct. We can't know until it's too late and there are arguments on both sides though my own take is that the phone companies are producing more believable results: I just don't think opinion is that static throughout an election campaign.
And while no-one individual knows enough people for their numbers be important, I know a lot of my “mature” friends take the same attitude.0 -
The election basically comes down to how likely you think the harder-to-turnout groups like the young and very poor (who mostly vote Labour) are to actually show up and vote. ICM and IPSOS apply filters to people who aren't certain to vote and/or who didn't vote last time. YouGov doesn't, I don't think.DavidL said:
So the question that arises is which polling company is right? Is it ICM, whose methodology indicates that the Tories have a modest lead of 3-4% or Yougov who indicate it is a dead heat? The short answer is that we will not know until after 10 on Thursday when the exit poll comes out. If it is ICM the Tories will have a modest plurality although it is beyond me how they could form a government. If it is Yougov then Labour will have the most seats and a Labour/SNP co-operation will have a majority.
Populus today should tell us whether there's been real momentum to the Tories - if they show their first Tory lead of the year then it's safe to say there has been.0 -
Your point was about BBC bias. But the BBC is just focusing on the major national issue. Why would it report on the SNP's NHS record when the SNP is not running for office?Dair said:
That wasn't my point. I understand those issues are Holyrood issues but that doesn't stop their opposition from using them if they feel there is traction (whch there might be).SouthamObserver said:
In the context of a national UK election, the referendum issue is what counts because it affects everyone in the UK. The SNP's poor record on the NHS, education and failure to offer any redistributive policies during its seven years in charge in Scotland are matters for the next year. This year they are not running for government.Dair said:Reflecting on Nicola Sturgeon's Question Time last night, it's suddenly struck me what a boon the Second Referendum question is for the SNP.
Regardless of the genuine strong support for another Referendum (often apparently lost completely to media commentators who seem to prefer "the opinion of potentially biased audiences" to actual polling showing 48% support for another within 5 years and 60-odd percent within 10 years) the main benefit isn't this. The main benefit is that it offers Sturgeon and the SNP a "free ride" in the coverage.
While handling them well, there were genuinely difficult questions for Nicola in the Question Time. But coverage on BBC bulletins has only mentioned the Referendum question. Nothing on an NHS employee in the audience who was fired (albeit a management post) or any of other potential banana skins thrown at the FM.
It seems bizarre but the overwhelming bias of BBC Scotland in their attempts to sabotage the SNP campaign they have ended up helping the SNP by completely misunderstanding the relevant issues. They've created a narrative to discredit the SNP which, in the public's mind, isn't at all discrediting to start with.
My point was that a Second Referendum is not a handicap for the SNP. Leading with that argument their opponents cannot win, firstly because they're doing their campaign so badly that the SNP is just batting them off but more importantly, even if they did trap the FM or another SNP senior into saying "it might happen in 2016 Manifesto", there is too much actual, real support for this in Scotland for it to hurt the SNP.
The attacks made on them are "no win" for Labour/Tories/Libs.
0 -
I make the numbers (excluding Yougov) Con 34.1% to Lab 32.5%.asjohnstone said:Leads don't matter, look at the shares a wise man once said......
Here's an interesting fact, if you aggregate the all the polling for the last 7 days then remove the YouGovs from the dataset, the tory vote share goes from 33.55% to 33.55%. Absolutely zero change.
The labour vote share goes from 33.57% to 32.91%
So, I guess you can ask if YouGov are very slightly over reporting labour, but given that their polling is pretty much exactly in line with the non YouGov polling, I really don't get the YouGov are busted meme. There is no basis for it in the numbers.
We're at the cool heads and look at the numbers phase, emotion isn't the punters friend right now0 -
And of course, as a shred of hope for Labour, it is worth remembering that, unusually, the polls understated them at the last GE. Why this was I don't think has ever been properly established, nor is it possible to tell if whatever factors caused it last time also apply this time.0
-
Very silly comment.Innocent_Abroad said:
I've got news for Mr Kevin Smith, UKIP candidate for Hove. No one ever joined UKIP who wasn't a racist, although few of them are much good at looking into their own souls. And with souls like theirs, who can blame them?AndyJS said:
Demonstrating their love of democracy and free speech.MikeK said:Video exclusive: ‘Green activists’ in Brighton Pavilion rip off UKIP advertisements
B & H Independent @BrightonIndy 11h11 hours ago
Supposing Green activists had burned @UKIP adverts: http://bit.ly/1EUvtLe ? Non-story? Or central to free democracy?0 -
Is that the 'normal rule of thumb' or what you want it to be at the moment.MarqueeMark said:The normal rule of thumb is that the undecideds break 2 to 1 for the incumbent. I suspect that could be a little higher. Maybe 70:30. In which case incumbent Tories (and LibDems) could get a very late-breaking net boost of several million votes over Labour. And the polls will not have picked it up.
I've seen studies saying the opposite:
http://www.pollingreport.com/incumbent.htm
I dare say it varies from country to country and era to era and upon the 'national mood' at the time.
0 -
What makes you the judge of other peoples' souls.Innocent_Abroad said:
I've got news for Mr Kevin Smith, UKIP candidate for Hove. No one ever joined UKIP who wasn't a racist, although few of them are much good at looking into their own souls. And with souls like theirs, who can blame them?AndyJS said:
Demonstrating their love of democracy and free speech.MikeK said:Video exclusive: ‘Green activists’ in Brighton Pavilion rip off UKIP advertisements
B & H Independent @BrightonIndy 11h11 hours ago
Supposing Green activists had burned @UKIP adverts: http://bit.ly/1EUvtLe ? Non-story? Or central to free democracy?0 -
Fraser's graph shows that public spending fell between 2005 and 2007, and then soared following the crash. I, for one, am very glad that it did. God knows would have happened if it had not.CarlottaVance said:So the years 2000-10 saw the size of the state soar from 34pc to 50pc – a rise of 16 points. This is a faster rise than any other country, over any other postwar decade. ......And even now, Miliband can’t bring himself to recognise what he did. As the lady from the Question Time audience so beautifully put it, if he can’t, why should voters let him do it again?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/04/the-truth-about-labour-and-overspending/
0 -
Some caveats:
1.Do phone polls also contact mobile phone users?Younger and unattached people are less likely to have landlines.
2.ICM and Ashcroft reallocate don`t knows to party voted in 2010-50% in ICM and 100% in Ashcroft.With Ashcroft`s own polls and piece in the Independent suggesting don`t knows were swinging more to Labour,the wisdom of this approach is debatable.
3.MORI was an outlier for various reasons as pointed out before.
4.Despite the above,large Tory leads in phone polls suggests a smaller national Tory lead nationwide is probably correct.0 -
The Big squeeze. ARSE versus KELLNER.
Who's been full of hot air? Who's been massaging their internals?
Time to vote off ......the weakest link.......
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/04/19/tories-are-losing-both-air-war-and-ground-war/
0 -
BBC Scotland's innate bias just highlights the issue. The underlying problem is that it is the opposition parties which continue to go back to the well when any rational analysis says that this is a stupid thing for them to do as it cannot benefit their position in any way.SouthamObserver said:
Your point was about BBC bias. But the BBC is just focusing on the major national issue. Why would it report on the SNP's NHS record when the SNP is not running for office?Dair said:
That wasn't my point. I understand those issues are Holyrood issues but that doesn't stop their opposition from using them if they feel there is traction (whch there might be).
My point was that a Second Referendum is not a handicap for the SNP. Leading with that argument their opponents cannot win, firstly because they're doing their campaign so badly that the SNP is just batting them off but more importantly, even if they did trap the FM or another SNP senior into saying "it might happen in 2016 Manifesto", there is too much actual, real support for this in Scotland for it to hurt the SNP.
The attacks made on them are "no win" for Labour/Tories/Libs.
I would not be surprised if the SNP were aware of this and are using it themselves. They could say it would never be ruled out, not suffer in the polls and close the issue down. By refusing to make such a statement, they allow the issue to stay front and centre, keep all criticism of them as a party and government focused on this and avoid any difficult coverage for their campaign.0 -
My theory is that for politically aware types who might register for a panel, their minds were firmly set. As oft pointed out on here 5x as many yougov panel members watched first debate compared to public at large.
I think the phone polls reach a different part of the public, let's call it the general population who aren't bothered about politics normally but will interest themselves every election. This as appears to move towards the Tories.
Now if you are on here you are probably in the first section. I know that most of the time my anorak status on politics is not the norm and even though yougov is probably balanced, it may have a representation of groups, but inherently with more politically interested and aware types.
I know it has been successful in the euros and London materials but I think on that the more political part of the population vote in the euros, and London is different to the rest of the country with regards to political climate attracting the more engaged.
I just cannot believe that the series of yougov results is so stable. You would expect one in twenty outliers so we should be surprised fairly frequently by yougov and we aren't. The only mitigation I can think of is that, their change of methodology could have had the wrong effect.0 -
On-topic. First, Peebies are about as atypical a sample of the electorate as you can get, so all posts starting "I would..." or "my friends are..." can be ignored.
It's impossible to comment on YouGov's sampling technique without knowing how big its panel is and what the participation rate is. As others have noticed, the lack of range in its results is suspicious.
0 -
Ditto. I stopped answering the phone to unsolicited numbers years ago. If they really want me they'll leave a message.OldKingCole said:
Mr Herdson, this is probably accounted for somewhere, but if YouGov or whoever email me and say “wiill you take part in this poll” I almost certainly will,. I’m in control, I know who they are. However, if the phone rings and I don’t recognise the number, or it’s 'withheld" I almost certainly won’t answer it, not wishing to be rude to some poor call-centre sod who is simply doing what they can to earn a living with their solar panel or whatever script..david_herdson said:On topic, an interesting observation from Mike.
There are two things which are striking about this elections polling and both are to do with the online/phone divide. Firstly, the phone polls are producing consistently better scores for Con and the online ones favouring Lab; secondly, the online polls are incredibly static while the phone polls have shown quite a bit of movement. Are the two related through some internal methodology? I don't know but I'm suspicious of any results that come back with metronomic regularity in a field that should be inherently changing and uncertain.
But the point is an important one. Does the fact that YouGov and Populus have reported suspiciously consistent results mean that we should also be sceptical about their small Lab leads? Or are the two features independent? Or are the two right? Alternatively, do the swings reported by ICM, Mori and Ashcroft give them more credibility or less, and if more, does that mean we can put more store in their Con leads or is that too a separate matter?
Ultimately it probably comes down to gut instinct. We can't know until it's too late and there are arguments on both sides though my own take is that the phone companies are producing more believable results: I just don't think opinion is that static throughout an election campaign.
And while no-one individual knows enough people for their numbers be important, I know a lot of my “mature” friends take the same attitude.0 -
Unexpectedly, and hugely to their credit, the BBC did a great job last night. In all the hoohah about debate formats we seem to have hit upon a winning formula. Politicians are ultimately answerable to the people and it somehow seems just right that the tough questioning came from the people and not from each other. This can only really work if the audience is selected such that it is going to grill the leaders deeply and not shy away from sticking it where it hurts in each case. The audience last night was super. I had feared the usual QT lefython. But not a bit of it. I think the decision to go 25/25/25/25 Con/Lab/LD/Other was spot on. So...well done Auntie!0
-
anybody think that the headlines "no deal with SNP" will move many votes in England or Scotland?0
-
He might be judging them by the standards of his own soul.Sean_F said:
What makes you the judge of other peoples' souls.Innocent_Abroad said:
I've got news for Mr Kevin Smith, UKIP candidate for Hove. No one ever joined UKIP who wasn't a racist, although few of them are much good at looking into their own souls. And with souls like theirs, who can blame them?AndyJS said:
Demonstrating their love of democracy and free speech.MikeK said:Video exclusive: ‘Green activists’ in Brighton Pavilion rip off UKIP advertisements
B & H Independent @BrightonIndy 11h11 hours ago
Supposing Green activists had burned @UKIP adverts: http://bit.ly/1EUvtLe ? Non-story? Or central to free democracy?
0 -
It was the same in 2005 and 2007. The only falling it did was between 2006-2007 and 2009-2010SouthamObserver said:
Fraser's graph shows that public spending fell between 2005 and 2007, and then soared following the crash. I, for one, am very glad that it did. God knows would have happened if it had not.CarlottaVance said:So the years 2000-10 saw the size of the state soar from 34pc to 50pc – a rise of 16 points. This is a faster rise than any other country, over any other postwar decade. ......And even now, Miliband can’t bring himself to recognise what he did. As the lady from the Question Time audience so beautifully put it, if he can’t, why should voters let him do it again?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/04/the-truth-about-labour-and-overspending/0 -
Have you done any canvassing this year Sean ?Sean_F said:
I make the numbers (excluding Yougov) Con 34.1% to Lab 32.5%.asjohnstone said:Leads don't matter, look at the shares a wise man once said......
Here's an interesting fact, if you aggregate the all the polling for the last 7 days then remove the YouGovs from the dataset, the tory vote share goes from 33.55% to 33.55%. Absolutely zero change.
The labour vote share goes from 33.57% to 32.91%
So, I guess you can ask if YouGov are very slightly over reporting labour, but given that their polling is pretty much exactly in line with the non YouGov polling, I really don't get the YouGov are busted meme. There is no basis for it in the numbers.
We're at the cool heads and look at the numbers phase, emotion isn't the punters friend right now
0 -
Stupid of Ed to have waited this long to rule out a deal with the SNP.
If he had done so earlier,could have slowed the mass hysteria north of the border.0 -
No, I think peoples minds are long since made upkjohnw said:anybody think that the headlines "no deal with SNP" will move many votes in England or Scotland?
0 -
Not quite sure what point you're making with that comment.Innocent_Abroad said:
I've got news for Mr Kevin Smith, UKIP candidate for Hove. No one ever joined UKIP who wasn't a racist, although few of them are much good at looking into their own souls. And with souls like theirs, who can blame them?AndyJS said:
Demonstrating their love of democracy and free speech.MikeK said:Video exclusive: ‘Green activists’ in Brighton Pavilion rip off UKIP advertisements
B & H Independent @BrightonIndy 11h11 hours ago
Supposing Green activists had burned @UKIP adverts: http://bit.ly/1EUvtLe ? Non-story? Or central to free democracy?0 -
I think that observation is spot on. The really hard bit for the polling companies is assessing the extent of differential turnout. This time around that is being combined with a fairly shameful level of non-registration in the first place. Traditionally ICM have applied the harshest filters on likelihood to vote and traditionally they have been right. I don't think this time will be any different.Danny565 said:
The election basically comes down to how likely you think the harder-to-turnout groups like the young and very poor (who mostly vote Labour) are to actually show up and vote. ICM and IPSOS apply filters to people who aren't certain to vote and/or who didn't vote last time. YouGov doesn't, I don't think.DavidL said:
So the question that arises is which polling company is right? Is it ICM, whose methodology indicates that the Tories have a modest lead of 3-4% or Yougov who indicate it is a dead heat? The short answer is that we will not know until after 10 on Thursday when the exit poll comes out. If it is ICM the Tories will have a modest plurality although it is beyond me how they could form a government. If it is Yougov then Labour will have the most seats and a Labour/SNP co-operation will have a majority.
Populus today should tell us whether there's been real momentum to the Tories - if they show their first Tory lead of the year then it's safe to say there has been.0 -
No, just leafletting.another_richard said:
Have you done any canvassing this year Sean ?Sean_F said:
I make the numbers (excluding Yougov) Con 34.1% to Lab 32.5%.asjohnstone said:Leads don't matter, look at the shares a wise man once said......
Here's an interesting fact, if you aggregate the all the polling for the last 7 days then remove the YouGovs from the dataset, the tory vote share goes from 33.55% to 33.55%. Absolutely zero change.
The labour vote share goes from 33.57% to 32.91%
So, I guess you can ask if YouGov are very slightly over reporting labour, but given that their polling is pretty much exactly in line with the non YouGov polling, I really don't get the YouGov are busted meme. There is no basis for it in the numbers.
We're at the cool heads and look at the numbers phase, emotion isn't the punters friend right now
0 -
ICM, IPSOS, and Opinium all exclude UKIP from their initial prompt.Danny565 said:
The election basically comes down to how likely you think the harder-to-turnout groups like the young and very poor (who mostly vote Labour) are to actually show up and vote. ICM and IPSOS apply filters to people who aren't certain to vote and/or who didn't vote last time. YouGov doesn't, I don't think.DavidL said:
So the question that arises is which polling company is right? Is it ICM, whose methodology indicates that the Tories have a modest lead of 3-4% or Yougov who indicate it is a dead heat? The short answer is that we will not know until after 10 on Thursday when the exit poll comes out. If it is ICM the Tories will have a modest plurality although it is beyond me how they could form a government. If it is Yougov then Labour will have the most seats and a Labour/SNP co-operation will have a majority.
Populus today should tell us whether there's been real momentum to the Tories - if they show their first Tory lead of the year then it's safe to say there has been.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9281
If UKIP draw more support from Conservatives than Labour, that could skew their numbers.
---
ICM and Ipsos have the lowest UKIP vote shares.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/93500 -
Labour was running a deficit of 2-3% of GDP from the year 2001/02 to 2007/08 - during the boom years when it should have been a surplus! Blaming the "global financial crisis" is Labour's way of trying to squirm out of difficult questions.CarlottaVance said:So the years 2000-10 saw the size of the state soar from 34pc to 50pc – a rise of 16 points. This is a faster rise than any other country, over any other postwar decade. ......And even now, Miliband can’t bring himself to recognise what he did. As the lady from the Question Time audience so beautifully put it, if he can’t, why should voters let him do it again?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/04/the-truth-about-labour-and-overspending/
What surprised me was the long memory of the QT audience last night, and the evident anger of people. They remembered Labour's spending and borrowing (even if the message has been reinforced by the Tories) and it will take until the next election for many to forgive and forget.
This has been highlighted in the polling by the way ("who is to blame for the cuts"), and one reason why a Labour victory has been impossible this year.0 -
So you have Ed Miliband now publicly a deficit denier, Ed Balls always was, and they think they are fit to run the country.. I think the electorate will now have sussed whats what.
0 -
So, the proof the BBC is biased against the SNP is that it is reporting the election in a way that is favourable to the SNP. I am sure that makes sense to nationalist fundamentalists, but I have to say it does not immediately work for me.Dair said:
BBC Scotland's innate bias just highlights the issue. The underlying problem is that it is the opposition parties which continue to go back to the well when any rational analysis says that this is a stupid thing for them to do as it cannot benefit their position in any way.SouthamObserver said:
Your point was about BBC bias. But the BBC is just focusing on the major national issue. Why would it report on the SNP's NHS record when the SNP is not running for office?Dair said:
That wasn't my point. I understand those issues are Holyrood issues but that doesn't stop their opposition from using them if they feel there is traction (whch there might be).
My point was that a Second Referendum is not a handicap for the SNP. Leading with that argument their opponents cannot win, firstly because they're doing their campaign so badly that the SNP is just batting them off but more importantly, even if they did trap the FM or another SNP senior into saying "it might happen in 2016 Manifesto", there is too much actual, real support for this in Scotland for it to hurt the SNP.
The attacks made on them are "no win" for Labour/Tories/Libs.
I would not be surprised if the SNP were aware of this and are using it themselves. They could say it would never be ruled out, not suffer in the polls and close the issue down. By refusing to make such a statement, they allow the issue to stay front and centre, keep all criticism of them as a party and government focused on this and avoid any difficult coverage for their campaign.
0 -
I'm calling the election for Ed.
. I fully expect the Tories to win the national vote share. The national polls point to Ed (In aggregate) being ahead on seats or it being too close to call. The likely distribution from the models (UKElect, FIsher, Hanretty) points to a Tory lead on votes and seats. BUT Here is the thing... Con + LD + DUP must equal 323. In order for Ed to NOT become PM he musty abstain the Conservative Queen speech. SNP, PC, SDLP, Green voting it down is even more sure than the Labour party. No doubt if it really is Labour 260, Tories 285 he will give it serious consideration. But then he will put forward a Labour Queen speech and DARE the SNP to vote it down. There will be some Labour rebels who will be expelled, Danczuk, Mann, perhaps one or two others.
The SNP will vote it through.. And thus as Rod Crosby has pointed towards in his constitutional musings Ed is PM. I expect him to remain in post till Holyrood 2016. Past that the SNP may well pull the plug.
My book is well enough balanced that the final betting consequences of either Ed or Dave (Or other) should be fine for me. But this is my prediction.0 -
I don't disagree. Personally, I think the result will show it's time for a root and branch review of the machinery of Govt looking at the role of the Lords, Devolution at national and regional level, the role of local authorities and even our voting system.Purseybear said:Last comment before I go to work but if SNP do wipe the floor in Scotland or come close to it I think thats a real constitutional crisis we have on our hands. I don't see how Westminster can operate under those circumstances without further changes to the union.
0 -
Fair enough, it was falling at the time of the crash. And then, thankfully, rose again.RobD said:
It was the same in 2005 and 2007. The only falling it did was between 2006-2007 and 2009-2010SouthamObserver said:
Fraser's graph shows that public spending fell between 2005 and 2007, and then soared following the crash. I, for one, am very glad that it did. God knows would have happened if it had not.CarlottaVance said:So the years 2000-10 saw the size of the state soar from 34pc to 50pc – a rise of 16 points. This is a faster rise than any other country, over any other postwar decade. ......And even now, Miliband can’t bring himself to recognise what he did. As the lady from the Question Time audience so beautifully put it, if he can’t, why should voters let him do it again?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/04/the-truth-about-labour-and-overspending/
0 -
The Value bet at the moment is Con minority though.0
-
Has anyone put it on YouTube? I can't watch it on iPlayer because I'm in Tokyo at the moment (in the very noisy Lion Beer Hall in Ginza. Anyone been there?)Patrick said:Unexpectedly, and hugely to their credit, the BBC did a great job last night. In all the hoohah about debate formats we seem to have hit upon a winning formula. Politicians are ultimately answerable to the people and it somehow seems just right that the tough questioning came from the people and not from each other. This can only really work if the audience is selected such that it is going to grill the leaders deeply and not shy away from sticking it where it hurts in each case. The audience last night was super. I had feared the usual QT lefython. But not a bit of it. I think the decision to go 25/25/25/25 Con/Lab/LD/Other was spot on. So...well done Auntie!
0 -
I'm not offering any evidence of bias in BBC Scotland, that would be another topic.SouthamObserver said:
So, the proof the BBC is biased against the SNP is that it is reporting the election in a way that is favourable to the SNP. I am sure that makes sense to nationalist fundamentalists, but I have to say it does not immediately work for me.
Not sure why you're ignoring the point at hand. Labour and the other opposition are highlighting the wrong issue.0 -
Saw the QT things last night.
Really quite scary Miliband denying Labour overspending. We can't let these clowns near the levers of power again! I don't really buy the current narrative from the tories about how they have got everything going great again, but they are at least not living in complete la-la land like Miliband seems to be.
What a fool. People aren't going to let him be in charge ...are they? Please...?0 -
I'm not so sure. The longer game would be to not vote down the Tories speech then dangle them on a string for 6 months whilst they fight like rats in a sack. Once half a dozen have defected to UKIP bring them down. Labour knows that with a hostile press it has much More to lose from governing weakly.Pulpstar said:I'm calling the election for Ed.
. I fully expect the Tories to win the national vote share. The national polls point to Ed (In aggregate) being ahead on seats or it being too close to call. The likely distribution from the models (UKElect, FIsher, Hanretty) points to a Tory lead on votes and seats. BUT Here is the thing... Con + LD + DUP must equal 323. In order for Ed to NOT become PM he musty abstain the Conservative Queen speech. SNP, PC, SDLP, Green voting it down is even more sure than the Labour party. No doubt if it really is Labour 260, Tories 285 he will give it serious consideration. But then he will put forward a Labour Queen speech and DARE the SNP to vote it down. There will be some Labour rebels who will be expelled, Danczuk, Mann, perhaps one or two others.
The SNP will vote it through.. And thus as Rod Crosby has pointed towards in his constitutional musings Ed is PM. I expect him to remain in post till Holyrood 2016. Past that the SNP may well pull the plug.
My book is well enough balanced that the final betting consequences of either Ed or Dave (Or other) should be fine for me. But this is my prediction.0 -
Sorry to be thick but what does ARSE stand for?0
-
No way will John Mann rebel, ultimately he's hardline anti-Conservative.Pulpstar said:There will be some Labour rebels who will be expelled, Danczuk, Mann, perhaps one or two others.
Danczuk perhaps but I doubt it.
What was striking in 2008-2009 was that no Labour MPs defected even though some of them looked, and as it turned out were, certain to be defeated.
0 -
Ed is Pm on anything north of 260. He depending on the LD numbers and if SF gain Belfast north he might go for it on 255.0
-
Farage on the wireless spinning Miliband's statement re the SNP as effectively ruling himself out as PM. Ergo Labour voters should vote UKIP.0
-
I doubt it. When people can claim that the BBC's inherent bias against the SNP manifests itself in reporting the election in a way that is favourable to the SNP I think we can safely conclude that these are not normal, rational times north of the border. Nothing Labour could have said or done was going to stop them from getting an absolute kicking next week.SMukesh said:Stupid of Ed to have waited this long to rule out a deal with the SNP.
If he had done so earlier,could have slowed the mass hysteria north of the border.
But what it might have done was reassured a few English voters. Labour's mistake was not to have given up on Scotland a while ago. It should have focused entirely on England and Wales.0 -
What a disgrace ....
Only 966 comments on the last thread - PB lightweights !! ....
0 -
Will 'half a dozen defect to UKIP' after they've seen an election in which UKIP didn't break through, Farage only just/didn't get elected, Reckless only just/didn't get elected.Monksfield said:
I'm not so sure. The longer game would be to not vote down the Tories speech then dangle them on a string for 6 months whilst they fight like rats in a sack. Once half a dozen have defected to UKIP bring them down. Labour knows that with a hostile press it has much More to lose from governing weakly.Pulpstar said:I'm calling the election for Ed.
. I fully expect the Tories to win the national vote share. The national polls point to Ed (In aggregate) being ahead on seats or it being too close to call. The likely distribution from the models (UKElect, FIsher, Hanretty) points to a Tory lead on votes and seats. BUT Here is the thing... Con + LD + DUP must equal 323. In order for Ed to NOT become PM he musty abstain the Conservative Queen speech. SNP, PC, SDLP, Green voting it down is even more sure than the Labour party. No doubt if it really is Labour 260, Tories 285 he will give it serious consideration. But then he will put forward a Labour Queen speech and DARE the SNP to vote it down. There will be some Labour rebels who will be expelled, Danczuk, Mann, perhaps one or two others.
The SNP will vote it through.. And thus as Rod Crosby has pointed towards in his constitutional musings Ed is PM. I expect him to remain in post till Holyrood 2016. Past that the SNP may well pull the plug.
My book is well enough balanced that the final betting consequences of either Ed or Dave (Or other) should be fine for me. But this is my prediction.0 -
Labour might but not EdM.Monksfield said:
I'm not so sure. The longer game would be to not vote down the Tories speech then dangle them on a string for 6 months whilst they fight like rats in a sack. Once half a dozen have defected to UKIP bring them down. Labour knows that with a hostile press it has much More to lose from governing weakly.Pulpstar said:I'm calling the election for Ed.
. I fully expect the Tories to win the national vote share. The national polls point to Ed (In aggregate) being ahead on seats or it being too close to call. The likely distribution from the models (UKElect, FIsher, Hanretty) points to a Tory lead on votes and seats. BUT Here is the thing... Con + LD + DUP must equal 323. In order for Ed to NOT become PM he musty abstain the Conservative Queen speech. SNP, PC, SDLP, Green voting it down is even more sure than the Labour party. No doubt if it really is Labour 260, Tories 285 he will give it serious consideration. But then he will put forward a Labour Queen speech and DARE the SNP to vote it down. There will be some Labour rebels who will be expelled, Danczuk, Mann, perhaps one or two others.
The SNP will vote it through.. And thus as Rod Crosby has pointed towards in his constitutional musings Ed is PM. I expect him to remain in post till Holyrood 2016. Past that the SNP may well pull the plug.
My book is well enough balanced that the final betting consequences of either Ed or Dave (Or other) should be fine for me. But this is my prediction.
0 -
If you install Hola from www.Hola.org you can spoof your IP address and watch everything. Free and excellent.AndyJS said:
Has anyone put it on YouTube? I can't watch it on iPlayer because I'm in Tokyo at the moment (in the very noisy Lion Beer Hall in Ginza. Anyone been there?)Patrick said:Unexpectedly, and hugely to their credit, the BBC did a great job last night. In all the hoohah about debate formats we seem to have hit upon a winning formula. Politicians are ultimately answerable to the people and it somehow seems just right that the tough questioning came from the people and not from each other. This can only really work if the audience is selected such that it is going to grill the leaders deeply and not shy away from sticking it where it hurts in each case. The audience last night was super. I had feared the usual QT lefython. But not a bit of it. I think the decision to go 25/25/25/25 Con/Lab/LD/Other was spot on. So...well done Auntie!
0 -
Your point was:Dair said:
I'm not offering any evidence of bias in BBC Scotland, that would be another topic.SouthamObserver said:
So, the proof the BBC is biased against the SNP is that it is reporting the election in a way that is favourable to the SNP. I am sure that makes sense to nationalist fundamentalists, but I have to say it does not immediately work for me.
Not sure why you're ignoring the point at hand. Labour and the other opposition are highlighting the wrong issue.
"It seems bizarre but the overwhelming bias of BBC Scotland in their attempts to sabotage the SNP campaign they have ended up helping the SNP by completely misunderstanding the relevant issues. They've created a narrative to discredit the SNP which, in the public's mind, isn't at all discrediting to start with."
0 -
AR
"Danczuk perhaps but I doubt it."
The only comfort in the Tories winning the election would be that Danczuk won't be sitting on the government benches.0 -
The attitude that people moving over to vote SNP is 'hysteria' typifies the problem Labour have with their voters.SMukesh said:Stupid of Ed to have waited this long to rule out a deal with the SNP.
If he had done so earlier,could have slowed the mass hysteria north of the border.
"Oh, you're not voting for us? There must be something wrong with you."0 -
RE; YG
Whilst the YG polls show a lot of steadiness, there is a lot of unpredictable daily churn inside them, especially since the change in methodology. This is most noticeable in the 2010 LD VI (the Cons and LAB ones are more stable) which veers widely from large losses to LAB to large retention by LD and smaller losses to LAB.
Thus are the 2010LD voters still in a state of flux as suggested by YG or are they more stable?0 -
I can't see that happening. The SNP has already stated they will vote down a tory QS. So personally, unless the torys have a decent lead in seat terms, Cameron will resign.Monksfield said:
I'm not so sure. The longer game would be to not vote down the Tories speech then dangle them on a string for 6 months whilst they fight like rats in a sack. Once half a dozen have defected to UKIP bring them down. Labour knows that with a hostile press it has much More to lose from governing weakly.Pulpstar said:I'm calling the election for Ed.
. I fully expect the Tories to win the national vote share. The national polls point to Ed (In aggregate) being ahead on seats or it being too close to call. The likely distribution from the models (UKElect, FIsher, Hanretty) points to a Tory lead on votes and seats. BUT Here is the thing... Con + LD + DUP must equal 323. In order for Ed to NOT become PM he musty abstain the Conservative Queen speech. SNP, PC, SDLP, Green voting it down is even more sure than the Labour party. No doubt if it really is Labour 260, Tories 285 he will give it serious consideration. But then he will put forward a Labour Queen speech and DARE the SNP to vote it down. There will be some Labour rebels who will be expelled, Danczuk, Mann, perhaps one or two others.
The SNP will vote it through.. And thus as Rod Crosby has pointed towards in his constitutional musings Ed is PM. I expect him to remain in post till Holyrood 2016. Past that the SNP may well pull the plug.
My book is well enough balanced that the final betting consequences of either Ed or Dave (Or other) should be fine for me. But this is my prediction.
Then Ed has to try to form a government.... its as simple as that. Ed can't turn it down.
Thats when it gets difficult for him....for all his bleating, the SNP will hold great influence over him, and can time their effective veto at any and all times.
Given that any minority government will be so weak, becoming the government in that situation is truely a posioned chalice.0 -
The mouth breathers will ultimately realise it's the only way they'll ever get their in/out referendum. In any case the UKIP trajectory is still up. Con trajectory is down.logical_song said:
Will 'half a dozen defect to UKIP' after they've seen an election in which UKIP didn't break through, Farage only just/didn't get elected, Reckless only just/didn't get elected.Monksfield said:
I'm not so sure. The longer game would be to not vote down the Tories speech then dangle them on a string for 6 months whilst they fight like rats in a sack. Once half a dozen have defected to UKIP bring them down. Labour knows that with a hostile press it has much More to lose from governing weakly.Pulpstar said:I'm calling the election for Ed.
. I fully expect the Tories to win the national vote share. The national polls point to Ed (In aggregate) being ahead on seats or it being too close to call. The likely distribution from the models (UKElect, FIsher, Hanretty) points to a Tory lead on votes and seats. BUT Here is the thing... Con + LD + DUP must equal 323. In order for Ed to NOT become PM he musty abstain the Conservative Queen speech. SNP, PC, SDLP, Green voting it down is even more sure than the Labour party. No doubt if it really is Labour 260, Tories 285 he will give it serious consideration. But then he will put forward a Labour Queen speech and DARE the SNP to vote it down. There will be some Labour rebels who will be expelled, Danczuk, Mann, perhaps one or two others.
The SNP will vote it through.. And thus as Rod Crosby has pointed towards in his constitutional musings Ed is PM. I expect him to remain in post till Holyrood 2016. Past that the SNP may well pull the plug.
My book is well enough balanced that the final betting consequences of either Ed or Dave (Or other) should be fine for me. But this is my prediction.0 -
I suspect Danczuk will increase his majority by many thousands.Roger said:AR
"Danczuk perhaps but I doubt it."
The only comfort in the Tories winning the election would be that Danczuk won't be sitting on the government benches.
0 -
If Ed believes that there was no overspending in the Blar Brown era, just needed investment in infrastructure then he is certain to repeat the process. Particularly with the SNP egging him on.JonCisBack said:Saw the QT things last night.
Really quite scary Miliband denying Labour overspending. We can't let these clowns near the levers of power again! I don't really buy the current narrative from the tories about how they have got everything going great again, but they are at least not living in complete la-la land like Miliband seems to be.
What a fool. People aren't going to let him be in charge ...are they? Please...?
I do not like Dave much, and find much of the Conservative agenda scary. I would not want to see a Conservative government with a working majority.
I would quite like to see a continuity coalition, but the LDs look to be losing too many seats for that to be tenable.
It is all going to be quite a mess in a weeks time.
0 -
What a reasonable thread as opposed to last nights hyperbolic shrilling. I wonder if chianti has a role to play in changing the tone of pb debate from morning to night.
On the thread- I don't think YG has changed the narrative. Disregard Yougov and Populus if you wish as many do.
I genuinely thought that YouGov would show a 2% Tory lead- one that I expect on the 7th May. A 2% Tory lead would ensure that all the pollsters are within the MOE, just about.
0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
