politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Friday afternoon/evening pollercoaster – rolling thread
Comments
-
TSE @TSEofPB 31s31 seconds ago
Latest @Survation poll for The Mirror Lab 34 plus 5. Con 33 no change. EICIPM
0 -
0
-
YES SURVATION YES
Huge post brand swing to Labour0 -
My perfect dream
Tories winning more seats in Scotland than Labour
Ed Balls loses in Morley
Tory slight majority
I be a happy warrior with that happening0 -
F*ck off ! I am sure you know what that means !MarkHopkins said:
"unthinkable"surbiton said:The idea of a 0% or 1% swing to Labour from Con in London, even Battersea, is unthinkable.
I don't think you know what that word means.0 -
The thing is that Q1 and Q2 are essentially the same question - Q1 asks "If there were aIshmael_X said:Thought experiment: if you were shown the Ashcroft Q1 and Q2 and told they were from polling in an unspecified country, not the UK, and you were asked to reconstruct the electoral system in that country based on the premise that Q1 and Q2 were sensible questions to ask, would your answer remotely resemble the UK system? I think people who answer Q2 differently from Q1 do so because they do not understand it.
general election tomorrow, which party would you vote for?" Well, there is a general election, if not tomorrrow, but next week, and in many cases voters have already voted. So when they are asked Q2, they must think they are being asked a different question.
Quite what questions they think they are answering is anyone's guess. It's an article of faith (especially amongst LibDems) that they've misinterpreted Q1, and give the right answer on Q2. Maybe, but we simply don't know that.
It would have been better, especially at this stage, to have a single question, with named candidates, and referring specifically to the election next week.0 -
Someone hasn't got the memo
@GdnPolitics: Election polls: Tories clearly edging ahead in final weeks http://t.co/RRIKGQDDVi0 -
Panelbase
You Gov
Survation
Last 3 polls all have Labour ahead.0 -
We also don't know how many more Labour voters will switch to the SNP after Miliband's rather stupid over-emphasis on the Question Time.Pulpstar said:BRS could honestly go any way. Aside from the wonderful value 66-1 Nabavi is on, it's a real mud pit right now for the punter.
Stay out is my best advice.
And yes, you are absolutely right with your betting advice. Only a mug would place a bet on DCT right now. Poor Ruth Davidson.0 -
Show me the crossover. Show me the crossover.0
-
EICIPM with accompanying music ! It was that chap who did it [ the guy who doesn't vote ]bigjohnowls said:TSE @TSEofPB 31s31 seconds ago
Latest @Survation poll for The Mirror Lab 34 plus 5. Con 33 no change. EICIPM0 -
Survation has been quite volatile.
Just 3 weeks ago (9 April) it was Lab 35, Con 31.0 -
In Baltimore, arrest warrants have been issued for 6 police officers involved in the Freddie Gray arrest, one for second degree murder, and Gray's death has been ruled a homicide.0
-
zero out of three nightmare with EICIPM to top it off looks most likelysaddo said:My perfect dream
Tories winning more seats in Scotland than Labour
Ed Balls loses in Morley
Tory slight majority
I be a happy warrior with that happening0 -
Child benefit story hitting home ?TGOHF said:
Brand Bounce !TheScreamingEagles said:Survation Lab 34 plus 5. Con 33 no change.
0 -
I hope Question 2 is right. Julian Huppert is a BIG contingency in that Ladbrokes Labour seatbomb market for me, I've covered Reading East (Kettering is surely highly unrealistic) and am on the London seats properly as well.Richard_Nabavi said:
The thing is that Q1 and Q2 are essentially the same question - Q1 asks "If there were aIshmael_X said:Thought experiment: if you were shown the Ashcroft Q1 and Q2 and told they were from polling in an unspecified country, not the UK, and you were asked to reconstruct the electoral system in that country based on the premise that Q1 and Q2 were sensible questions to ask, would your answer remotely resemble the UK system? I think people who answer Q2 differently from Q1 do so because they do not understand it.
general election tomorrow, which party would you vote for?" Well, there is a general election, if not tomorrrow, but next week, and in many cases voters have already voted. So when they are asked Q2, they must think they are being asked a different question.
Quite what questions they think they are answering is anyone's guess. It's an article of faith (especially amongst LibDems) that they've misinterpreted Q1, and give the right answer on Q2. Maybe, but we simply don't know that.
It would have been better, especially at this stage, to have a single question, with named candidates.
Bristol West = Well safe.0 -
Lets call it a draw votes wise Sean.
It means Ed is PM.0 -
Oh dear. Labour supporters getting rattled?surbiton said:
F*ck off ! I am sure you know what that means !MarkHopkins said:
"unthinkable"surbiton said:The idea of a 0% or 1% swing to Labour from Con in London, even Battersea, is unthinkable.
I don't think you know what that word means.0 -
£12BN Unexplained welfare cuts kicks in rather than Brand bounce IMO0
-
As a Conservative supporter, I was deeply embarrassed by his posts on here when he was a regular.Peter_the_Punter said:
Probably, regrettably.....Casino_Royale said:
He's not exactly my cup of tea, Peter, but I struggle to see how the Tories will do worse in Peterborough than 2005, 2001 and even 1997.Peter_the_Punter said:
Peterborough may be a rare example of a reverse incumbency bonus.Danny565 said:Labour ahead in Peterborough but behind in top London targets?! Bizarre.
Even Ashcroft polls have an MoE. I expect him to hold.
There are some politicians I would vote for whatever their Party, and others I would not vote for under any circumstances.
Guess where Stewart Jackson falls?
The contrast between him and Nick Palmer couldn't have been stronger, and it did not reflect at all well on the party he was trying to promote.0 -
Sean
Definitely not Con Maj - as they aren't even trying to make gains of Lab. And as much as it pains me to say it not gonna see a Lab Maj - unless Scotland has trolled the rest of the UK in the most epic and amazing way possible.0 -
LAB most seats out to 4.8 on Betfair
Must be bad Survation due0 -
I don't think it's people answering like they're voting in a council election, necessarily. I'm sure most people are switching in Q2 because they like their local LibDem MP. But the question is whether EVERYONE in those seats actually is going to be thinking first and foremost about who they want to be doing the local community work on polling day, rather than thinking about who they want in government. I would argue that anyone who is going to naturally vote on the basis of who they want as their MP WITHOUT being prompted to think specifically about their constituency (which, after all, they won't be specifically prompted to do on the day) would be answering LibDem to any voting question by this point.rcs1000 said:
That has been the suspicion of every partisan Labour, Conservative, SNP and UKIP voter on this site!Danny565 said:By the way, the North Cornwall polling adds to my suspicions about how reliable Ashcroft's Q2 method is. There's STILL a huge disconnect between how people say they generally intend to vote, and how they would vote when "thinking specifically about your constituency". Surely at this stage, with everyone in an election mindset, all those people would be answering Lib Dem for any voting intention question if they were actually going to do it?
To test this, I thought I'd run through other marginal polls from Ashcroft, particularly those in areas where the LibDems have meaningful local presence. If the LibDems jump between Q1 and Q2 in those seats, then the answer to Q2 is clearly suspect. If they do not, it suggests that people are prompted to think about their local constituency. (If people are being prompted to change their mind, then the effect would be evident everywhere, and not just in LibDem seats.)
It turns out that in seats without LibDem MPs the average jump between questions 1 and 2 is 0.3%. And in many seats - such as Battersea, Croydon Central and Stourbridge - the LibDems actually go backwards between Q1 and Q2.
For this reason, I think we have to accept that the difference between Q1 and Q2 is not picking up some kind of "council" election effect, as posited by PaulMidBeds, for example.
This does not make it accurate, of course. But I suspect punters ignore it at their peril.
Imo, the Ashcroft question is not that much different to loaded questions like "thinking specifically about the NHS, who do you intend to vote for?" or "thinking specifically about immigration, who do you intend to vote for?"
0 -
Not with UKIP hoovering up a fifth of the vote.Casino_Royale said:
He's not exactly my cup of tea, Peter, but I struggle to see how the Tories will do worse in Peterborough than 2005, 2001 and even 1997.Peter_the_Punter said:
Peterborough may be a rare example of a reverse incumbency bonus.Danny565 said:Labour ahead in Peterborough but behind in top London targets?! Bizarre.
Even Ashcroft polls have an MoE. I expect him to hold.
Ashcroft confirms Peterborough as one of those Tory seats that UKIP will hand to Labour with a feeble share by decimating the Tory inclined support.
It's Farage wot won it - as The Mirror may splash as Ed waltzes into No 10.0 -
No, it's just noise:bigjohnowls said:£12BN Unexplained welfare cuts kicks in rather than Brand bounce IMO
Survation: Lab +4 (from the last Survation in Mail on Sunday)
Populus: Lab -30 -
Sean F. From memory Populus and Comres are ties.Can you list the 6 polls showing Tory leads0
-
And the inevitable claw back of any increasing Tory lead strikes once again. Ed M is our next PM, it's just a question of how well he can handle what will be a very difficult situation.0
-
If true Labour should make up some more fibs for next week.Tykejohnno said:
Child benefit story hitting home ?TGOHF said:
Brand Bounce !TheScreamingEagles said:Survation Lab 34 plus 5. Con 33 no change.
0 -
Not half as rattled as they'll be after a few weeks of Ed pacing around No 10 waiting for Nicola to return his calls.Casino_Royale said:
Oh dear. Labour supporters getting rattled?surbiton said:
F*ck off ! I am sure you know what that means !MarkHopkins said:
"unthinkable"surbiton said:The idea of a 0% or 1% swing to Labour from Con in London, even Battersea, is unthinkable.
I don't think you know what that word means.
"Sorry I didn't get back to you, Ed. I was having my nails done. I've lost your voicemail, was it something about wanting to get a budget through?"0 -
One thing is clear from the marginals polling: Cons could really do without the UKIP menace. Shame Dave spent the past few years dismissing UKIP supporters fruitcakes and loonies.0
-
Ed's ruling out a "deal" with the SNP, but he still has some wriggle room.
I assume it will be like another political phrase .... "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."0 -
£12Bn not borrowed from the smiling children of tomorrow ?bigjohnowls said:£12BN Unexplained welfare cuts kicks in rather than Brand bounce IMO
0 -
I think it was the lib Dems.TGOHF said:
If true Labour should make up some more fibs for next week.Tykejohnno said:
Child benefit story hitting home ?TGOHF said:
Brand Bounce !TheScreamingEagles said:Survation Lab 34 plus 5. Con 33 no change.
0 -
Survation also polled who won the QT last night.
0 -
Don't you come on here and throw facts about. I had to warn OGH about this yesterday. It upsets the PB Hodges.Tykejohnno said:
I think it was the lib Dems.TGOHF said:
If true Labour should make up some more fibs for next week.Tykejohnno said:
Child benefit story hitting home ?TGOHF said:
Brand Bounce !TheScreamingEagles said:Survation Lab 34 plus 5. Con 33 no change.
0 -
Totally agree.SeanT said:I also wonder if this is, literally, an unpollable election. Too many wild new imponderable forces mean the old models cannot cope. So we could see any result, from Lab Maj to Con Maj.
The poll-to-poll movements from different companies are so radically out of line with one another.
Today's Survation is Con NC Lab +5
Today's Populus is Con NC Lab -3
Yesterday's MORI Con +2 Lab -5
Crazy numbers, and inconsistent directions of travel. Some companies are going to be very badly wrong -- and others might be heralded as accurate based on sheer luck.
0 -
0
-
But Holyrood's not FPTP but proportional (sort of) - with a list full of real live Tories, some even at Holyrood. So voting Labour there would be insane.HYUFD said:trublue Rubbish, every SNP MP will vote down a Cameron government and Murphy is a staunch unionist. I would agree that Tory tactical voting will be even more likely next year when the contest is Labour v SNP for power at Holyrood and stopping an SNP majority, than Tory v Labour at Westminster as next week
0 -
You think Tories have explained their £12bn in benefit cuts?TGOHF said:
If true Labour should make up some more fibs for next week.Tykejohnno said:
Child benefit story hitting home ?TGOHF said:
Brand Bounce !TheScreamingEagles said:Survation Lab 34 plus 5. Con 33 no change.
Until they do everyone will think the worst0 -
Alistair/Mark Senior/Dair At the 2011 Scottish Parliament vote the LD vote was down and Lamont's Tory vote was up 5% in Berwickshire, indeed Lamont won 44% to the SNP's 26% at an election the SNP won 45% across Scotland and the Tories 13%. Lamont is likely to become the MP for a seat he already represents as MSP0
-
-
The Conservatives rebuttal of the story was really poor.Tykejohnno said:
I think it was the lib Dems.TGOHF said:
If true Labour should make up some more fibs for next week.Tykejohnno said:
Child benefit story hitting home ?TGOHF said:
Brand Bounce !TheScreamingEagles said:Survation Lab 34 plus 5. Con 33 no change.
Going "Nuh-uh. It was the Lib Dems that wanted to make cuts" just kept the story in the news cycle and allowed the Lib Dems to distance themselves even further from the cuts.0 -
-
God bless Lord Ashcroft and his little cotton socks!0
-
You think those on £49k deserve child benefit - could that money not be used to relieve the low paid of tax ?bigjohnowls said:
You think Tories have explained their £12bn in benefit cuts?TGOHF said:
If true Labour should make up some more fibs for next week.Tykejohnno said:
Child benefit story hitting home ?TGOHF said:
Brand Bounce !TheScreamingEagles said:Survation Lab 34 plus 5. Con 33 no change.
Until they do everyone will think the worst0 -
#boom0
-
"A woman is only a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke" - Rudyard KiplingPlato said:When a cigar isn't just a cigar...
I think Bill Clinton disagreed with Kipling and tried to combine both. Ed is no Bill Clinton.
So far this whole election looks totally open and impossible to call. How odd that Joe Public does not seem to give a d*mn (shades of Clark Gable now!!). Next Thursday will be a good night to watch political telly.
0 -
By contrast Labour holds the Dumfrieshire seat in the Scottish Parliament and the SNP hold Clydesdale and Tweedale, so the Tories do not have an MSP in Mundell's seat0
-
Harry , surely you would want it to cut the 40% tax rateTGOHF said:
You think those on £49k deserve child benefit - could that money not be used to relieve the low paid of tax ?bigjohnowls said:
You think Tories have explained their £12bn in benefit cuts?TGOHF said:
If true Labour should make up some more fibs for next week.Tykejohnno said:
Child benefit story hitting home ?TGOHF said:
Brand Bounce !TheScreamingEagles said:Survation Lab 34 plus 5. Con 33 no change.
Until they do everyone will think the worst0 -
The numbers that Survation has been wiggling around throughout the campaign are:TheScreamingEagles said:@JBeattieMirror: @DailyMirror @Survation poll Lab 34% (+5 on last week), Cons 33% (NC), UKIP 16% (-2), Lib Dems 9% (-1), SNP 4% (NC) Greens 3% (-1) #GE2015
Survation: Con 32; Lab 32; LD 9; UKIP 17
Still looks like no change to anything other than statistical noise around the mean.
0 -
From what I can calculate the latest batch of LordA constituency polls contain some bad news for every party bar the LD.
The Tories are not sweeping the SW afterall.
Labour has lost it's advantage in London.
Swing to Labour still just above 3%.
However it does confirm that the Tories are very close to their 2010 vote share nationwide but UKIP have low scores, so the prospect of a further UKIP squeeze might not yield many more votes, in some constituencies UKIP have been squeezed to 2010 levels so there are no more ex-Tory votes left.
In conclusion, the Tories are for the first time ahead in seat numbers (about 5 seats more than Labour) due to London reverting back to them, but their prospects of further recovery are hampered by the LD resilience, and UKIP having few votes to squeeze now.
0 -
Are you calling it for EdAndy_Cooke said:
The numbers that Survation has been wiggling around throughout the campaign are:TheScreamingEagles said:@JBeattieMirror: @DailyMirror @Survation poll Lab 34% (+5 on last week), Cons 33% (NC), UKIP 16% (-2), Lib Dems 9% (-1), SNP 4% (NC) Greens 3% (-1) #GE2015
Survation: Con 32; Lab 32; LD 9; UKIP 17
Still looks like no change to anything other than statistical noise around the mean.
?!
#boom0 -
Erm, that was 4 years ago. Has anything substantial happened in the interim?HYUFD said:Alistair/Mark Senior/Dair At the 2011 Scottish Parliament vote the LD vote was down and Lamont's Tory vote was up 5% in Berwickshire, indeed Lamont won 44% to the SNP's 26% at an election the SNP won 45% across Scotland and the Tories 13%. Lamont is likely to become the MP for a seat he already represents as MSP
0 -
Don't bother - I'm bawdeep on him to since before Xmas. I've not had any red leaflets for a week to 10 days after an initial Labour barrage if that helps..Pulpstar said:
However this chap is making a late surge with interesting leaflets and approach
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Pledge-replace-MPs-citizen-panels-Cambridge-8217/story-26375877-detail/story.html
Pledge to replace MPs with citizen panels by Cambridge’s curveball candidate Keith Garrett
By Cambridge News | Posted: April 23, 2015
Cambridge's curveball parliamentary candidate wants to disband the role of MPs if he wins next month's election.
City resident Keith Garrett was the surprise name on the ballot paper when nominations closed in the race to become Cambridge MP.
While he will be listed on the city's ballot papers as standing for 'Removing the Politicians', Mr Garrett is pioneering the 'Rebooting Democracy' movement outlined in a recent political book of the same name.
The former city council candidate for the Green Party told the News his vision was for a "judicial-based government".
Under this system, groups of ordinary people would be randomly selected to take decisions on legislation having been presented with evidence from experts.
Each 'citizens panel' would then be disbanded once they had made their decision, with different groups formed for each decision and pieces of potential new law.
0 -
I said at the time the story went all day on every news bulletin,some what I heard were well over the top,the story could only hurt the Tories.Alistair said:
The Conservatives rebuttal of the story was really poor.Tykejohnno said:
I think it was the lib Dems.TGOHF said:
If true Labour should make up some more fibs for next week.Tykejohnno said:
Child benefit story hitting home ?TGOHF said:
Brand Bounce !TheScreamingEagles said:Survation Lab 34 plus 5. Con 33 no change.
Going "Nuh-uh. It was the Lib Dems that wanted to make cuts" just kept the story in the news cycle and allowed the Lib Dems to distance themselves even further from the cuts.0 -
Tory tactical votes to save Jim Murphy? Lol.0
-
Miliband's denial last night that Labour overspent 1997-2010 should be all over the news like Brown's "bigoted woman". Unfortunately for the Tories, it has gained zero traction in the media beyond the usual crew like the Telegraph.0
-
When so many of them are it's difficult not to. By the way, before you say that's no way to get the kippers back, I don't want them back, I'm more than happy not to be associated with large numbers of them.KentRising said:One thing is clear from the marginals polling: Cons could really do without the UKIP menace. Shame Dave spent the past few years dismissing UKIP supporters fruitcakes and loonies.
0 -
Yep, looks like reversion to trend to me.MikeL said:
No, it's just noise:bigjohnowls said:£12BN Unexplained welfare cuts kicks in rather than Brand bounce IMO
Survation: Lab +4 (from the last Survation in Mail on Sunday)
Populus: Lab -3
Tactical voting for Holyrood does not seem very likely. Tories have a good number of MSPs and an excellent leader. In a PR system, why would they vote tactically.HYUFD said:trublue Rubbish, every SNP MP will vote down a Cameron government and Murphy is a staunch unionist. I would agree that Tory tactical voting will be even more likely next year when the contest is Labour v SNP for power at Holyrood and stopping an SNP majority, than Tory v Labour at Westminster as next week
0 -
Burnley relegated and Ed PM.
Both been on the cards for so long, both were utterly preventable, but both have slowly come along with predictable inevitability of a slow motion car crash.
I've been dreading this awful May for some time.... :-(
Hope I cheer up over the summer!0 -
I disagree, UKIP have been squeezed in the marginals, their votes are almost equally split to the Tories and Labour, in some cases the squeeze is so great on all small parties that the big 2 regularly exceed 80% of the vote now in the marginals.KentRising said:One thing is clear from the marginals polling: Cons could really do without the UKIP menace. Shame Dave spent the past few years dismissing UKIP supporters fruitcakes and loonies.
There is little left to squeeze.0 -
O/T weather for election day.
GFS suggests largely fair over England - rain/showers in NW parts of Scotland. But still a long way out so confidence is low...
http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/Rtavn1441.gif0 -
Hope you're not a cricket fan...Bob__Sykes said:Burnley relegated and Ed PM.
Both been on the cards for so long, both were utterly preventable, but both have slowly come along with predictable inevitability of a slow motion car crash.
I've been dreading this awful May for some time.... :-(
Hope I cheer up over the summer!0 -
Especially if SLAB are driven down to near Tory levels of voting in Scotland. Which may just be happening.foxinsoxuk said:
Yep, looks like reversion to trend to me.MikeL said:
No, it's just noise:bigjohnowls said:£12BN Unexplained welfare cuts kicks in rather than Brand bounce IMO
Survation: Lab +4 (from the last Survation in Mail on Sunday)
Populus: Lab -3
Tactical voting for Holyrood does not seem very likely. Tories have a good number of MSPs and an excellent leader. In a PR system, why would they vote tactically.HYUFD said:trublue Rubbish, every SNP MP will vote down a Cameron government and Murphy is a staunch unionist. I would agree that Tory tactical voting will be even more likely next year when the contest is Labour v SNP for power at Holyrood and stopping an SNP majority, than Tory v Labour at Westminster as next week
0 -
TP No, not really, the SNP are just getting the Westminster voteshare they won at Holyrood in 20110
-
We're all embarrassed from time to time by members of our own team, CR.Casino_Royale said:
As a Conservative supporter, I was deeply embarrassed by his posts on here when he was a regular.Peter_the_Punter said:
Probably, regrettably.....Casino_Royale said:
He's not exactly my cup of tea, Peter, but I struggle to see how the Tories will do worse in Peterborough than 2005, 2001 and even 1997.Peter_the_Punter said:
Peterborough may be a rare example of a reverse incumbency bonus.Danny565 said:Labour ahead in Peterborough but behind in top London targets?! Bizarre.
Even Ashcroft polls have an MoE. I expect him to hold.
There are some politicians I would vote for whatever their Party, and others I would not vote for under any circumstances.
Guess where Stewart Jackson falls?
The contrast between him and Nick Palmer couldn't have been stronger, and it did not reflect at all well on the party he was trying to promote.
0 -
For the constituency seats.foxinsoxuk said:
Yep, looks like reversion to trend to me.MikeL said:
No, it's just noise:bigjohnowls said:£12BN Unexplained welfare cuts kicks in rather than Brand bounce IMO
Survation: Lab +4 (from the last Survation in Mail on Sunday)
Populus: Lab -3
Tactical voting for Holyrood does not seem very likely. Tories have a good number of MSPs and an excellent leader. In a PR system, why would they vote tactically.HYUFD said:trublue Rubbish, every SNP MP will vote down a Cameron government and Murphy is a staunch unionist. I would agree that Tory tactical voting will be even more likely next year when the contest is Labour v SNP for power at Holyrood and stopping an SNP majority, than Tory v Labour at Westminster as next week
0 -
Good.Tim_B said:In Baltimore, arrest warrants have been issued for 6 police officers involved in the Freddie Gray arrest, one for second degree murder, and Gray's death has been ruled a homicide.
Second degree murder feels a little harsh - do you guys still have negligent homicide, which would feel more appropriate here.
But it's important that something is done. There's something utterly wrong in the US policing system. I don't think it's "racism" per se, but there's a willingness to think the worst of citizens, and a willingness to use excessive force that is deeply worrying.0 -
Fox Because of the obvious point they have TWO votes, one for their constituency, and most Holyrood seats are Labour v SNP marginals now, and the second for the list where they can vote Tory0
-
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Renfrewshire-East-April-2015.HST-Full-tables.pdf
Bad tables for Murphy imo.0 -
Thank goodness OGH dogged determination continues to unearth the good news for the reds!
1 or 2% mind you....
Mike Smithson@MSmithsonPB·31 mins31 minutes ago
LAB take 2% lead with Survation/Mirror. Last wk 4% behind
LAB 34% (+5); CON 33% (NC); UKIP 16% (-2); LD 9% (-1); SNP 4% (NC); GRE 3% (-1)
Mike Smithson@MSmithsonPB·31 mins31 minutes ago
@LordAshcroft Marginals Pudsey
Before turnout filter & DK realocation LAB was ahead
0 -
Survation bouncing all over the place. Last week it was CON+4, today it is LAB+1.
I do think it was Miliband that won the debate. I didn't watch it but what I read was that he excluded a deal with the SNP. That was basically the take away from the debate and it has deflated the argument that he would pair up with Nicola to throw English voters under the SNP bus.0 -
Indeed.KentRising said:One thing is clear from the marginals polling: Cons could really do without the UKIP menace. Shame Dave spent the past few years dismissing UKIP supporters fruitcakes and loonies.
These are the voters who will decide the PM.
Anything other than Conservative = Miliband + Salmond/Sturgeon
0 -
He didn't. He made the comment in 2006(?) when it was arguably true, and hasn't repeated it since.KentRising said:One thing is clear from the marginals polling: Cons could really do without the UKIP menace. Shame Dave spent the past few years dismissing UKIP supporters fruitcakes and loonies.
0 -
Surely he's just trying to keep Con Majority inflated so he can top up his position on that.Scrapheap_as_was said:Thank goodness OGH dogged determination continues to unearth the good news for the reds!
1 or 2% mind you....
Mike Smithson@MSmithsonPB·31 mins31 minutes ago
LAB take 2% lead with Survation/Mirror. Last wk 4% behind
LAB 34% (+5); CON 33% (NC); UKIP 16% (-2); LD 9% (-1); SNP 4% (NC); GRE 3% (-1)
Mike Smithson@MSmithsonPB·31 mins31 minutes ago
@LordAshcroft Marginals Pudsey
Before turnout filter & DK realocation LAB was ahead0 -
The weather on election day so far seems will be rather unsettled as you go towards the afternoon, only in the East & SE of England it seems will be clear throughout the day.murali_s said:O/T weather for election day.
GFS suggests largely fair over England - rain/showers in NW parts of Scotland. But still a long way out so confidence is low...
http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/Rtavn1441.gif0 -
Nightmare on Downing Street.
Out soon.0 -
Point taken.Charles said:
He didn't. He made the comment in 2006(?) when it was arguably true, and hasn't repeated it since.KentRising said:One thing is clear from the marginals polling: Cons could really do without the UKIP menace. Shame Dave spent the past few years dismissing UKIP supporters fruitcakes and loonies.
0 -
Not the point,some of the news headlines it sounded like the Tories cutting all child benefit,the Tories let the story get away.TGOHF said:
You think those on £49k deserve child benefit - could that money not be used to relieve the low paid of tax ?bigjohnowls said:
You think Tories have explained their £12bn in benefit cuts?TGOHF said:
If true Labour should make up some more fibs for next week.Tykejohnno said:
Child benefit story hitting home ?TGOHF said:
Brand Bounce !TheScreamingEagles said:Survation Lab 34 plus 5. Con 33 no change.
Until they do everyone will think the worst0 -
He didn't rule it out, and it has been the lead story on every bulletin all day since Andy Burnham went on the radio and said they would do a dealChris123 said:I didn't watch it but what I read was that he excluded a deal with the SNP. That was basically the take away from the debate and it has deflated the argument that he would pair up with Nicola to throw English voters under the SNP bus.
0 -
Some Labour voters actually liked the fightback. Until 2008, our debt / GDP ratio was below Germany. The country had to be rescued from the banks implosion.KentRising said:Miliband's denial last night that Labour overspent 1997-2010 should be all over the news like Brown's "bigoted woman". Unfortunately for the Tories, it has gained zero traction in the media beyond the usual crew like the Telegraph.
Just like in every other country. Except our Financial services industry as a percentage of our economy is larger than most economies except city-states like Hong Kong and Singapore.
Labour should have stronger with banking regulation but in those days, de-regulation was the fashion.
I can't recall the Shadow Chancellor's name who criticised Labour for regulating too much and , in fact, compared the UK unfavourably to Ireland.0 -
He has bet very heavily on the Reds, and actively wants them to win. So it's only human. It's also his blog, and he pays for it, so we have to put up with it or go somewhere else.Scrapheap_as_was said:Thank goodness OGH dogged determination continues to unearth the good news for the reds!
1 or 2% mind you....
Mike Smithson@MSmithsonPB·31 mins31 minutes ago
LAB take 2% lead with Survation/Mirror. Last wk 4% behind
LAB 34% (+5); CON 33% (NC); UKIP 16% (-2); LD 9% (-1); SNP 4% (NC); GRE 3% (-1)
Mike Smithson@MSmithsonPB·31 mins31 minutes ago
@LordAshcroft Marginals Pudsey
Before turnout filter & DK realocation LAB was ahead
I think he's got this wrong and my only (genuine) worry is I hope he doesn't lose too much money.0 -
PS. It's a 1% Survation lead, not 2%.0
-
This is true. I can embarass myself also. But I hope I'm not a total tit (be nice)Peter_the_Punter said:
We're all embarrassed from time to time by members of our own team, CR.Casino_Royale said:
As a Conservative supporter, I was deeply embarrassed by his posts on here when he was a regular.Peter_the_Punter said:
Probably, regrettably.....Casino_Royale said:
He's not exactly my cup of tea, Peter, but I struggle to see how the Tories will do worse in Peterborough than 2005, 2001 and even 1997.Peter_the_Punter said:
Peterborough may be a rare example of a reverse incumbency bonus.Danny565 said:Labour ahead in Peterborough but behind in top London targets?! Bizarre.
Even Ashcroft polls have an MoE. I expect him to hold.
There are some politicians I would vote for whatever their Party, and others I would not vote for under any circumstances.
Guess where Stewart Jackson falls?
The contrast between him and Nick Palmer couldn't have been stronger, and it did not reflect at all well on the party he was trying to promote.0 -
The Tories are between 1% and 3% ahead. I don't know which and I don't know what it'll be on the day.Pulpstar said:
Are you calling it for EdAndy_Cooke said:
The numbers that Survation has been wiggling around throughout the campaign are:TheScreamingEagles said:@JBeattieMirror: @DailyMirror @Survation poll Lab 34% (+5 on last week), Cons 33% (NC), UKIP 16% (-2), Lib Dems 9% (-1), SNP 4% (NC) Greens 3% (-1) #GE2015
Survation: Con 32; Lab 32; LD 9; UKIP 17
Still looks like no change to anything other than statistical noise around the mean. ?!
#boom
I'm pretty confident now that the Tories will get at least 280 seats. But that's not good enough. They need 295.0 -
I doubt it. The one given is that politicians are not believed over anything. His words were pure sophistry.Chris123 said:Survation bouncing all over the place. Last week it was CON+4, today it is LAB+1.
I do think it was Miliband that won the debate. I didn't watch it but what I read was that he excluded a deal with the SNP. That was basically the take away from the debate and it has deflated the argument that he would pair up with Nicola to throw English voters under the SNP bus.
0 -
Absolutely right. No harm gently highlighting this however - I mean he's not having to be impartial like the BBC is.....Casino_Royale said:
He has bet very heavily on the Reds, and actively wants them to win. So it's only human. It's also his blog, and he pays for it, so we have to put up with it or go somewhere else.Scrapheap_as_was said:Thank goodness OGH dogged determination continues to unearth the good news for the reds!
1 or 2% mind you....
Mike Smithson@MSmithsonPB·31 mins31 minutes ago
LAB take 2% lead with Survation/Mirror. Last wk 4% behind
LAB 34% (+5); CON 33% (NC); UKIP 16% (-2); LD 9% (-1); SNP 4% (NC); GRE 3% (-1)
Mike Smithson@MSmithsonPB·31 mins31 minutes ago
@LordAshcroft Marginals Pudsey
Before turnout filter & DK realocation LAB was ahead
I think he's got this wrong and my only (genuine) worry is I hope he doesn't lose too much money.
Having said I'll donate 10% of my blue-flavoured net winnings to PB, he's got a bit of a hedge there...0
