politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson: The election remains far from a foregone con

Sean_F said:

O/T , but I see BES are saying Labour lead the Conservatives 47/23 among ethnic minority voters, compared to 68/16 in 2010. That could help Gavin Barwell, Angie Bray, and Bob Blackman.

SMukesh said:

AndyJS said:

The Eastern region has been swinging away from Labour relative to the rest of the country since the 1950s. If that pattern continues they might struggle to win seats like Waveney, Ipswich, Stevenage, Norwich North, Bedford.

Perhaps you should show a bit more attention to the Ashcroft polls:

It has Labour with massive leads in Bedford,Ipswich,Norwich South,Waveney,leads in Stevenage,Peterborough,Norwich North and narrowing the gap in Great Yarmouth and Thurrock from last year and a 3 way battle in Watford.

surbiton said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

taffys said:

Have Labour ever pulled off a surprise result?

Good question.

1945 ?

February 1974. It was not expected. After all, Heath called the election.

Sean_F said:

SMukesh said:

AndyJS said:

The Eastern region has been swinging away from Labour relative to the rest of the country since the 1950s. If that pattern continues they might struggle to win seats like Waveney, Ipswich, Stevenage, Norwich North, Bedford.

Perhaps you should show a bit more attention to the Ashcroft polls:

It has Labour with massive leads in Bedford,Ipswich,Norwich South,Waveney,leads in Stevenage,Peterborough,Norwich North and narrowing the gap in Great Yarmouth and Thurrock from last year and a 3 way battle in Watford.

Several of those polls are from last year, at a time when Labour was 5% ahead of the Conservatives.

FrankBooth said:

Keeping things on thread I have to say that whilst I won't be voting for Labour Tory or Lib Dem I would vote for each in certain circumstances. If I lived in a Labour/Tory marginal I'd probably vote Labour (with one exception which I'll come to) as I would if I lived in Sheffield Hallam. If I lived in Yeovil I would vote Tory as I would if I lived in Morley and Outwood. It seems to me that getting rid of bad influences inside a party are well worth the cost of an extra Tory MP. I suppose I'd even vote for the SNP if I lived in Inverness.

There's far too much cynicism attached to tactical voting, as if it's all a matter of spite. I genuinely believe tactical voting can be done in the name of the national interest and it's those who insist on voting for party out of (tribal?) principle who've got it wrong.

another_richard said:

surbiton said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

taffys said:

Have Labour ever pulled off a surprise result?

Good question.

1945 ?

February 1974. It was not expected. After all, Heath called the election.

You could say that Labour did better than expected in 2010.

richardDodd said:

What would be the rate of pay for someone who pulls a rickshaw..terms and conditions..pension ..sick pay/..

SMukesh said:

Sean_F said:

SMukesh said:

AndyJS said:

The Eastern region has been swinging away from Labour relative to the rest of the country since the 1950s. If that pattern continues they might struggle to win seats like Waveney, Ipswich, Stevenage, Norwich North, Bedford.

Perhaps you should show a bit more attention to the Ashcroft polls:

It has Labour with massive leads in Bedford,Ipswich,Norwich South,Waveney,leads in Stevenage,Peterborough,Norwich North and narrowing the gap in Great Yarmouth and Thurrock from last year and a 3 way battle in Watford.

Several of those polls are from last year, at a time when Labour was 5% ahead of the Conservatives.

Ashcroft stops polling if he thinks the result is a foregone one.

In Great Yarmouth and Thurrock,Labour have increased their share of vote from last year.

In Norwich North,they have increased their vote from February.

franklyn said:

What odds would anyone give that the Conservatives in Scotland win as many seats or more than the LibDems? (including the possibility of none for either). Likewise what odds that Scottish Labour win as many or fewer than Scottish Cons plus Scottish Lib Dem (again including the possibility of both getting none)

Finally any takers for my previous offer of a charity bet that SNP get 57 or fewer seats; £50 charity bet (one bet only). loser to pay to the charity of the winner's choice; UK wide charities and non religious (or political ones). Put your money where your rhetoric is, and for a good cause.

Morris_Dancer said:

Dr. Prasannan, Daenerys.

Sean_F said:

SMukesh said:

Sean_F said:

SMukesh said:

AndyJS said:

The Eastern region has been swinging away from Labour relative to the rest of the country since the 1950s. If that pattern continues they might struggle to win seats like Waveney, Ipswich, Stevenage, Norwich North, Bedford.

Perhaps you should show a bit more attention to the Ashcroft polls:

It has Labour with massive leads in Bedford,Ipswich,Norwich South,Waveney,leads in Stevenage,Peterborough,Norwich North and narrowing the gap in Great Yarmouth and Thurrock from last year and a 3 way battle in Watford.

Several of those polls are from last year, at a time when Labour was 5% ahead of the Conservatives.

Ashcroft stops polling if he thinks the result is a foregone one.

In Great Yarmouth and Thurrock,Labour have increased their share of vote from last year.

In Norwich North,they have increased their vote from February.

None of Ipswich, Bedford, Stevenage, or Waveney are foregone conclusions, taking into account the overall support for the parties when they were last polled.

SMukesh said:

Sean_F said:

SMukesh said:

Sean_F said:

SMukesh said:

AndyJS said:

The Eastern region has been swinging away from Labour relative to the rest of the country since the 1950s. If that pattern continues they might struggle to win seats like Waveney, Ipswich, Stevenage, Norwich North, Bedford.

Perhaps you should show a bit more attention to the Ashcroft polls:

It has Labour with massive leads in Bedford,Ipswich,Norwich South,Waveney,leads in Stevenage,Peterborough,Norwich North and narrowing the gap in Great Yarmouth and Thurrock from last year and a 3 way battle in Watford.

Several of those polls are from last year, at a time when Labour was 5% ahead of the Conservatives.

Ashcroft stops polling if he thinks the result is a foregone one.

In Great Yarmouth and Thurrock,Labour have increased their share of vote from last year.

In Norwich North,they have increased their vote from February.

None of Ipswich, Bedford, Stevenage, or Waveney are foregone conclusions, taking into account the overall support for the parties when they were last polled.

For Ashcroft it was and he`s the one coughing up.

And by your logic,Labour should be further behind in Great Yarmouth and Thurrock from last year but the polling shows they have narrowed the gap.And increased their lead in Norwich North from February when the national polls have turned from narrow Lab leads to a dead heat.

Dair said:

FFS why has BBC1 been switched to news. When will the BBC learn that they now have a rolling news channel for anyone interested in new benefits scroungers.

On such a thought, I remember when Nicholas Witchell was a journalist rather than a sycophant. Do you think he chose the job or it was some sort of punishment?

MikeK said:

"Why has such a consensus developed? Much of it is surely due to the monotony of the YouGov and Populus poll results, the most frequent pollsters and also the most stable in output. The result is that that each additional poll reinforces confidence that they must be right and hence gives an impression of where the election’s heading. In a similar vein, if everyone interprets those polls in the same way then ‘most likely’ tends towards the apparently inevitable simply by reaffirmation.

What you are really saying David is that the polls are distorting the true picture and leading the comentariat, especially where the new MINOR parties are concerned. Which is what I have been saying for months.

SMukesh said:

Sean_F said:

SMukesh said:

Sean_F said:

SMukesh said:

AndyJS said:

The Eastern region has been swinging away from Labour relative to the rest of the country since the 1950s. If that pattern continues they might struggle to win seats like Waveney, Ipswich, Stevenage, Norwich North, Bedford.

Perhaps you should show a bit more attention to the Ashcroft polls:

It has Labour with massive leads in Bedford,Ipswich,Norwich South,Waveney,leads in Stevenage,Peterborough,Norwich North and narrowing the gap in Great Yarmouth and Thurrock from last year and a 3 way battle in Watford.

Several of those polls are from last year, at a time when Labour was 5% ahead of the Conservatives.

Ashcroft stops polling if he thinks the result is a foregone one.

In Great Yarmouth and Thurrock,Labour have increased their share of vote from last year.

In Norwich North,they have increased their vote from February.

None of Ipswich, Bedford, Stevenage, or Waveney are foregone conclusions, taking into account the overall support for the parties when they were last polled.

For Ashcroft it was and he`s the one coughing up.

And by your logic,Labour should be further behind in Great Yarmouth and Thurrock from last year but the polling shows they have narrowed the gap.And increased their lead in Norwich North from February when the national polls have turned from narrow Lab leads to a dead heat.

rcs1000 said:

MikeK said:

"Why has such a consensus developed? Much of it is surely due to the monotony of the YouGov and Populus poll results, the most frequent pollsters and also the most stable in output. The result is that that each additional poll reinforces confidence that they must be right and hence gives an impression of where the election’s heading. In a similar vein, if everyone interprets those polls in the same way then ‘most likely’ tends towards the apparently inevitable simply by reaffirmation.

What you are really saying David is that the polls are distorting the true picture and leading the comentariat, especially where the new MINOR parties are concerned. Which is what I have been saying for months.

@MikeK

How come insurgent parties in Europe have all been overstated by internet pollsters? What makes UKIP different?

Alistair said:

I've lost track of which bookies I have put all my GE15 bets on, bugger.

JohnLilburne said:

Alanbrooke said:

Dair said:

FFS why has BBC1 been switched to news. When will the BBC learn that they now have a rolling news channel for anyone interested in new benefits scroungers.

On such a thought, I remember when Nicholas Witchell was a journalist rather than a sycophant. Do you think he chose the job or it was some sort of punishment?

I remember when Nicholas Witchell was a journalist rather than a sycophant

from a bloke who dry humps Alex Salmond's leg daily on here, that's quite funny.

I'm not sure why rolling news might be necessary. She's had a baby, it's a girl. The next newsworthy thing is that we'll be told a name. And then they will leave hospital. I see absolutely no value in reporting between those occurrences.

franklyn said:

Carnyx said:

Alistair said:

franklyn said:

What odds would anyone give that the Conservatives in Scotland win as many seats or more than the LibDems? (including the possibility of none for either). Likewise what odds that Scottish Labour win as many or fewer than Scottish Cons plus Scottish Lib Dem (again including the possibility of both getting none)

Finally any takers for my previous offer of a charity bet that SNP get 57 or fewer seats; £50 charity bet (one bet only). loser to pay to the charity of the winner's choice; UK wide charities and non religious (or political ones). Put your money where your rhetoric is, and for a good cause.

Con-vs-LD with Con winning on a tie would be Odds on I'd say.

Your charity bet is still awful value at evens.

Indeed. He's ignored more than one reasoned rebuttal of that bet - which is a shame as if he has some genuine logic it would have been interesting to see it.

I was putting you to the test: you are very keen to spend English tax payer's money, but never to risk your own... even for charity. I think we have got your measure

Alanbrooke said:

JohnLilburne said:

Alanbrooke said:

Dair said:

FFS why has BBC1 been switched to news. When will the BBC learn that they now have a rolling news channel for anyone interested in new benefits scroungers.

On such a thought, I remember when Nicholas Witchell was a journalist rather than a sycophant. Do you think he chose the job or it was some sort of punishment?

I remember when Nicholas Witchell was a journalist rather than a sycophant

from a bloke who dry humps Alex Salmond's leg daily on here, that's quite funny.

I'm not sure why rolling news might be necessary. She's had a baby, it's a girl. The next newsworthy thing is that we'll be told a name. And then they will leave hospital. I see absolutely no value in reporting between those occurrences.

There is not much value in it but if you have a 24 hour rolling channel what do you fill it up with?

Pong said:

JohnLilburne said:

dr_spyn said:

richardDodd said:

What would be the rate of pay for someone who pulls a rickshaw..terms and conditions..pension ..sick pay/..

Given that Darren Hall the Green PPC is an engineer, it shows a lack of vision, just a backward look at very old technology. So much for CAD, CAM, 3D printing and work at GKN, Airbus, Rolls Royce et al. Rickshaws...bloody rickshaws...we don't need bloody rickshaws.

Taxis are expensive. They have 3-5 seats and mostly one person gets in, that can't be efficient. Maybe we need something like auto rickshaws (tuk-tuks) which would be much cheaper to buy and run, and therefore cheaper to the customer.

The century-old taxi efficiency problem has just been solved by uber.

TheScreamingEagles said:

@JohnRentoul: Poll alert: we have a ComRes phone poll in @IndyOnSunday tomorrow – questions here http://t.co/a9wR62Qkfi

Jiggery_Pokery said:

After last Sunday's "worst crisis since the abdication" headline re the SNP, the headlines tomorrow would have to be even more lurid - "Sturgeon heralds zombie apocalypse" anyone? The arrival of the Royal Baby may have blown a hole in that plan however.

Oh wait I got it... "Vile Nats In Royal Baby Twitter Shame", "Disgusting Separatists Poke Fun At Little Baby"... Any takers??

dyedwoolie said:

Some musing on the outcome,,,,,
What result works best for the country?
Con trickledownomics has failed. Any recovery has been snaffled by the rich and not passed along. It's time for stringent restrictions on unbridled wealth and greed. Also the ideological small state is wrong. They should be focussing on making the State the size of the tax receipts which simplifies society into deciding to spend more next year by paying more tax this year (proportionately taken from wealth and high earners down to a lower increase for lower paid workers and the retired)
On the other hand, labour have not done the hard time for the overspend 01-10 and the weak state we were in to face the crisis and have all but abandoned their founding purpose.. The working class men and women of Britain. They have, perhaps, a handful of decent, well focused and working class orientd politicians, but they are so marginalised in the party as to be redundant.
The Lib Dems have become an irrelevance and a nuisance, interested only in power broking and clinging on to their dwindling support base.
UKIP are not for me. I'm anti EU but pro immigration, integration and staunchly pro LBGT rights, none of which for the UKIP mantra.
The Greens have some good ideas and are the only ones looking at the world from a different perspective, I will be voting for them but not in the hope of victory, more for personal satisfaction as there are a number of crazy policies amongst the well intentioned and positive ones.
I am English so the various republicans and nationalists are not my place to judge, but I do rather like Sturgeon and Wood and find myself drawn increasingly to a federal solution, and the Salmond monster is always good value.

Conclusion - for the first time I don't want any of them to win, so I'm entirely neutral on the result. I'd marginally prefer a continuation of the SQ to a Labour coalition, but not by enough to get excercised about. That's not a softening of my view (very dim) of Labour and their treachery to the WC, it's more an indictment of the failed austerity/recovery of the blue team and their removal from the real world we have all lived in for five years. And I increasingly believe wealth taxes and taxes on corporations and the highest paid have to go up sharply.
So, I'll be able to enjoy results night come what may without being all squiffy about what happens. Lucky me.

David_Evershed said:

dyedwoolie said:

Some musing on the outcome,,,,,
What result works best for the country?
Con trickledownomics has failed. Any recovery has been snaffled by the rich and not passed along. It's time for stringent restrictions on unbridled wealth and greed. Also the ideological small state is wrong. They should be focussing on making the State the size of the tax receipts which simplifies society into deciding to spend more next year by paying more tax this year (proportionately taken from wealth and high earners down to a lower increase for lower paid workers and the retired)
On the other hand, labour have not done the hard time for the overspend 01-10 and the weak state we were in to face the crisis and have all but abandoned their founding purpose.. The working class men and women of Britain. They have, perhaps, a handful of decent, well focused and working class orientd politicians, but they are so marginalised in the party as to be redundant.
The Lib Dems have become an irrelevance and a nuisance, interested only in power broking and clinging on to their dwindling support base.
UKIP are not for me. I'm anti EU but pro immigration, integration and staunchly pro LBGT rights, none of which for the UKIP mantra.
The Greens have some good ideas and are the only ones looking at the world from a different perspective, I will be voting for them but not in the hope of victory, more for personal satisfaction as there are a number of crazy policies amongst the well intentioned and positive ones.
I am English so the various republicans and nationalists are not my place to judge, but I do rather like Sturgeon and Wood and find myself drawn increasingly to a federal solution, and the Salmond monster is always good value.

Conclusion - for the first time I don't want very dim) of Labour and their treachery to the WC, it's more an indictment of the failed austerity/recovery of the blue team and their removal from the real world we have all lived in for five years. And I increasingly believe wealth taxes and taxes on corporations and the highest paid have to go up sharply.
So, I'll be able to enjoy results night come what may without being all squiffy about what happens. Lucky me.

Dyedwoolie is facing the same difficult choices that the last and the next governments face.

However, governments have to make decisions and tough choices, even if the decision is not to change anything.

Anyone can make decisions when the choices are easy. It is making decisions when choices are difficult which separates the men from the boys.

We all have a responsibility to make a judgement about the trade offs between the options availaible and vote

David_Evershed said:

dyedwoolie said:

Dyedwoolie is facing the same difficult choices that the last and the next governments face.

However, governments have to make decisions and tough choices, even if the decision is not to change anything.

Anyone can make decisions when the choices are easy. It is making decisions when choices are difficult which separates the men from the boys.

We all have a responsibility to make a judgement about the trade offs between the options availaible and vote.

JohnLilburne said:

dyedwoolie said:

Some musing on the outcome,,,,,
What result works best for the country?
Con trickledownomics has failed. Any recovery has been snaffled by the rich and not passed along. It's time for stringent restrictions on unbridled wealth and greed. Also the ideological small state is wrong. They should be focussing on making the State the size of the tax receipts which simplifies society into deciding to spend more next year by paying more tax this year (proportionately taken from wealth and high earners down to a lower increase for lower paid workers and the retired)
On the other hand, labour have not done the hard time for the overspend 01-10 and the weak state we were in to face the crisis and have all but abandoned their founding purpose.. The working class men and women of Britain. They have, perhaps, a handful of decent, well focused and working class orientd politicians, but they are so marginalised in the party as to be redundant.
The Lib Dems have become an irrelevance and a nuisance, interested only in power broking and clinging on to their dwindling support base.
UKIP are not for me. I'm anti EU but pro immigration, integration and staunchly pro LBGT rights, none of which for the UKIP mantra.
The Greens have some good ideas and are the only ones looking at the world from a different perspective, I will be voting for them but not in the hope of victory, more for personal satisfaction as there are a number of crazy policies amongst the well intentioned and positive ones.
I am English so the various republicans and nationalists are not my place to judge, but I do rather like Sturgeon and Wood and find myself drawn increasingly to a federal solution, and the Salmond monster is always good value.

Conclusion - for the first time I don't want any of them to win, so I'm entirely neutral on the result. I'd marginally prefer a continuation of the SQ to a Labour coalition, but not by enough to get excercised about. That's not a softening of my view (very dim) of Labour and their treachery to the WC, it's more an indictment of the failed austerity/recovery of the blue team and their removal from the real world we have all lived in for five years. And I increasingly believe wealth taxes and taxes on corporations and the highest paid have to go up sharply.
So, I'll be able to enjoy results night come what may without being all squiffy about what happens. Lucky me.

So I guess that's a vote for the Tories or LibDems depending on your constituency then? Although it's a bit difficult if you don't want a particularly party to win but would prefer some sort of combination.

Floater said:

Here in Colchester had ANOTHER Lib Dem leaflet dressed up as a free newspaper.

Getting ever more hysterical it seems too.

The headline is " What have the tories got against Colchester"

Answer appears to be roadworks and they turn off the lights overnight - like ooh, everywhere else in Essex.

According to the Lib Dems the conservatives wanted to charge people 10 a month to use certain roads - but Norman Baker stopped them.

According to our Lib dem friends they will make Labour borrow 70Bn less (a year or over 5 years?) - - good luck with that with the SNP around.

Likewise they will ensure the tories cut 50bn less........ That Mansion tax will have to go some!

We are warned about "Blukip" (conservative / UKIP / DUP coalition).

Finally they berate the Labour candidate for campaigning in Norwich rather than here.

Surely they cant be scared of losing Colchester?

Dixie said:

Libs in London telling me Hughes, Davey, Cable, Featherstone (?) safe. Tom Brake and Paul Bairstow is hard to judge. I can't see how they can hold on

OldKingCole said:

Attlee did not expect to win in 1945. At least, not by such a margin. Someone’s diary records that on the morning when all, the results were declared ..... there was a delay in counting the postal, servicemen’s, votes ...... the subject wasn’t even discussed at breakfast in the Attlee household.

OldKingCole said:

Once, many years ago, what was then S. Rhodesia declared it’s independence under a white minority government. The late Jeremy Thorpe suggested bombing the insurgents, as they were seen by most people, although not the Tory Right.

Shortly afterwards, canvassing one of the blues areas of the town where I lived on behalf of the Liberals I was several times "shown off" the premises for supporting “that bomber”!

And yes, it was “bomber”!