Undefined discussion subject.

ICM = The Killing Blow For Cam?

GIN1138 said:

ICM = The Killing Blow For Cam?

I think even the most febrile Tory rebel might wait until the results are in rather than a partial poll

Nemtynakht said:

OllyT said:

chestnut said:

So much euphoria at polls that show Labour narrowly behind or tied

Maybe people are looking at the direction of movement this week. You are also seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that the Tories need to be several points ahead of Labour in order to even get the same number of seats.

Not sure that is true anymore.

Why, please explain ? I am pretty sure it is because of differential turnouts in safe seats etc.

TOPPING said:

tlg86 said:

I read in the Evening Standard tonight that GOD says that if Dave's QS is voted down and Ed becomes PM, Ed won't have to put forward another QS, though presumably he would present one eventually!

Did he say he would have 14 days to form the govt which presumably (as people have said on here) would be with SNP by default in deed if not action.

So Lab with fewer seats would govern with no pact whatsoever with SNP but with SNP support (at least for their budget) so how is that no pact?

= smell test fail.

What can be done about it, involving as it would extraordinary disingenuousness, yet fait accompli on behalf of Ed, goodness only knows.

It says GOD questions whether it would be reasonable for Cameron to bring forward a QS without knowing whether it would get through. It then says "if the PM were defeated in a motion of no confidence and Ed Miliband formed a government, there would be no need for a second Queen's Speech."

What that all means I don't know.

Dixie said:

Opinion Polls point to Labour victory/Lab/LD Coaliton

Not so. lab ahead maybe but no poll released today, taking Scotland into account would see Lab plus Lib at 323

Given 2010 occurred on 6 May, I'm assuming the final ICM then also must have partially had fieldwork on the Bank Holiday weekend? FPTA has kind of locked elections onto Bank Holiday weeks hasn't it?

Tom Newton Dunn ‏@tnewtondunn 6m6 minutes ago
Wow. We now have the final @YouGov poll for #GE2015; 10,000 asked. Peter Kellner's final seat projection also revealed at 10pm on #SunNation

TND ramping has to be good for CON one presumes but its only an internet poll so assume PB Tories will ignore it!!

antifrank said:

How is Betfair's most seats market settled if there's a tie? Does everyone lose, are the Conservatives and Labour joint winners or does "any other" win?

I'm pretty sure they'll be joint winners (with every bookmaker).

Tissue_Price said:

antifrank said:

How is Betfair's most seats market settled if there's a tie? Does everyone lose, are the Conservatives and Labour joint winners or does "any other" win?

I'm pretty sure they'll be joint winners (with every bookmaker).

Thanks, that was what seemed most logical.

bigjohnowls said:

Has someone hacked Mystic Dans account?

Dan Hodges @DPJHodges · 9h 9 hours ago
Tomorrow I'm voting Labour. But if I lived in South Thanet I'd be voting Tory, and not thinking twice about it.

Labour have set their thug squad on UKIP, so presumably they regard them as a threat.

stodge said:

Evening all

I can't comment on "mood". I do think there's a tendency to talk up one's own side and talk down the opponent - I also have no idea whether CCHQ sends out unstintingly positive messages to energise the troops or not. It's what I would do if the position was doubtful.

There are elements of reverse psychology at work as well. I'm sure Labour's high command are well aware of the situation in their key target seats (as indeed will CCHQ) so the reality is the problems for Labour may well begin with the results. Whether there was a genuine belief they could win a majority I don't know.

As far as the Conservatives are concerned, if the aim was to stun the Labour heart and brain with innovative policies the reality has been they've hacked at limbs and often missed. This should have been an easy election for the Conservatives with the huge advantages of an improving economy, a weak Labour leader (apparently), a popular Prime Minister and a huge war chest with which to fight the election.

The Tories would have been fine politically if only the Lib Dems had been in opposition.

acf2310 said:

bigjohnowls said:

Tom Newton Dunn ‏@tnewtondunn 6m6 minutes ago
Wow. We now have the final @YouGov poll for #GE2015; 10,000 asked. Peter Kellner's final seat projection also revealed at 10pm on #SunNation

TND ramping has to be good for CON one presumes but its only an internet poll so assume PB Tories will ignore it!!

Will be funny if the final YouGov shows a large lead after months of +1s and ties...

That would be the ultimate trolling from them, I hope its true. But I suspect nothing will stand in the way of EICIPM, particularly in a YouGov poll. No policy, no campaign, no nothing(so it won't be a big Lab lead either, as that would remove the CI from the EICIPM).

chestnut said:

bigjohnowls said:

My MP getting excited

Toby Perkins retweeted
Phillip Jones ‏@Phillip_D_Jones 9m9 minutes ago
@OwenJones84 Raw data from Guardian LAB 37% CON 33% but Lab turnout expected to be lower. If we get Labour people to vote we win

Would anyone care to explain this to me?

They contacted 1560 people, found 408 saying they would vote Tory and 366 who would vote Labour. Or am I misreading the numbers?

http://www.icmunlimited.com/data/media/pdf/2015_final_prelim.pdf

I read it as 388 Lab and 348 Con on P3 but it could be me

chestnut said:

bigjohnowls said:

My MP getting excited

Toby Perkins retweeted
Phillip Jones ‏@Phillip_D_Jones 9m9 minutes ago
@OwenJones84 Raw data from Guardian LAB 37% CON 33% but Lab turnout expected to be lower. If we get Labour people to vote we win

Would anyone care to explain this to me?

They contacted 1560 people, found 408 saying they would vote Tory and 366 who would vote Labour. Or am I misreading the numbers?

http://www.icmunlimited.com/data/media/pdf/2015_final_prelim.pdf

I wondered that too. Does anyone know why they down-weighted Conservatives so much and upped Labour? The one thing I can see is geographically they have significantly upweighted the North and downweighted the South.

chestnut said:

bigjohnowls said:

Tom Newton Dunn ‏@tnewtondunn 6m6 minutes ago
Wow. We now have the final @YouGov poll for #GE2015; 10,000 asked. Peter Kellner's final seat projection also revealed at 10pm on #SunNation

TND ramping has to be good for CON one presumes but its only an internet poll so assume PB Tories will ignore it!!

Lab +1 or 2.

Wow or stunning by TND means good for Con. Good for Lab would be silence or 'shocked'.

FU Indeed, though I see Paul O'Grady has threatened to do a Paul Daniels and leave if the Tories win

Casino_Royale said:

chestnut said:

bigjohnowls said:

Tom Newton Dunn ‏@tnewtondunn 6m6 minutes ago
Wow. We now have the final @YouGov poll for #GE2015; 10,000 asked. Peter Kellner's final seat projection also revealed at 10pm on #SunNation

TND ramping has to be good for CON one presumes but its only an internet poll so assume PB Tories will ignore it!!

Lab +1 or 2.

Wow or stunning by TND means good for Con. Good for Lab would be silence or 'shocked'.

He didn't ramp a good Tory YouGov last week I think it was.

But it hardly matters.

HYUFD said:

FU Indeed, though I see Paul O'Grady has threatened to do a Paul Daniels and leave if the Tories win

That's thrown the antifrank vote into confusion. I didn't realise such a high prize was on offer.

acf2310 said:

Casino_Royale said:

chestnut said:

bigjohnowls said:

Tom Newton Dunn ‏@tnewtondunn 6m6 minutes ago
Wow. We now have the final @YouGov poll for #GE2015; 10,000 asked. Peter Kellner's final seat projection also revealed at 10pm on #SunNation

TND ramping has to be good for CON one presumes but its only an internet poll so assume PB Tories will ignore it!!

Lab +1 or 2.

Wow or stunning by TND means good for Con. Good for Lab would be silence or 'shocked'.

Even if TND was completely neutral, surely someone has to be +3 (OK, maybe +2) or better for a 'Wow'?

It's probably a 'wow' about the number polled. Would fit this election. But given people have been expecting Tories to end up with the most votes, a significant Lab lead would seem more wow than other results.

Pong said:

Casino_Royale said:

JonCisBack said:

That ICM is terrible for the tories, worst poll for weeks for them

If the tories can't get 300+ seats, they really only want about 260. 280 is a disaster

Scraping together a weak government with a smashed LD party and some borderline nutjobs who think line-dancing is the devil's work is a sure way to electoral oblivion next time.

Far better to let Ed cobble together a sh1t government and see Labour lose big style when we go again in a year or 5.

Grexit's coming, China's looking dodgy, and the NHS will sooner or later need proper reform, not just endless billions. #GoodOnetoLose ?

There are no good elections to lose. And I expect the Tories to go ape-shit internally if they do.

At 10.01pm tomorrow night the conservatives will start going apeshit. The level of apeshit will, IMO, be as follows;

330+ seats 1% apeshit.
315-330 seats 5% apeshit.
306-315 seats 2.5% apeshit.
280-306 seats 50% apeshit.
Under 280, but still most seats 66% apeshit.
Under 280 and labour most seats 110% apeshit.
Labour plurality +25 seats- "it woz fixed" 1100% apeshit.
Labour Majority - Tea party style "government not legitimate" off-the-scale-apeshit.

Brilliant;-)

Dixie said:

RobD said:

bigjohnowls said:

Tom Newton Dunn ‏@tnewtondunn 6m6 minutes ago
Wow. We now have the final @YouGov poll for #GE2015; 10,000 asked. Peter Kellner's final seat projection also revealed at 10pm on #SunNation

TND ramping has to be good for CON one presumes but its only an internet poll so assume PB Tories will ignore it!!

An Internet poll that's good for CON, Tory majority nailed on

Blues can't keep dreaming that next poll will be good. Momentum is with reds. Hopefully, that will change.

Sigh. It isn't. Not in general. Polls over the last day gave been split on movement to or from the big two. The three largest moves have been Ashcroft and ICM to red and ComRes to blue.
The depression over a single, partial, poll is almost hilarious!
Get some backbone and back your horses home, people.
This is fun!

TW1R64 said:

Had an offer of a twenty pound matched bet from SJ so being wildly optimistic have put the lot on Con Majority!
I know it's money down the drain but I very rarely bet and see it as a bit of fun to add to the excitement of Thurs night

i fancy a longshot flutter that might keep me interested most of the night/morning. thinking of the eact lib dem seats market. maybe 19 seats at 33/1.

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Stereotomy said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Labour ahead by 42% to 35% in Conservative held marginals in England & Wales. Small base size of 136, but that makes this ICM an amazingly good poll for Labour.

Link to tables?

MikeSmithson said:

Is there a link to the ICM dataset?

ICM data tables

No prompting for UKIP. Can't see this makes sense given they're polling above the Lib Dems.

Does ICM actually prompt for anyone on the phone:

"Who are you going to vote for?"

vs

"Are you going to vote Conservative, Labour, LibDem or someone else?"

UK Polling Report says ICM prompt for Con/Lab/LD.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/faq-wording

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9281

Purseybear said:

Dixie said:

acf2310 said:

Casino_Royale said:

chestnut said:

bigjohnowls said:

Tom Newton Dunn ‏@tnewtondunn 6m6 minutes ago
Wow. We now have the final @YouGov poll for #GE2015; 10,000 asked. Peter Kellner's final seat projection also revealed at 10pm on #SunNation

TND ramping has to be good for CON one presumes but its only an internet poll so assume PB Tories will ignore it!!

Lab +1 or 2.

Wow or stunning by TND means good for Con. Good for Lab would be silence or 'shocked'.

Even if TND was completely neutral, surely someone has to be +3 (OK, maybe +2) or better for a 'Wow'?

They're just ramping it. Ignore the hype

Could just be wow for sampling 10000 pple.

Or wow, even our mega poll can't separate them

kle4 said:

TOPPING said:

Watching GOD on the TV (and earlier hearing him on the radio) the following strikes me:

If, after Cons get more votes than Lab but we are in no-mans land (ie Cons 270-290, LD 20-25) so Dave + Nick don't have enough votes for a majority, why should Dave accept that Ed can form or even try to form a govt when Ed has specifically ruled out an SNP pact?

Dave can point out that Lab + SNP is, according to Ed, a no-no; while Ed can’t say “but we’ve got the SNP.”

Or can he?

I think in that situation Cameron is entitled to stick around and give it a go, so I don't think in that situation he'd go immediately. I'd expect some sort of arrangement between Lab and the SNP would be made in the next week (short of a 'deal' they would try to say) which makes clear the SNP would vote down the Tories and not abstain or vote against an Ed government. At which point even though there's no formal coalition agreement between Ed and the SNP on the cards, Cameron will see that he doesn't have the votes and will resign - I don't think he'll try or be allowed by his own team knifing him to take it to a humiliating vote which they will lose - and Ed will be called.

I think that if the Tories are the largest party Cameron will insist on putting it to the vote - he will want everyone to see that there is a deal between Miliband and the SNP. If there's a second election Labour will be as screwed in England as they are about to be in Scotland.

Scrapheap_as_was said:

a dramatic tie then...?


Mike Smithson‏@MSmithsonPB·12 mins12 minutes ago
This from TND suggests a good final poll for CON from YouGov. https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/596011144852148224 …


Tom Newton Dunn‏@tnewtondunn·11 mins11 minutes ago
@MSmithsonPB not necessarily. dramatic i'd say.

Not necessarily! Lmao what a clod

Sandpit said:

kle4 said:

TOPPING said:

Watching GOD on the TV (and earlier hearing him on the radio) the following strikes me:

If, after Cons get more votes than Lab but we are in no-mans land (ie Cons 270-290, LD 20-25) so Dave + Nick don't have enough votes for a majority, why should Dave accept that Ed can form or even try to form a govt when Ed has specifically ruled out an SNP pact?

Dave can point out that Lab + SNP is, according to Ed, a no-no; while Ed can’t say “but we’ve got the SNP.”

Or can he?

I think in that situation Cameron is entitled to stick around and give it a go, so I don't think in that situation he'd go immediately. I'd expect some sort of arrangement between Lab and the SNP would be made in the next week (short of a 'deal' they would try to say) which makes clear the SNP would vote down the Tories and not abstain or vote against an Ed government. At which point even though there's no formal coalition agreement between Ed and the SNP on the cards, Cameron will see that he doesn't have the votes and will resign - I don't think he'll try or be allowed by his own team knifing him to take it to a humiliating vote which they will lose - and Ed will be called.

I think that if the Tories are the largest party Cameron will insist on putting it to the vote - he will want everyone to see that there is a deal between Miliband and the SNP.

It wont require a deal between Labour and SNP to vote Cameron out. They're perfectly capable at arriving at a decision to vote against him independently.

Just had a cheery thought. Ed Balls may find himself in the worst job in the world.

Purseybear said:

HYUFD said:

FU Indeed, though I see Paul O'Grady has threatened to do a Paul Daniels and leave if the Tories win

Wheres he been these past 5 yrs then?

Giving transvestites and transsexuals a bad name

Which pollster will break the deadlock? Someone must be thinking 'go onnnnnnn, ramp a lead in there of 5 or more either way, might be the making of us!'

OllyT said:

Chameleon said:

OllyT said:

Nemtynakht said:

OllyT said:

chestnut said:

So much euphoria at polls that show Labour narrowly behind or tied

Maybe people are looking at the direction of movement this week. You are also seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that the Tories need to be several points ahead of Labour in order to even get the same number of seats.

Not sure that is true anymore.

Why, please explain ? I am pretty sure it is because of differential turnouts in safe seats etc.

Well in Scotland Labour will get lots of votes and almost no seats on current polling as well as rumours that Labour are piling up it's votes in the South (Esp. London) and NW where they may win lots of new votes but few seats. However it's just a theory.

But most of the polls are also showing the Lab-Tory gap as small in E&W.

...and the second half of my post deals with that.

I've heard that: 'Labour are piling up it's votes in the South (Esp. London) and NW where they may win lots of new votes but few seats' as most marginals are in the midlands.

That CON may end up on the same share as in 2010, despite UKIP, is quite something.

dyedwoolie said:

Sandpit said:

kle4 said:

TOPPING said:

Watching GOD on the TV (and earlier hearing him on the radio) the following strikes me:

If, after Cons get more votes than Lab but we are in no-mans land (ie Cons 270-290, LD 20-25) so Dave + Nick don't have enough votes for a majority, why should Dave accept that Ed can form or even try to form a govt when Ed has specifically ruled out an SNP pact?

Dave can point out that Lab + SNP is, according to Ed, a no-no; while Ed can’t say “but we’ve got the SNP.”

Or can he?

I think in that situation Cameron is entitled to stick around and give it a go, so I don't think in that situation he'd go immediately. I'd expect some sort of arrangement between Lab and the SNP would be made in the next week (short of a 'deal' they would try to say) which makes clear the SNP would vote down the Tories and not abstain or vote against an Ed government. At which point even though there's no formal coalition agreement between Ed and the SNP on the cards, Cameron will see that he doesn't have the votes and will resign - I don't think he'll try or be allowed by his own team knifing him to take it to a humiliating vote which they will lose - and Ed will be called.

I think that if the Tories are the largest party Cameron will insist on putting it to the vote - he will want everyone to see that there is a deal between Miliband and the SNP. If there's a second election Labour will be as screwed in England as they are about to be in Scotland.

The palace had already indicated nobody should be approaching the Queen unless they have formal arrangements to get a QS passed. It would be unacceptable to politicise HMQ in this way if there is a chance if a nay vote, and the Tories would pay a heavy price for it.

If there has to be a formal arrangement then Edstone will have to talk to the SNP. If there are not enough libs to bail him out. I suspect this where cam tries to go minority government.

RobD said:

That CON may end up on the same share as in 2010, despite UKIP, is quite something.

Certainly is - the next Tory leader can reflect on how to retain that while tempting back a few Kippers better than Cameron could.

Lestuh said:

anotherDave said:

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Stereotomy said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Labour ahead by 42% to 35% in Conservative held marginals in England & Wales. Small base size of 136, but that makes this ICM an amazingly good poll for Labour.

Link to tables?

MikeSmithson said:

Is there a link to the ICM dataset?

ICM data tables

No prompting for UKIP. Can't see this makes sense given they're polling above the Lib Dems.

Does ICM actually prompt for anyone on the phone:

"Who are you going to vote for?"

vs

"Are you going to vote Conservative, Labour, LibDem or someone else?"

UK Polling Report says ICM prompt for Con/Lab/LD.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/faq-wording

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9281

AW has also suggested that prompting for Ukip doesn't seem to make any difference. You'd expect that to be particularly true a few days before the election.

He said it doesn't make much difference when YouGov do it, but that he would expect a larger effect from telephone prompting.

-------

"The companies showing lower UKIP scores are all telephone. The companies showing higher UKIP scores are all online.

While there is little difference between the phone company showing the highest UKIP support (Ashcroft) and the online company showing the lowest (YouGov), there is a gulf of 9 points between the highest and lowest ends of the scale.

Why there should be such a difference between online and telephone polling of UKIP we cannot tell – some of it may be an interviewer effect (people being more willing to tell a computer screen they are voting for a non-mainstream party than a human interviewer), some of it may be sampling (some online samples getting too many of the sort of people who vote UKIP, or some phone samples getting too few, or both). Until the results are in we won’t really know."

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9350

NoEasyDay said:

dyedwoolie said:

Sandpit said:

kle4 said:

TOPPING said:

Watching GOD on the TV (and earlier hearing him on the radio) the following strikes me:

If, after Cons get more votes than Lab but we are in no-mans land (ie Cons 270-290, LD 20-25) so Dave + Nick don't have enough votes for a majority, why should Dave accept that Ed can form or even try to form a govt when Ed has specifically ruled out an SNP pact?

Dave can point out that Lab + SNP is, according to Ed, a no-no; while Ed can’t say “but we’ve got the SNP.”

Or can he?

I think in that situation Cameron is entitled to stick around and give it a go, so I don't think in that situation he'd go immediately. I'd expect some sort of arrangement between Lab and the SNP would be made in the next week (short of a 'deal' they would try to say) which makes clear the SNP would vote down the Tories and not abstain or vote against an Ed government. At which point even though there's no formal coalition agreement between Ed and the SNP on the cards, Cameron will see that he doesn't have the votes and will resign - I don't think he'll try or be allowed by his own team knifing him to take it to a humiliating vote which they will lose - and Ed will be called.

I think that if the Tories are the largest party Cameron will insist on putting it to the vote - he will want everyone to see that there is a deal between Miliband and the SNP. If there's a second election Labour will be as screwed in England as they are about to be in Scotland.

The palace had already indicated nobody should be approaching the Queen unless they have formal arrangements to get a QS passed. It would be unacceptable to politicise HMQ in this way if there is a chance if a nay vote, and the Tories would pay a heavy price for it.

If there has to be a formal arrangement then Edstone will have to talk to the SNP. If there are not enough libs to bail him out. I suspect this where cam tries to go minority government.

I think he'll try at first (assuming Lab don't beat him no seats, which I think they will), as he can legitimately claim that it's not as though Lab won most votes or seats and so who can say who might be able to form a government. But if, say, a week after the GE Lab and SNP make clear separately that they will vote down a Cameron speech, and permit a Labour one even though that does not signal support on anything else (for now anyway), then it would be clear Cameron could not pass a vote and Ed could. In that situation, surely he would be obliged to resign?

kle4 said:

NoEasyDay said:

dyedwoolie said:

Sandpit said:

kle4 said:

TOPPING said:

Watching GOD on the TV (and earlier hearing him on the radio) the following strikes me:

If, after Cons get more votes than Lab but we are in no-mans land (ie Cons 270-290, LD 20-25) so Dave + Nick don't have enough votes for a majority, why should Dave accept that Ed can form or even try to form a govt when Ed has specifically ruled out an SNP pact?

Dave can point out that Lab + SNP is, according to Ed, a no-no; while Ed can’t say “but we’ve got the SNP.”

Or can he?

I think in that situation Cameron is entitled to stick around and give it a go, so I don't think in that situation he'd go immediately. I'd expect some sort of arrangement between Lab and the SNP would be made in the next week (short of a 'deal' they would try to say) which makes clear the SNP would vote down the Tories and not abstain or vote against an Ed government. At which point even though there's no formal coalition agreement between Ed and the SNP on the cards, Cameron will see that he doesn't have the votes and will resign - I don't think he'll try or be allowed by his own team knifing him to take it to a humiliating vote which they will lose - and Ed will be called.

I think that if the Tories are the largest party Cameron will insist on putting it to the vote - he will want everyone to see that there is a deal between Miliband and the SNP. If there's a second election Labour will be as screwed in England as they are about to be in Scotland.

The palace had already indicated nobody should be approaching the Queen unless they have formal arrangements to get a QS passed. It would be unacceptable to politicise HMQ in this way if there is a chance if a nay vote, and the Tories would pay a heavy price for it.

If there has to be a formal arrangement then Edstone will have to talk to the SNP. If there are not enough libs to bail him out. I suspect this where cam tries to go minority government.

I think he'll try at first (assuming Lab don't beat him no seats, which I think they will), as he can legitimately claim that it's not as though Lab won most votes or seats and so who can say who might be able to form a government. But if, say, a week after the GE Lab and SNP make clear separately that they will vote down a Cameron speech, and permit a Labour one even though that does not signal support on anything else (for now anyway), then it would be clear Cameron could not pass a vote and Ed could. In that situation, surely he would be obliged to resign?

Yes, correct. HMQ will not present a QS knowing it will be voted down

NoEasyDay said:

Purseybear said:

Dixie said:

acf2310 said:

Casino_Royale said:

chestnut said:

bigjohnowls said:

Tom Newton Dunn ‏@tnewtondunn 6m6 minutes ago
Wow. We now have the final @YouGov poll for #GE2015; 10,000 asked. Peter Kellner's final seat projection also revealed at 10pm on #SunNation

TND ramping has to be good for CON one presumes but its only an internet poll so assume PB Tories will ignore it!!

Lab +1 or 2.

Wow or stunning by TND means good for Con. Good for Lab would be silence or 'shocked'.

Even if TND was completely neutral, surely someone has to be +3 (OK, maybe +2) or better for a 'Wow'?

They're just ramping it. Ignore the hype

Could just be wow for sampling 10000 pple.

More likely "wow look how and clever and smug we are"

I'm guessing that lots of people will have ben polled over the bank holiday weekend? If so we could probably pre-emptively discount it if a Labour lead or tie

cossmann said:

Crossbackover?

Double inverse reverse crossover, actually

Chameleon said:

NoEasyDay said:

Purseybear said:

Dixie said:

acf2310 said:

Casino_Royale said:

chestnut said:

bigjohnowls said:

Tom Newton Dunn ‏@tnewtondunn 6m6 minutes ago
Wow. We now have the final @YouGov poll for #GE2015; 10,000 asked. Peter Kellner's final seat projection also revealed at 10pm on #SunNation

TND ramping has to be good for CON one presumes but its only an internet poll so assume PB Tories will ignore it!!

Lab +1 or 2.

Wow or stunning by TND means good for Con. Good for Lab would be silence or 'shocked'.

Even if TND was completely neutral, surely someone has to be +3 (OK, maybe +2) or better for a 'Wow'?

They're just ramping it. Ignore the hype

Could just be wow for sampling 10000 pple.

More likely "wow look how and clever and smug we are"

I'm guessing that lots of people will have ben polled over the bank holiday weekend? If so we could probably pre-emptively discount it if a Labour lead or tie

If Lab lead, it's because of it, if Con lead, it's in spite of it!

antifrank said:

If the Conservatives ended on 35% and the Lib Dems ended on 9%, that would be a 6% swing from the Lib Dems to the Conservatives since 2010. On a uniform national swing, that would deliver 20 Lib Dem seats to the Conservatives (actually, four more would go, but I'm ruling out Conservative hopes of taking Norwich South, Bradford East, Aberdeenshire West & Kincardine and Argyll & Bute, since other parties will snaffle them).

Of course, uniform national swing breaks down when parties drop by such large percentages. Because the Lib Dems can't record negative vote shares in other constituencies, it's actually harder for them to do as well as uniform national swing would project. Several more could be hanging by a thread on such polling.

This ICM poll is not good for the Tories. But it really isn't good for the Lib Dems either.

but the ig price for libs has actually risen by 2 today - its now 26-28. This might be worth selling, as its hard to see libs >30, easier to see them <20?

Someone summon Compouter2. He foresaw the ICM Poll (whether it was a prediction or inside info)....what do you think YouGov will be?

antifrank said:

HYUFD said:

FU Indeed, though I see Paul O'Grady has threatened to do a Paul Daniels and leave if the Tories win

That's thrown the antifrank vote into confusion. I didn't realise such a high prize was on offer.

Surely for the sake of your book it has to be SNP?

TheKitchenCabinet said:

dyedwoolie said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

dyedwoolie said:

Thoughts on Labour

Tories relieved because they have the South in the bag, Labour have lost Scotland and they stand to mop up in any possible GE2?

Something like that hmmmm?

Go with the simplest explanation i.e. that they are indeed worried from what they are hearing back. Ever since that Labour Uncut article, the mood music has changed from Labour.

Possibly yes, but what makes Labour gloomy and what we might expect would make them gloomy in terms of expectations are not interchangeable integers!

Danny565 said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

dyedwoolie said:

Thoughts on Labour apparant gloom.

They know they are narrowly ahead on seats but not by enough to make it without the SNP and possibly Liberals? Therefore they know it's going to go tittius verticus?

That fits the polling, many of the predictions of narrow Labour plurality, and the marginals polling.

Tories relieved because they have the South in the bag, Labour have lost Scotland and they stand to mop up in any possible GE2?

Something like that hmmmm?

Go with the simplest explanation i.e. that they are indeed worried from what they are hearing back. Ever since that Labour Uncut article, the mood music has changed from Labour.

There is something in the argument that Labour are ALWAYS very pessimistic, though, especially from opposition. There were tons of seats in 1997 where resources were pulled because they assumed they had no chance, which they ended up winning.

That doesn't mean that their pessimism is definitely not well-founded this time, of course.

The key difference with 1997 is that this time Labour started being optimistic overall but that optimism has faded. One of the things that gets missed about Ed is that he is a big numbers geek: he knows the data inside out and he would have been more aware than anyone that, despite what the press said, the numbers favoured him on seat distribution. Hence how he has brushed off the insults. But that has now changed -you do not rush to Russell Brand or do #EdStone if you think you are on course to win, which opinion poll numbers suggest. The most likeliest explanation is that the data they are getting back is not what they predicted.

I agree thats the only explantion. What I can't work out is whether the data is wrong and they are incompetent or the data is right and they are in the sh1t. Where Cameron has been campaigning makes me think the latter. Would be nice to have leak or two from cchq...actually maybe that there is no leaks tells a story on its own.

antifrank said:

Of course, uniform national swing breaks down when parties drop by such large percentages. Because the Lib Dems can't record negative vote shares in other constituencies, it's actually harder for them to do as well as uniform national swing would project. Several more could be hanging by a thread on such polling.

This ICM poll is not good for the Tories. But it really isn't good for the Lib Dems either.

Somebody wants to bet £124 @ 109/1 on labour winning berwick-on-tweed.

Which strikes me as weird.

http://sports.betfair.com/Index.do?mi=115623794&ex=1&origin=MRL

I've got a small punt on labour coming 2nd @ 19/1 here - I can't see it happening, but labour could well get 20% of the vote - the betting question, therefore, is how far the incumbentless LD's will fall below their 44% in 2010, and what odds it goes below ~20%?

19/1 = 5% chance.

Am I a fool taking that bet?