politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Our GE15 prediction competition: results + chart showing CO
Comments
-
I see Kinnock's son got his seat....felix said:
Labourites love a dynasty!Slackbladder said:
Don't give them ideas....another_richard said:
In a year's time they'll be advocating Young Kinnock.nigel4england said:
I was talking with an ex-Labour MP this morning, we were talking about potential leaders. He doesn't like any at the top of the list, he wants David Miliband back.AndyJS said:One thing Labour might think about addressing is this sort of thing:
A newly-elected MP being booed by Labour activists a matter of seconds after having been declared the winner. Whatever you think of him, he'd just been endorsed by the voters. Maybe not the best attitude to take if you're in the business of winning elections:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgGoOOwXip00 -
Reminiscent of the humiliation of the 'progressive majority' in the AV referendum.AndyJS said:The election was a victory for provincial England and Wales. They didn’t accept the metropolitan view of Ed Miliband. Labour’s vote went up in trendy areas like Hackney and Islington. They tanked in the small to medium sized towns of England and Wales.
As I've said before elections are decided in places which sound like lower division football teams.
0 -
But other London seats generally were also affected, so we should be sceptical of using vote movements within margin of error to justify claims.felix said:
Gosh are you determined to miss the point. They made both policy and ground war mistakes which affected at least 3 London seats specifically.EPG said:
But as discussed, they didn't do especially well in London. They only gained a handful of seats.AndyJS said:Hendon should have been one of the easiest Labour gains in the country, especially being in London. Instead the Tory majority went from 106 to 3,724.
EPG said:
Labour gained more votes than the Conservatives in Finchley and Golders Green. So this is normal variance.Sean_F said:
Look at the way the Conservative vote rose in the two most Jewish seats in the UK, Hendon and Finchley & Golders Green. Look at the way it rose in the two most Hindu seats in the UK, Harrow East and West. I think that the interview with Muslim News did Labour absolutely no favours at all with those communities.EPG said:
The proposal to introduce a crime of aggravated assault against Muslims just didn't get that much traction outside the usual anti-Islam circles, who don't vote Labour anyway.felix said:Some thoughts on the London regional polling. I was harangued on here by either speedy or lucky guy for suggesting that Labour would not get up to 10 London gains from the Tories alone. They actually got 4 - all north of the river and in many other seats the swing went to the Tories. I suspect 3 reasons:
1. Measuring London is very difficult unless you very carefully wight re age, class, registration, etc.
2. There can be enormous variations withing London - Battersea , eg is very different form Hampstead.
3. I suspect Labour missed up to 3 N. London possibilities because of the absurd anti-islamophobia proposal. You target one religious group for support and risk offending others just a few streets away.0 -
If anything perhaps they would have openly back only the idea of a Con-Lib coalition? On the basis that the Tories were definitely get the most seats, not just maybe, so they'd need to reassure the Tory leaning SW they would back that, with not as much fear of alienating Labour voters in areas they needed them, on the basis that even the LDs saying they would back such a thing would be better than an outright Tory government.DavidL said:
Just supposing they were competent. Imagine how different the narratives would have been if we had known that the Tories were more than 6% ahead and edging for a majority. Would there have been anything the Lib Dems could have done? .
But I doubt that would have worked - the scale of what did happen suggests there was irreversible momentum leading into this result.0 -
Exactly. And I think looking back, that conversation (which I personally believe happened, though we have no verification) was quite true. It is a far better result for the SNP that Cameron won and that they get to be in opposition.felix said:
Certainly not if the French ambassador is to be believed.Luckyguy1983 said:I think there's a deep mutual dislike between Cameron and Salmond. But I don't think the same of Cameron and Sturgeon. I imagine things will be quite cordial, and they will tend to sort things out leader to leader. And I think the influx of SNP MP's to Wesminster, (bar the odd couple of unexpectedly elected half-wits who want a re-run of Bannockburn and refuse to sit next to Tories in the Westminster canteen) will do a great deal to improve mutual understanding between Scottish and RUK politicians.
0 -
No, they want it now and they want to make sure Westminster thinks they are reticent. That guarantees the best possible fiscal transfer framework. It is a much easier path to Independence because the fiscal advantages of Scotland are much easier to demonstrate, it's not arguments over data, it's facts on the ground.fitalass said:The SNP want FFA alright, but not just now, and not before they have another Indy Referendum in the bag. I am personal planning my future according. If the SNP got FFA now, it would screw their whole end game up, and they know it. So expect to see Sturgeon back tracking on it while then trying to make the argument about why bother with FFA at all when we can just go for full Independence instead.
They want it now because they think they can avoid the current level of fiscal transfer. As long as the London Media and Tory backbenchers and Right Wing English voters THINK that it's not what the SNP want, the more chance Cameron is forced into a corner and has to start the negotiations.0 -
I suspect a large chunk of the UKIP support was just the floating protest/anti-Tory vote that exists at every election. So a lot of it will have come from the LibDems.FrancisUrquhart said:But actually it seems that the UKIP rise hurt Labour more than the Tories. Where Ukip were up by less than 7 points the Conservatives were up by 1.5 points on average; Labour up 6.9. Conversely, where Ukip was up by more than 14 points the Conservatives down 0.9 points and Labour were up only 1.6. So the Labour were up 5.3 less where UKIP did well but the corresponding difference for the Conservatives was just 0.6.
Another way of looking at this is that the Tories lost 6 seats to Labour where UKIP were up less than 7 points. But Labour were not taking any seats off the Conservatives where UKIP were up by more than 14 points.
Ukip did better where there were fewer people with degrees, more economically depressed areas with more pensioners, routine manual workers and those with no educational qualifications.
.
0 -
You took the words out of my mouth. If MOE was the issue - we'd have seen a Tory one nr 40% at least once and we never did.ukelect said:
There were hundreds of polls (including the constituency polls). None of them (as far as I am aware) forecast a better Conservative result than actually occurred. If they were working as designed you would have expected to see quite a lot of of them forecasting a GB Conservative vote of 39% or 40% or more, and almost none forecasting a vote below 34%.AndyJS said:The polls weren't that wrong actually because many of them had figures of 34% each with a 3% margin of error. If you apply that margin of error, it's possible to get 37% and 31% which is very close to the result. The problem is people often forget about the 3% margin of error.
0 -
Re the not so strange death of Liberalism, what has struck me about their policies is the way they have become more statist over time - I guess the Orange bookers didn't like it but that was pretty much the Clegg way - influenced much , I suspect by his pro-EUism.0
-
FWIW, the L&N model starts with a Labour 0.3% lead in 2020. The pendulum component, before PM approval is taken into account.
The equivalent figure for 2015 was a 3.7% Tory lead.0 -
I'm sure they'd like to achieve it, but you are right - and the wedge has been successfully driven. The issue for the SNP now is more about tactics, how should they press their advantage, as the potentially unassailable wedge, the most difficult and vital task, which makes Cameron doing anything to Scotland unless they agree very hard (and no matter if he tries very hard or not at all, they will never consent), which furthers their late moves on independence in any case.alex. said:
But then I assume the SNP know that. The point of opposing austerity is not to actually achieve this, but just to use it to drive a wedge between Scotland and the rest of the UK.
0 -
I laid out £4400 and lost £2682Pong said:I remember this competition. I sent my entry by post - have you still not received it Mike? It's probably stuck in the post office - it'll drop through your letterbox on monday morning, then you can update the figures with my entry at the top.
Anyway, I've just done all my GE2015 accounting.
I had a betting bank of just over £12k, with pretty much all of it invested by the exit poll.
Net profit = £5793.22
Longest odds winner; Conservatives winning margin of over 40 seats - BACK £0.07 @ 989/1 = +£67 (matched on Thursday AM, thanks to the betfair overround bot)
Shortest odds loser; No Overall Majority - BACK £1000 @ 1.12 (laid off later at higher odds)
Most amusing bet; Labour's pink bus to get a respray (£100 @ 10/1)
Worst value winner; Lib Dems to win Sheffield Hallam (£100 @ 1/4)
Best value loser; Con to gain Halifax £100 @ 9/2
Most unlikely winner; Conservative Majority (£40 @ 25/1)
The *why the hell did I place that bet?* bet; UKIP to win amber valley (£20 @ 20/1)
Cheekiest trade; Backing the SNP to win Glasgow SW @ evens minutes after the Ashcroft poll had a 21 point lead.
Most profitable single bet - Labour to come 2nd in Wyre forest (£200 per point @ 0.5, equiv 19/1) = +£1800
Largest single loss: over 2.5 UKIP seats @ 6/4 = -£500
Bookie of the election; (Joint winners) Coral & William Hill
Best Advice to myself (that I didn’t take); Between 10pm & midnight bet on the exit poll, ESPECIALLY if it doesn’t seem *right*
Best advice to myself (that I reluctantly took); Bet on Con Maj if the odds are high enough, however remote the possibility seems.
Advice for next time – Don’t underestimate the uncertainty. NOM should have never been anywhere near as low as it was (as short as 1.05, on thurs PM, I believe).
What was everyone else's P/L & best/worst election bets?
I think it's probably easier to win if you have accounts with all online bookies.. I have one
The premise for all of my bets was that ukip would easily get over 10%. I offered 4/6 under 10% on here two years ago when lads were 1/5 because I was bored on a Saturday night in...
I guess being proved right when being lairy was quite satisfying
No ones paid yet mind!
Unfortunately that premise led me to bet a lot of big price ukip constituencies on the thinking 2-3 would come in if I was right about the 11-14% vote share...and obviously none did!
The Farage -6.5 bets and ukip*4 to by lib dems were obv bad value when I made them but I was just bored really! And fancied a bet... Silly me!
0 -
One question is...Ashcroft spent £5+ million on his polling, including the constituency based ones. I wonder how much the Tories via Crosby / Messina spent on their polling and what was the secret sauce that meant they were far more tuned in?
Remember Crosby told people a bit over 300 (306 I believe) was his prediction based upon their polling a couple of days before the GE. They apparently were confident of around this up until 2 weeks out, they had a wobble, they sent out "pumped up Dave", and then finalized on a bit over 300.0 -
It needs to get sorted before Holyrood 2016.kle4 said:
At the moment, definitely. It's based on electoral results (not just polling, UKIP, I'm sorry), and their's do not befit a major party.Dair said:
There surely needs to be questions over their status as a Major Party in all three GB nations.EPG said:
The same bankruptcy meme emerged around Labour last election.Dair said:
Their margin in Orkney and Zetland is only 800 now as well. I would expect a lot of the other seats are knife edges too.
What happens when the party files for Bankruptcy? Can they just reform with a new corporate shell? Wouldn't the administrator control the name and symbols and other branding?
The ridiculousness of Willie Rennie being at all the debates, marginalised and ignored for the entire thing needs to be addressed. Not to mention all the dead airtime covering the Lib Dems on the news and the ridiculous PEBs telling people to drive down Pedestrianised areas rather take a left or right turn.0 -
Labour majorities in the Stoke-on-Trent seats:
Central: 5,179 (previously 5,566)
North: 4,836 (8,235)
South: 2,539 (4,130)0 -
Merseyside continue its love for Labour and in their middle class areas their journey towards them
Liverpool Walton 81.3% of the vote for Labour
Liverpool West Derby (Twigg) 75.2%
Liverpool Wavertree (Luciana Berger) 69.3 % (LDs 6%...in 2010 they hope to get it)
Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) 69.1%
Liverpool Riverside 67.4%
Knowsley 78.1%
St Helens is less monolithical
St Helens South 59.8%
St Helens North 59%
Elsewhere
Bootle 74.5% (Paul Nuttal 10.9%)
Birkenhead (Frank Field) 67.7%
Wallasey (Angela Eagle) 60.4%
continuing their journeys towards Labour
Sefton Central 53.8% (and a 24.2% majority over Con now)
at a lesser extent
Wirral South 48.2% (now a 11% majority)
and Wirral West being one of the few Lab gains from Con of the GE
0 -
Well done, Sir.
Your advice to bet post-exit-poll seems like one followed by many on PB - I was too blotto/sunstroked by then to know if I was imaging it all so didn't.
BUGGER.Pong said:I remember this competition. I sent my entry by post - have you still not received it Mike? It's probably stuck in the post office - it'll drop through your letterbox on monday morning, then you can update the figures with my entry at the top.
Anyway, I've just done all my GE2015 accounting.
I had a betting bank of just over £12k, with pretty much all of it invested by the exit poll.
Net profit = £5793.22
Longest odds winner; Conservatives winning margin of over 40 seats - BACK £0.07 @ 989/1 = +£67 (matched on Thursday AM, thanks to the betfair overround bot)
Shortest odds loser; No Overall Majority - BACK £1000 @ 1.12 (laid off later at higher odds)
Most amusing bet; Labour's pink bus to get a respray (£100 @ 10/1)
Worst value winner; Lib Dems to win Sheffield Hallam (£100 @ 1/4)
Best value loser; Con to gain Halifax £100 @ 9/2
Most unlikely winner; Conservative Majority (£40 @ 25/1)
The *why the hell did I place that bet?* bet; UKIP to win amber valley (£20 @ 20/1)
Cheekiest trade; Backing the SNP to win Glasgow SW @ evens minutes after the Ashcroft poll had a 21 point lead.
Most profitable single bet - Labour to come 2nd in Wyre forest (£200 per point @ 0.5, equiv 19/1) = +£1800
Largest single loss: over 2.5 UKIP seats @ 6/4 = -£500
Bookie of the election; (Joint winners) Coral & William Hill
Best Advice to myself (that I didn’t take); Between 10pm & midnight bet on the exit poll, ESPECIALLY if it doesn’t seem *right*
Best advice to myself (that I reluctantly took); Bet on Con Maj if the odds are high enough, however remote the possibility seems.
Advice for next time – Don’t underestimate the uncertainty. NOM should have never been anywhere near as low as it was (as short as 1.05, on thurs PM, I believe).
What was everyone else's P/L & best/worst election bets?0 -
I'm probably telling tales out of turn here, but the LDs have signed up 3,000 new members since Thursday night.Dair said:
I can't comment for others but on my part there is no shadenfreude. I quite like the ideas of the Liberal Party which have been fairly consistent in the Lib Dem proposal even if contaminated by the SDP socialist dogma. The liberal voices in the party eventually won out. I would have liked them to continue.EPG said:
But they knew that about Labour last time too. We should be careful about believing schadenfreude too much.Slackbladder said:
the lib dems don't have union sugar daddys
But there has to be some realism. When the Liberals were dead, in the 50s and 60s they still had that core support in the Highland and Islands of Scotland keeping them alive. That's gone now. They have no core anywhere, no money, no significant VI share.
Reality has to be recognised.
0 -
Not in that part of North London which is where the bulk of the Jewish population live. there were very good Tory results in places like Battersea probably for different reasons. Battersea continues to trend right and in time Tooting will follow it as well - primarily for economic reasons I suspect. The other point is to forget about polls and margins of error - see the thread header for why. Virtually everything we've been fed by the polling companies for this election was garbage.EPG said:
But other London seats generally were also affected, so we should be sceptical of using vote movements within margin of error to justify claims.felix said:
Gosh are you determined to miss the point. They made both policy and ground war mistakes which affected at least 3 London seats specifically.EPG said:
But as discussed, they didn't do especially well in London. They only gained a handful of seats.AndyJS said:Hendon should have been one of the easiest Labour gains in the country, especially being in London. Instead the Tory majority went from 106 to 3,724.
EPG said:
Labour gained more votes than the Conservatives in Finchley and Golders Green. So this is normal variance.Sean_F said:
Look at the way the Conservative vote rose in the two most Jewish seats in the UK, Hendon and Finchley & Golders Green. Look at the way it rose in the two most Hindu seats in the UK, Harrow East and West. I think that the interview with Muslim News did Labour absolutely no favours at all with those communities.EPG said:
The proposal to introduce a crime of aggravated assault against Muslims just didn't get that much traction outside the usual anti-Islam circles, who don't vote Labour anyway.felix said:Some thoughts on the London regional polling. I was harangued on here by either speedy or lucky guy for suggesting that Labour would not get up to 10 London gains from the Tories alone. They actually got 4 - all north of the river and in many other seats the swing went to the Tories. I suspect 3 reasons:
1. Measuring London is very difficult unless you very carefully wight re age, class, registration, etc.
2. There can be enormous variations withing London - Battersea , eg is very different form Hampstead.
3. I suspect Labour missed up to 3 N. London possibilities because of the absurd anti-islamophobia proposal. You target one religious group for support and risk offending others just a few streets away.0 -
They probably feel they've got their party back.No_Offence_Alan said:
I'm probably telling tales out of turn here, but the LDs have signed up 3,000 new members since Thursday night.Dair said:
I can't comment for others but on my part there is no shadenfreude. I quite like the ideas of the Liberal Party which have been fairly consistent in the Lib Dem proposal even if contaminated by the SDP socialist dogma. The liberal voices in the party eventually won out. I would have liked them to continue.EPG said:
But they knew that about Labour last time too. We should be careful about believing schadenfreude too much.Slackbladder said:
the lib dems don't have union sugar daddys
But there has to be some realism. When the Liberals were dead, in the 50s and 60s they still had that core support in the Highland and Islands of Scotland keeping them alive. That's gone now. They have no core anywhere, no money, no significant VI share.
Reality has to be recognised.0 -
No. They have a thousand and one purposes - because they're humans. I'm not suggesting that they will start accumulating directorships and lobbying for weapons companies in the first few weeks, just that like anywhere, they will start developing working relationships, interests, and common ground with those outside their former sphere. You always sit with your primary school cohorts when you join secondary school for a few weeks. Then it gets less and less. It's going to be great for Parliament to get some new blood, and great for the SNP to get out of a small and homogenised pond.EPG said:
They have one purpose: independence in Europe. Unlike most parties, Westminster and its milieu of ministries, think-tanks, and London PR firms is useless to the SNP. There is nothing for them to be allured by in the city they consider equivalent to Babylon. The most relevant comparison is the Irish delegation to Westminster after the 1880s, which only became more and more extreme as time went on.Luckyguy1983 said:
I don't really want unenthusiastic or ineffective MPs. But it's inevitable that they will get some of their corners sanded off, and be exposed to a wider range of views.kle4 said:
I'm hoping the vampirism of the Westminster machine can affect some of them, dents some of the enthusiasm or effectiveness, but I'm not hopeful - I think they will safely inoculate themselves with holy SNP symbols and idea, as it were in this tortured metaphor.Luckyguy1983 said:I think there's a deep mutual dislike between Cameron and Salmond. But I don't think the same of Cameron and Sturgeon. I imagine things will be quite cordial. And I think the influx of SNP MP's to Wesminster, (bar the odd couple of unexpectedly elected half-wits who want a re-run of Bannockburn and refuse to sit next to Tories in the Westminster canteen) will do a great deal to improve mutual understanding between Scottish and RUK politicians.
0 -
That'll be ex-lib dems returning post Clegg and post coalition.No_Offence_Alan said:
I'm probably telling tales out of turn here, but the LDs have signed up 3,000 new members since Thursday night.Dair said:
I can't comment for others but on my part there is no shadenfreude. I quite like the ideas of the Liberal Party which have been fairly consistent in the Lib Dem proposal even if contaminated by the SDP socialist dogma. The liberal voices in the party eventually won out. I would have liked them to continue.EPG said:
But they knew that about Labour last time too. We should be careful about believing schadenfreude too much.Slackbladder said:
the lib dems don't have union sugar daddys
But there has to be some realism. When the Liberals were dead, in the 50s and 60s they still had that core support in the Highland and Islands of Scotland keeping them alive. That's gone now. They have no core anywhere, no money, no significant VI share.
Reality has to be recognised.0 -
But if Hendon is also trending right, maybe it is for similar reasons as Tooting or Putney.felix said:
Not in that part of North London which is where the bulk of the Jewish population live. there were very good Tory results in places like Battersea probably for different reasons. Battersea continues to trend right and in time Tooting will follow it as well - primarily for economic reasons I suspect. The other point is to forget about polls and margins of error - see the thread header for why. Virtually everything we've been fed by the polling companies for this election was garbage.EPG said:
But other London seats generally were also affected, so we should be sceptical of using vote movements within margin of error to justify claims.felix said:
Gosh are you determined to miss the point. They made both policy and ground war mistakes which affected at least 3 London seats specifically.EPG said:
But as discussed, they didn't do especially well in London. They only gained a handful of seats.AndyJS said:Hendon should have been one of the easiest Labour gains in the country, especially being in London. Instead the Tory majority went from 106 to 3,724.
EPG said:
Labour gained more votes than the Conservatives in Finchley and Golders Green. So this is normal variance.Sean_F said:
Look at the way the Conservative vote rose in the two most Jewish seats in the UK, Hendon and Finchley & Golders Green. Look at the way it rose in the two most Hindu seats in the UK, Harrow East and West. I think that the interview with Muslim News did Labour absolutely no favours at all with those communities.EPG said:
The proposal to introduce a crime of aggravated assault against Muslims just didn't get that much traction outside the usual anti-Islam circles, who don't vote Labour anyway.felix said:Some thoughts on the London regional polling. I was harangued on here by either speedy or lucky guy for suggesting that Labour would not get up to 10 London gains from the Tories alone. They actually got 4 - all north of the river and in many other seats the swing went to the Tories. I suspect 3 reasons:
1. Measuring London is very difficult unless you very carefully wight re age, class, registration, etc.
2. There can be enormous variations withing London - Battersea , eg is very different form Hampstead.
3. I suspect Labour missed up to 3 N. London possibilities because of the absurd anti-islamophobia proposal. You target one religious group for support and risk offending others just a few streets away.0 -
Some PBers have been calling it right though.FrancisUrquhart said:But actually it seems that the UKIP rise hurt Labour more than the Tories. Where Ukip were up by less than 7 points the Conservatives were up by 1.5 points on average; Labour up 6.9. Conversely, where Ukip was up by more than 14 points the Conservatives down 0.9 points and Labour were up only 1.6. So the Labour were up 5.3 less where UKIP did well but the corresponding difference for the Conservatives was just 0.6.
Another way of looking at this is that the Tories lost 6 seats to Labour where UKIP were up less than 7 points. But Labour were not taking any seats off the Conservatives where UKIP were up by more than 14 points.
Ukip did better where there were fewer people with degrees, more economically depressed areas with more pensioners, routine manual workers and those with no educational qualifications.
I think the Pollsters and MSM need to go on some re-education courses....they have called the raise of UKIP completely wrong.GIN1138 said:Here's Prof. Fishers view on how the Tories did it;
http://electionsetc.com/
0 -
IIRC we spent A LOT of time talking about English Market Towns pre-2010 and didn't do so much pre-2015.
Is that false recall from me?MikeSmithson said:
And it was the small and medium English towns where most of the marginals were.AndyJS said:The election was a victory for provincial England and Wales. They didn’t accept the metropolitan view of Ed Miliband. Labour’s vote went up in trendy areas like Hackney and Islington. They tanked in the small to medium sized towns of England and Wales.
I think that the YouGov daily poll has an almost hypnotic effect and pollsters are fearful or producing something that is much different.0 -
This is credible, lots of people signed up to Labour just after their defeat in 2010. Basically lots of people can't stomach government.No_Offence_Alan said:
I'm probably telling tales out of turn here, but the LDs have signed up 3,000 new members since Thursday night.Dair said:
I can't comment for others but on my part there is no shadenfreude. I quite like the ideas of the Liberal Party which have been fairly consistent in the Lib Dem proposal even if contaminated by the SDP socialist dogma. The liberal voices in the party eventually won out. I would have liked them to continue.EPG said:
But they knew that about Labour last time too. We should be careful about believing schadenfreude too much.Slackbladder said:
the lib dems don't have union sugar daddys
But there has to be some realism. When the Liberals were dead, in the 50s and 60s they still had that core support in the Highland and Islands of Scotland keeping them alive. That's gone now. They have no core anywhere, no money, no significant VI share.
Reality has to be recognised.0 -
I said the same thing myself a couple of weeks ago, and requested a thread on the subject like we had just before the 2010 election.Plato said:
IIRC we spent A LOT of time talking about English Market Towns pre-2010 and didn't do so much pre-2015.
Is that false recall from me?MikeSmithson said:
And it was the small and medium English towns where most of the marginals were.AndyJS said:The election was a victory for provincial England and Wales. They didn’t accept the metropolitan view of Ed Miliband. Labour’s vote went up in trendy areas like Hackney and Islington. They tanked in the small to medium sized towns of England and Wales.
I think that the YouGov daily poll has an almost hypnotic effect and pollsters are fearful or producing something that is much different.0 -
What we are finding out about the pollsters shows how powerful peer pressure can be, even in a professional/scientific environment.
The problems with the "consensus" about AGW come to mind as well.
Not sure what the answers are though.
0 -
Southport also gave Labour its best vote since 1970, and is almost a 4 way marginal now.AndreaParma_82 said:Merseyside continue its love for Labour and in their middle class areas their journey towards them
Liverpool Walton 81.3% of the vote for Labour
Liverpool West Derby (Twigg) 75.2%
Liverpool Wavertree (Luciana Berger) 69.3 % (LDs 6%...in 2010 they hope to get it)
Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) 69.1%
Liverpool Riverside 67.4%
Knowsley 78.1%
St Helens is less monolithical
St Helens South 59.8%
St Helens North 59%
Elsewhere
Bootle 74.5% (Paul Nuttal 10.9%)
Birkenhead (Frank Field) 67.7%
Wallasey (Angela Eagle) 60.4%
continuing their journeys towards Labour
Sefton Central 53.8% (and a 24.2% majority over Con now)
at a lesser extent
Wirral South 48.2% (now a 11% majority)
and Wirral West being one of the few Lab gains from Con of the GE0 -
Personally I'm a bit disappointed because I wanted the current coalition to continue. I thought the LDs would hold 20 seats as an absolute minimum and the Tories wouldn't get more than 310.0
-
I wonder how many of those are actually returning members?No_Offence_Alan said:
I'm probably telling tales out of turn here, but the LDs have signed up 3,000 new members since Thursday night.Dair said:
I can't comment for others but on my part there is no shadenfreude. I quite like the ideas of the Liberal Party which have been fairly consistent in the Lib Dem proposal even if contaminated by the SDP socialist dogma. The liberal voices in the party eventually won out. I would have liked them to continue.EPG said:
But they knew that about Labour last time too. We should be careful about believing schadenfreude too much.Slackbladder said:
the lib dems don't have union sugar daddys
But there has to be some realism. When the Liberals were dead, in the 50s and 60s they still had that core support in the Highland and Islands of Scotland keeping them alive. That's gone now. They have no core anywhere, no money, no significant VI share.
Reality has to be recognised.0 -
I do think this time is different. It is now clear that the SNP will never be in the Westminster government, and that even supporting a Westminster government will be very difficult for them. And in the last forty-eight hours, it suddenly become conceivable to them that they could achieve their true goal within three years.Luckyguy1983 said:
No. They have a thousand and one purposes - because they're humans. I'm not suggesting that they will start accumulating directorships and lobbying for weapons companies in the first few weeks, just that like anywhere, they will start developing working relationships, interests, and common ground with those outside their former sphere. You always sit with your primary school cohorts when you join secondary school for a few weeks. Then it gets less and less. It's going to be great for Parliament to get some new blood, and great for the SNP to get out of a small and homogenised pond.EPG said:
They have one purpose: independence in Europe. Unlike most parties, Westminster and its milieu of ministries, think-tanks, and London PR firms is useless to the SNP. There is nothing for them to be allured by in the city they consider equivalent to Babylon. The most relevant comparison is the Irish delegation to Westminster after the 1880s, which only became more and more extreme as time went on.Luckyguy1983 said:
I don't really want unenthusiastic or ineffective MPs. But it's inevitable that they will get some of their corners sanded off, and be exposed to a wider range of views.kle4 said:
I'm hoping the vampirism of the Westminster machine can affect some of them, dents some of the enthusiasm or effectiveness, but I'm not hopeful - I think they will safely inoculate themselves with holy SNP symbols and idea, as it were in this tortured metaphor.Luckyguy1983 said:I think there's a deep mutual dislike between Cameron and Salmond. But I don't think the same of Cameron and Sturgeon. I imagine things will be quite cordial. And I think the influx of SNP MP's to Wesminster, (bar the odd couple of unexpectedly elected half-wits who want a re-run of Bannockburn and refuse to sit next to Tories in the Westminster canteen) will do a great deal to improve mutual understanding between Scottish and RUK politicians.
0 -
I don't think we should have any polls in the next five years tbh. How can we believe them?Plato said:Many of us were hit over the head with so many polls that it was almost irresistable - how could they ALL be wrong?
As we've learnt subsequently - some were buried and then others fiddled their models to *fit in* so no one was exposed at the end.
Well - all that happened was Collective Guilt not Innocence.
It's certainly bruised my faith in all pollsters for a while.ukelect said:The reason that many seat predictors (including UK-Elect) failed so badly to predict the LibDem seat total was because they were fine-tuned by the Ashcroft constituency polls, which seemed to show that the LibDEm incumbency factor really existed. That made me extremely nervous at the time (I said so at the time) but trusted the data rather than my instincts. Damn.
0 -
Matthew Goodwin wrote a book on the subject.FrancisUrquhart said:
But actually it seems that the UKIP rise hurt Labour more than the Tories. Where Ukip were up by less than 7 points the Conservatives were up by 1.5 points on average; Labour up 6.9. Conversely, where Ukip was up by more than 14 points the Conservatives down 0.9 points and Labour were up only 1.6. So the Labour were up 5.3 less where UKIP did well but the corresponding difference for the Conservatives was just 0.6.
Another way of looking at this is that the Tories lost 6 seats to Labour where UKIP were up less than 7 points. But Labour were not taking any seats off the Conservatives where UKIP were up by more than 14 points.
Ukip did better where there were fewer people with degrees, more economically depressed areas with more pensioners, routine manual workers and those with no educational qualifications.
I think the Pollsters and MSM need to go on some re-education courses....they have called the raise of UKIP completely wrong.GIN1138 said:Here's Prof. Fishers view on how the Tories did it;
http://electionsetc.com/0 -
The Tory majority of 12 is substantially smaller than the 21 achieved by Major in 1992 yet even the latter lost his majority by the end of 1996.Major’s majority did not reach 12 until Feb 1995. Only six by-election reverses needed to take us back to a hung parliament.
Paradoxically, even as things stand , whipping is going to be much tighter than in the last Parliament given that the Coalition enjoyed a majority of circa 70 at its outset. By-elections will become very important – though the commentariat has so far failed to latch on to this.0 -
0
-
Interesting question. But it may have been purely made-up - he couldn't really tell people they were going to lose, and at the time that was pretty much the most plausible-sounding number that would still have clearly resulted in PM Cameron.FrancisUrquhart said:One question is...Ashcroft spent £5+ million on his polling, including the constituency based ones. I wonder how much the Tories via Crosby / Messina spent on their polling and what was the secret sauce that meant they were far more tuned in?
Remember Crosby told people a bit over 300 (306 I believe) was his prediction based upon their polling a couple of days before the GE. They apparently were confident of around this up until 2 weeks out, they had a wobble, they sent out "pumped up Dave", and then finalized on a bit over 300.0 -
The AGW consensus is among scientists who research it using everything from evidence to computer models, not people being polled.MarkHopkins said:
What we are finding out about the pollsters shows how powerful peer pressure can be, even in a supposedly professional/scientific environment.
The problems with the "consensus" about AGW come to mind as well.
Not sure what the answers are though.0 -
They backed horribly illiberal policies. The European arrest warrant being a good example. They were neither liberal nor democratic.felix said:Re the not so strange death of Liberalism, what has struck me about their policies is the way they have become more statist over time - I guess the Orange bookers didn't like it but that was pretty much the Clegg way - influenced much , I suspect by his pro-EUism.
As I have repeatedly said (and I have yet to be proven right on UKIP I will freely admit) the mushy middle is not where you want to be. The Lib Dems explicitly marketed themselves as a middle ground of two things that people didn't particular like anyway. They have been squashed accordingly.
0 -
How many SNP Lords are there then?Luckyguy1983 said:
No. They have a thousand and one purposes - because they're humans. I'm not suggesting that they will start accumulating directorships and lobbying for weapons companies in the first few weeks, just that like anywhere, they will start developing working relationships, interests, and common ground with those outside their former sphere. You always sit with your primary school cohorts when you join secondary school for a few weeks. Then it gets less and less. It's going to be great for Parliament to get some new blood, and great for the SNP to get out of a small and homogenised pond.EPG said:
They have one purpose: independence in Europe. Unlike most parties, Westminster and its milieu of ministries, think-tanks, and London PR firms is useless to the SNP. There is nothing for them to be allured by in the city they consider equivalent to Babylon. The most relevant comparison is the Irish delegation to Westminster after the 1880s, which only became more and more extreme as time went on.Luckyguy1983 said:
I don't really want unenthusiastic or ineffective MPs. But it's inevitable that they will get some of their corners sanded off, and be exposed to a wider range of views.kle4 said:
I'm hoping the vampirism of the Westminster machine can affect some of them, dents some of the enthusiasm or effectiveness, but I'm not hopeful - I think they will safely inoculate themselves with holy SNP symbols and idea, as it were in this tortured metaphor.Luckyguy1983 said:I think there's a deep mutual dislike between Cameron and Salmond. But I don't think the same of Cameron and Sturgeon. I imagine things will be quite cordial. And I think the influx of SNP MP's to Wesminster, (bar the odd couple of unexpectedly elected half-wits who want a re-run of Bannockburn and refuse to sit next to Tories in the Westminster canteen) will do a great deal to improve mutual understanding between Scottish and RUK politicians.
0 -
-
I think a lot of people in Merseyside define themselves as not being Tories in a way that no-where else in England does, which explains why the Conservatives are continuing to do so badly. It's probably getting more pronounced as time goes on.AndreaParma_82 said:
Merseyside continue its love for Labour and in their middle class areas their journey towards them
Liverpool Walton 81.3% of the vote for Labour
Liverpool West Derby (Twigg) 75.2%
Liverpool Wavertree (Luciana Berger) 69.3 % (LDs 6%...in 2010 they hope to get it)
Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) 69.1%
Liverpool Riverside 67.4%
Knowsley 78.1%
St Helens is less monolithical
St Helens South 59.8%
St Helens North 59%
Elsewhere
Bootle 74.5% (Paul Nuttal 10.9%)
Birkenhead (Frank Field) 67.7%
Wallasey (Angela Eagle) 60.4%
continuing their journeys towards Labour
Sefton Central 53.8% (and a 24.2% majority over Con now)
at a lesser extent
Wirral South 48.2% (now a 11% majority)
and Wirral West being one of the few Lab gains from Con of the GE0 -
I do hope you aren't hanging up your hat Mr Elect?
A great resource and some superb tweets.
Look forward to reading more of them, hopefully.ukelect said:I think the LibDems will be back - although it is a long, long, way back. There is no reason to loathe them any more - tuition fees and the coalition with the Conservatives will fade from memory. They still have some strength in some constituencies, and, during the years of Conservative majority rule, naturally liberal voters will come to look back more kindly on a time when what they will see as the Conservatives worst excesses were tempered somewhat.
0 -
Halifax 1992 478 votes majority
Halifax 2015 428 votes majority
how much boundaries changed compared to then?0 -
What are the Tory troublemakers going to rebel about that will cause trouble for Cameron? Assuming it happens the referendum takes care of a lot of the Europe stuff, and Labour tends to be on Theresa May's side on civil liberties.justin124 said:The Tory majority of 12 is substantially smaller than the 21 achieved by Major in 1992 yet even the latter lost his majority by the end of 1996.Major’s majority did not reach 12 until Feb 1995. Only six by-election reverses needed to take us back to a hung parliament.
Paradoxically, even as things stand , whipping is going to be much tighter than in the last Parliament given that the Coalition enjoyed a majority of circa 70 at its outset. By-elections will become very important – though the commentariat has so far failed to latch on to this.0 -
Well some polls are better than no polls, and as i've said before, ok as mood music, not seat predictors directly.The_Apocalypse said:
I don't think we should have any polls in the next five years tbh. How can we believe them?Plato said:Many of us were hit over the head with so many polls that it was almost irresistable - how could they ALL be wrong?
As we've learnt subsequently - some were buried and then others fiddled their models to *fit in* so no one was exposed at the end.
Well - all that happened was Collective Guilt not Innocence.
It's certainly bruised my faith in all pollsters for a while.ukelect said:The reason that many seat predictors (including UK-Elect) failed so badly to predict the LibDem seat total was because they were fine-tuned by the Ashcroft constituency polls, which seemed to show that the LibDEm incumbency factor really existed. That made me extremely nervous at the time (I said so at the time) but trusted the data rather than my instincts. Damn.
Theres a not of helpful secondary information which is good
But I think that daily YouGov poll has been a huge mistake.0 -
It's been on every news item at least 3 times a day - but keep it quiet, I'm sure the thought hasn't crossed David Cameron's mind. If you want more straw to clutch at head for the nearest field.justin124 said:The Tory majority of 12 is substantially smaller than the 21 achieved by Major in 1992 yet even the latter lost his majority by the end of 1996.Major’s majority did not reach 12 until Feb 1995. Only six by-election reverses needed to take us back to a hung parliament.
Paradoxically, even as things stand , whipping is going to be much tighter than in the last Parliament given that the Coalition enjoyed a majority of circa 70 at its outset. By-elections will become very important – though the commentariat has so far failed to latch on to this. 0 -
I don't know exactly what the private Tory polling data was telling them, but I have no reason to believe that it was telling them anything different than the Ashcroft polls.edmundintokyo said:
Interesting question. But it may have been purely made-up - he couldn't really tell people they were going to lose, and at the time that was pretty much the most plausible-sounding number that would still have clearly resulted in PM Cameron.FrancisUrquhart said:One question is...Ashcroft spent £5+ million on his polling, including the constituency based ones. I wonder how much the Tories via Crosby / Messina spent on their polling and what was the secret sauce that meant they were far more tuned in?
Remember Crosby told people a bit over 300 (306 I believe) was his prediction based upon their polling a couple of days before the GE. They apparently were confident of around this up until 2 weeks out, they had a wobble, they sent out "pumped up Dave", and then finalized on a bit over 300.0 -
I was thinking the same thing but didn't want to offend, I see him most Saturday's and don't want to fall out.another_richard said:
If this Miliband fails then try that Miliband.nigel4england said:
I was talking with an ex-Labour MP this morning, we were talking about potential leaders. He doesn't like any at the top of the list, he wants David Miliband back.AndyJS said:One thing Labour might think about addressing is this sort of thing:
A newly-elected MP being booed by Labour activists a matter of seconds after having been declared the winner. Whatever you think of him, he'd just been endorsed by the voters. Maybe not the best attitude to take if you're in the business of winning elections:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgGoOOwXip0
If the nerd fails then try the dweeb.
If the ruthless one fails try the gutless one.
If the metropolitan one fails then try the metropolitan one.
If the money grubber fails then try the money grubber.
If the disaster in government fails then try the disaster in government.
In a year's time they'll be advocating Young Kinnock.
Young Kinnock would be hilarious.0 -
Apocalypse nobody insulted you, if it is insults you want start criticizing the SNP. People showed disdain for your opinions, but you are quite at liberty to revise or refine those if you wish. Or keep them.0
-
London was Labour's best region:EPG said:
But as discussed, they didn't do especially well in London. They only gained a handful of seats.AndyJS said:Hendon should have been one of the easiest Labour gains in the country, especially being in London. Instead the Tory majority went from 106 to 3,724.
EPG said:
Labour gained more votes than the Conservatives in Finchley and Golders Green. So this is normal variance.Sean_F said:
Look at the way the Conservative vote rose in the two most Jewish seats in the UK, Hendon and Finchley & Golders Green. Look at the way it rose in the two most Hindu seats in the UK, Harrow East and West. I think that the interview with Muslim News did Labour absolutely no favours at all with those communities.EPG said:
The proposal to introduce a crime of aggravated assault against Muslims just didn't get that much traction outside the usual anti-Islam circles, who don't vote Labour anyway.felix said:Some thoughts on the London regional polling. I was harangued on here by either speedy or lucky guy for suggesting that Labour would not get up to 10 London gains from the Tories alone. They actually got 4 - all north of the river and in many other seats the swing went to the Tories. I suspect 3 reasons:
1. Measuring London is very difficult unless you very carefully wight re age, class, registration, etc.
2. There can be enormous variations withing London - Battersea , eg is very different form Hampstead.
3. I suspect Labour missed up to 3 N. London possibilities because of the absurd anti-islamophobia proposal. You target one religious group for support and risk offending others just a few streets away.
London +7
NW +4
East +2
NE +1
Yorkshire +1
West Midlands +1
SE --
SW --
East Midlands -1
Wales -2
Scotland -40
Against Conservatives:
London +4
NW +2
NE --
SE --
East --
Yorkshire --
West Midlands --
Scotland --
SW -1
East Midlands -1
Wales -3
0 -
EPG said:
The AGW consensus is among scientists who research it using everything from evidence to computer models, not people being polled.MarkHopkins said:
What we are finding out about the pollsters shows how powerful peer pressure can be, even in a supposedly professional/scientific environment.
The problems with the "consensus" about AGW come to mind as well.
Not sure what the answers are though.
It is in the interpretation of the data that the problem lies, and in that they are similar.
0 -
However the life expectancy of your average Tory MP in 2015 is considerably better than their 1992 equivalent. Defections to UKIP will be the bigger worry.justin124 said:The Tory majority of 12 is substantially smaller than the 21 achieved by Major in 1992 yet even the latter lost his majority by the end of 1996.Major’s majority did not reach 12 until Feb 1995. Only six by-election reverses needed to take us back to a hung parliament.
Paradoxically, even as things stand , whipping is going to be much tighter than in the last Parliament given that the Coalition enjoyed a majority of circa 70 at its outset. By-elections will become very important – though the commentariat has so far failed to latch on to this.0 -
Lammy's hat in the ring according to BBC0
-
The_Apocalypse wrote:
So I would ask this; why didn't the Conservatives make these polices at the centre of their campaign? Because it appears, an awful lot these polices were not advertised by the Conservatives at all, and most ordinary people who voted for them probably wouldn't have read their manifesto, either.
----
The 'Centre' of any election campaign is reserved for those issues that will sway the most votes; in this case, the economy, competence v. chaos and Scotterdamerung.
You may have noticed that sticking with the 0.7% overseas aid target also wasn't front and centre.
That 's why parties issue manifestos; so those individuals who care about a specific issue, and the media interested in those issues, can look up the policies and spend the next 5 years complaining when they are not implemented.0 -
Tom Peck @tompeck 4 mins4 minutes ago
Interesting ICM/YouGov poll in this morning's Times. Says 90% of people thought the pollsters did a great job.
4 retweets 0 favorites
0 -
From all reports, he actually would tell them as he calls a spade a f##king spade e.g. Boris tells some stories about being told in uncertain terms when he was s##t and not to do it again. Furthermore, even then he could have told them just like the rest of the polls 270-280 and played it safe.edmundintokyo said:
Interesting question. But it may have been purely made-up - he couldn't really tell people they were going to lose, and at the time that was pretty much the most plausible-sounding number that would still have clearly resulted in PM Cameron.FrancisUrquhart said:One question is...Ashcroft spent £5+ million on his polling, including the constituency based ones. I wonder how much the Tories via Crosby / Messina spent on their polling and what was the secret sauce that meant they were far more tuned in?
Remember Crosby told people a bit over 300 (306 I believe) was his prediction based upon their polling a couple of days before the GE. They apparently were confident of around this up until 2 weeks out, they had a wobble, they sent out "pumped up Dave", and then finalized on a bit over 300.
If you watch the video that the Guardian have found and add in what is known about Messina, it becomes a lot clearer what the Tories were up to.0 -
Everyone is going on about Scotland being a wipe out - but look at the SW.
2 seats aren't - the other 50 odd are Tory.felix said:
Given the hyperbole on here a week ago about Battersea being 'interesting' it can't help but make you laugh. That much acclaimed London dominated ground game couldn't even get it right in.. London.Plato said:Labour only got FOUR London gains from the Tories?
Hell's Teeth. I've been so overwhelmed by the total result and the SW that I hadn't noticed.
Blimey.felix said:Some thoughts on the London regional polling. I was harangued on here by either speedy or lucky guy for suggesting that Labour would not get up to 10 London gains from the Tories alone. They actually got 4 - all north of the river and in many other seats the swing went to the Tories. I suspect 3 reasons:
1. Measuring London is very difficult unless you very carefully wight re age, class, registration, etc.
2. There can be enormous variations withing London - Battersea , eg is very different form Hampstead.
3. I suspect Labour missed up to 3 N. London possibilities because of the absurd anti-islamophobia proposal. You target one religious group for support and risk offending others just a few streets away.0 -
Also, Justin, I trust you have noted that the 37-30 victory for the Tories is actually only 6.5% when you look at 1 decimal place (36.9-30.4). Could be important, that.justin124 said:The Tory majority of 12 is substantially smaller than the 21 achieved by Major in 1992 yet even the latter lost his majority by the end of 1996.Major’s majority did not reach 12 until Feb 1995. Only six by-election reverses needed to take us back to a hung parliament.
Paradoxically, even as things stand , whipping is going to be much tighter than in the last Parliament given that the Coalition enjoyed a majority of circa 70 at its outset. By-elections will become very important – though the commentariat has so far failed to latch on to this.0 -
Was Prescott junior standing anywhere?FrancisUrquhart said:
I see Kinnock's son got his seat....felix said:
Labourites love a dynasty!Slackbladder said:
Don't give them ideas....another_richard said:
In a year's time they'll be advocating Young Kinnock.nigel4england said:
I was talking with an ex-Labour MP this morning, we were talking about potential leaders. He doesn't like any at the top of the list, he wants David Miliband back.AndyJS said:One thing Labour might think about addressing is this sort of thing:
A newly-elected MP being booed by Labour activists a matter of seconds after having been declared the winner. Whatever you think of him, he'd just been endorsed by the voters. Maybe not the best attitude to take if you're in the business of winning elections:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgGoOOwXip00 -
103% surely?Slackbladder said:Tom Peck @tompeck 4 mins4 minutes ago
Interesting ICM/YouGov poll in this morning's Times. Says 90% of people thought the pollsters did a great job.
4 retweets 0 favorites
0 -
I can only find 2 Con gains from Labour in Walesanother_richard said:
London was Labour's best region:EPG said:
But as discussed, they didn't do especially well in London. They only gained a handful of seats.AndyJS said:Hendon should have been one of the easiest Labour gains in the country, especially being in London. Instead the Tory majority went from 106 to 3,724.
EPG said:
Labour gained more votes than the Conservatives in Finchley and Golders Green. So this is normal variance.Sean_F said:
Look at the way the Conservative vote rose in the two most Jewish seats in the UK, Hendon and Finchley & Golders Green. Look at the way it rose in the two most Hindu seats in the UK, Harrow East and West. I think that the interview with Muslim News did Labour absolutely no favours at all with those communities.EPG said:
The proposal to introduce a crime of aggravated assault against Muslims just didn't get that much traction outside the usual anti-Islam circles, who don't vote Labour anyway.felix said:Some thoughts on the London regional polling. I was harangued on here by either speedy or lucky guy for suggesting that Labour would not get up to 10 London gains from the Tories alone. They actually got 4 - all north of the river and in many other seats the swing went to the Tories. I suspect 3 reasons:
1. Measuring London is very difficult unless you very carefully wight re age, class, registration, etc.
2. There can be enormous variations withing London - Battersea , eg is very different form Hampstead.
3. I suspect Labour missed up to 3 N. London possibilities because of the absurd anti-islamophobia proposal. You target one religious group for support and risk offending others just a few streets away.
London +7
NW +4
East +2
NE +1
Yorkshire +1
West Midlands +1
SE --
SW --
East Midlands -1
Wales -2
Scotland -40
Against Conservatives:
London +4
NW +2
NE --
SE --
East --
Yorkshire --
West Midlands --
Scotland --
SW -1
East Midlands -1
Wales -30 -
Lammy is 2010's Diane Abbot... sorry to say, but there to look different but not serious.Omnium said:Lammy's hat in the ring according to BBC
0 -
There is little doubt that the Pollsters converged consciously. Even ICM unfortunately lost their nerve which is a pity because their 6% lead poll 2 weeks ago was probably spot on.
The truth is that they know their models don't work and the data they are operating off is unrepresentative and inconsistent. So they make adjustments to their figures to try and bring them nearer to reality than their raw data is. Unfortunately it appears that the relationships between their raw data and reality is inconsistent and variable. They know this and get nervous when they are too far from the crowd.
As for Lord Ashcroft, well his constituency polling was even less accurate than the national polls. Everyone knew that weighting constituency polling is extremely difficult and unreliable. But the sheer quantity of the data made most want to overlook the quality. I hope not too many PBers lost money as a result.0 -
It may be cruel but can we have a list of the WORST predictions.
It might be helpful in knowing who to disregard in future.
0 -
Southport was an amazing result.
Both LibDems and Tories collapsed, but the LDs clung on with 31%. Can't actually see Labour ever winning this, but I could imagine UKIP.
Nuttall has probably got his eye on it for 2020.0 -
erh said:
IN PRAISE OF UNIFORM NATIONAL SWING.
Using Scottish actual vote shares and UK National swing from actual vote shares gives
following seat numbers with variance against actual.
Con 326(-5),Lab 237(+5),SNP 55(-1)LD 11(+3),UKIP 1(-1)(),Green 1(0).
Pretty good so lets not ignore UNS for future GE forecasting.
BUT you need accurate, reliable polls to feed in.
0 -
Tissue_Price said:
However the life expectancy of your average Tory MP in 2015 is considerably better than their 1992 equivalent. Defections to UKIP will be the bigger worry.justin124 said:The Tory majority of 12 is substantially smaller than the 21 achieved by Major in 1992 yet even the latter lost his majority by the end of 1996.Major’s majority did not reach 12 until Feb 1995. Only six by-election reverses needed to take us back to a hung parliament.
Paradoxically, even as things stand , whipping is going to be much tighter than in the last Parliament given that the Coalition enjoyed a majority of circa 70 at its outset. By-elections will become very important – though the commentariat has so far failed to latch on to this.
"Defections to UKIP will be the bigger worry."
I'm not sure anyone will be that reckless this time. Certainly not before the 2017 referendum.
0 -
It's human nature. That doesn't change.EPG said:
I do think this time is different. It is now clear that the SNP will never be in the Westminster government, and that even supporting a Westminster government will be very difficult for them. And in the last forty-eight hours, it suddenly become conceivable to them that they could achieve their true goal within three years.
Independence is at its heart a deeply held inferiority complex. I mean that very specifically, NOT that Scottish people are inferior - they punch above their weight in almost every field of human endeavour, but that many FEEL so though they would never admit it. It's the upper class English and the London elite that make them feel that way. Take away the self loathing, and you take away the desire for independence.
0 -
I agree with you on YouGov, I think we actually had way too many polls in this election. We don't need that many opinion polls. On the polls being mood music - tbh, even the opinion polls we got in the election weren't great mood music predictors. They implied it was fairly close - when it wasn't in the slightest!Slackbladder said:
Well some polls are better than no polls, and as i've said before, ok as mood music, not seat predictors directly.The_Apocalypse said:
I don't think we should have any polls in the next five years tbh. How can we believe them?Plato said:Many of us were hit over the head with so many polls that it was almost irresistable - how could they ALL be wrong?
As we've learnt subsequently - some were buried and then others fiddled their models to *fit in* so no one was exposed at the end.
Well - all that happened was Collective Guilt not Innocence.
It's certainly bruised my faith in all pollsters for a while.ukelect said:The reason that many seat predictors (including UK-Elect) failed so badly to predict the LibDem seat total was because they were fine-tuned by the Ashcroft constituency polls, which seemed to show that the LibDEm incumbency factor really existed. That made me extremely nervous at the time (I said so at the time) but trusted the data rather than my instincts. Damn.
Theres a not of helpful secondary information which is good
But I think that daily YouGov poll has been a huge mistake.0 -
nigel4england said:another_richard said:
O/Tnigel4england said:AndyJS said:One thing Labour might think about addressing is this sort of thing:
A newly-elected MP being booed by Labour activists a matter of seconds after having been declared the winner. Whatever you think of him, he'd just been endorsed by the voters. Maybe not the best attitude to take if you're in the business of winning elections:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgGoOOwXip0
Re: Our Bet - I'm still awaiting the NAME of your bank account. It's a required field on the NatWest payment authorisation I need to complete. Please email me with this.0 -
In terms of Lab majorities over UKIP is Stoke Central the 4th lowest in the country?
Hartlepool 7.7%
Heywood/Middleton 10.9%
Rother Valley 15.5%
Stoke Central 16.7%
Other seats with under 20% majorities?AndyJS said:Labour majorities in the Stoke-on-Trent seats:
Central: 5,179 (previously 5,566)
North: 4,836 (8,235)
South: 2,539 (4,130)0 -
Those Liverpool stats are interesting. I don't much like Esther mc vey, but it sounds like she had a pretty rough ride.
Boundary changes will mean the Liverpudlians will be able to indulge themselves whilst my affecting the rest of us less and less.0 -
Good afternoon, everyone.
Rosberg on pole. Hmm.0 -
Gainsborough...got pounded like a dockside hooker, but been Tory seat forever. Back to tweeting for him I guess....Flightpathl said:
Was Prescott junior standing anywhere?FrancisUrquhart said:
I see Kinnock's son got his seat....felix said:
Labourites love a dynasty!Slackbladder said:
Don't give them ideas....another_richard said:
In a year's time they'll be advocating Young Kinnock.nigel4england said:
I was talking with an ex-Labour MP this morning, we were talking about potential leaders. He doesn't like any at the top of the list, he wants David Miliband back.AndyJS said:One thing Labour might think about addressing is this sort of thing:
A newly-elected MP being booed by Labour activists a matter of seconds after having been declared the winner. Whatever you think of him, he'd just been endorsed by the voters. Maybe not the best attitude to take if you're in the business of winning elections:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgGoOOwXip00 -
Correct. What are the rebellions going to be on?edmundintokyo said:
What are the Tory troublemakers going to rebel about that will cause trouble for Cameron? Assuming it happens the referendum takes care of a lot of the Europe stuff, and Labour tends to be on Theresa May's side on civil liberties.justin124 said:The Tory majority of 12 is substantially smaller than the 21 achieved by Major in 1992 yet even the latter lost his majority by the end of 1996.Major’s majority did not reach 12 until Feb 1995. Only six by-election reverses needed to take us back to a hung parliament.
Paradoxically, even as things stand , whipping is going to be much tighter than in the last Parliament given that the Coalition enjoyed a majority of circa 70 at its outset. By-elections will become very important – though the commentariat has so far failed to latch on to this.
1. The wets that will oppose replacing EHRA?
2. Wets opposing any tough line/arrangements on the EC referendum?
There are the DUP votes to line up against those for a price of £0.0 -
Roflmfao.Tissue_Price said:
Also, Justin, I trust you have noted that the 37-30 victory for the Tories is actually only 6.5% when you look at 1 decimal place (36.9-30.4). Could be important, that.justin124 said:The Tory majority of 12 is substantially smaller than the 21 achieved by Major in 1992 yet even the latter lost his majority by the end of 1996.Major’s majority did not reach 12 until Feb 1995. Only six by-election reverses needed to take us back to a hung parliament.
Paradoxically, even as things stand , whipping is going to be much tighter than in the last Parliament given that the Coalition enjoyed a majority of circa 70 at its outset. By-elections will become very important – though the commentariat has so far failed to latch on to this.0 -
I feel a complex formula could express that
I'm a bit plonked and trying to work out what goes with Lobster Red skin prior to our celebration Party party in Eastbourne.FrancisUrquhart said:But actually it seems that the UKIP rise hurt Labour more than the Tories. Where Ukip were up by less than 7 points the Conservatives were up by 1.5 points on average; Labour up 6.9. Conversely, where Ukip was up by more than 14 points the Conservatives down 0.9 points and Labour were up only 1.6. So the Labour were up 5.3 less where UKIP did well but the corresponding difference for the Conservatives was just 0.6.
Another way of looking at this is that the Tories lost 6 seats to Labour where UKIP were up less than 7 points. But Labour were not taking any seats off the Conservatives where UKIP were up by more than 14 points.
Ukip did better where there were fewer people with degrees, more economically depressed areas with more pensioners, routine manual workers and those with no educational qualifications.
I think the Pollsters and MSM need to go on some re-education courses....they have called the raise of UKIP completely wrong.GIN1138 said:Here's Prof. Fishers view on how the Tories did it;
http://electionsetc.com/0 -
Someone pointed out on the last thread that the Tories only lost eight seats in total, astonishing.Plato said:Labour only got FOUR London gains from the Tories?
Hell's Teeth. I've been so overwhelmed by the total result and the SW that I hadn't noticed.
Blimey.felix said:Some thoughts on the London regional polling. I was harangued on here by either speedy or lucky guy for suggesting that Labour would not get up to 10 London gains from the Tories alone. They actually got 4 - all north of the river and in many other seats the swing went to the Tories. I suspect 3 reasons:
1. Measuring London is very difficult unless you very carefully wight re age, class, registration, etc.
2. There can be enormous variations withing London - Battersea , eg is very different form Hampstead.
3. I suspect Labour missed up to 3 N. London possibilities because of the absurd anti-islamophobia proposal. You target one religious group for support and risk offending others just a few streets away.
0 -
This sort of thing actually makes me angry - http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/dont-give-angry-population-hard-govern-depressed-population-easy
Today, David Cameron does not just have the political will to slash welfare and widen the wealth gap: he has a mandate.
I have spent much of the past 48 hours lying in bed staring at the ceiling, reading despairing, four-letter posts on social media and trying to work out how on earth this happened, as if anyone with half a brain doesn't know. The political elites closed ranks and capitulated to a politics of fear, first in Scotland, and then across the nation.
How can you go from admitting Cameron got a mandate, much as you might hate that, to blaming it on the political elite (not least because Labour are the political elite too)? If he has a mandate, the people you need to blame are the voters (or possibly figure out how to win those voters back), blaming the elite is just an easy cop out, making it seem as though not convincing the voters was not a problem.0 -
I would have thought that many of those tax polices would have been related to the economy, though.Baskerville said:
The 'Centre' of any election campaign is reserved for those issues that will sway the most votes; in this case, the economy, competence v. chaos and Scotterdamerung.
You may have noticed that sticking with the 0.7% overseas aid target also wasn't front and centre.
That 's why parties issue manifestos; so those individuals who care about a specific issue, and the media interested in those issues, can look up the policies and spend the next 5 years complaining when they are not implemented.
0 -
Carswell has done Cameron a massive favour by setting the by-election precedent. Post-referendum defeat for Brexit (and I say that as a genuinely undecided voter) Christ knows what will happen.MarkHopkins said:Tissue_Price said:
However the life expectancy of your average Tory MP in 2015 is considerably better than their 1992 equivalent. Defections to UKIP will be the bigger worry.justin124 said:The Tory majority of 12 is substantially smaller than the 21 achieved by Major in 1992 yet even the latter lost his majority by the end of 1996.Major’s majority did not reach 12 until Feb 1995. Only six by-election reverses needed to take us back to a hung parliament.
Paradoxically, even as things stand , whipping is going to be much tighter than in the last Parliament given that the Coalition enjoyed a majority of circa 70 at its outset. By-elections will become very important – though the commentariat has so far failed to latch on to this.
"Defections to UKIP will be the bigger worry."
I'm not sure anyone will be that reckless this time. Certainly not before the 2017 referendum.0 -
I would have thought that many of those tax polices would have been related to the economy, though.Baskerville said:
The 'Centre' of any election campaign is reserved for those issues that will sway the most votes; in this case, the economy, competence v. chaos and Scotterdamerung.
You may have noticed that sticking with the 0.7% overseas aid target also wasn't front and centre.
That 's why parties issue manifestos; so those individuals who care about a specific issue, and the media interested in those issues, can look up the policies and spend the next 5 years complaining when they are not implemented.
0 -
I supect he'll be standing for Labour Leader, London Mayor, and Milk Monitor - don't rate his chances in any of themSlackbladder said:
Lammy is 2010's Diane Abbot... sorry to say, but there to look different but not serious.Omnium said:Lammy's hat in the ring according to BBC
0 -
The Tories will surely just drink their blood instead to kill them off?
Well, that's what Miss A appears to think.kle4 said:
I'm hoping the vampirism of the Westminster machine can affect some of them, dents some of the enthusiasm or effectiveness, but I'm not hopeful - I think they will safely inoculate themselves with holy SNP symbols and idea, as it were in this tortured metaphor.Luckyguy1983 said:I think there's a deep mutual dislike between Cameron and Salmond. But I don't think the same of Cameron and Sturgeon. I imagine things will be quite cordial. And I think the influx of SNP MP's to Wesminster, (bar the odd couple of unexpectedly elected half-wits who want a re-run of Bannockburn and refuse to sit next to Tories in the Westminster canteen) will do a great deal to improve mutual understanding between Scottish and RUK politicians.
0 -
IMAGINE UKIP being the official opposition. Imagine the black cloud of human misery that is socialism being driven away for good. Enough to bring a tear to the eye.0
-
Difficult to say, after all, we only get to actuallly test the poles once every 5 years (for a GE).The_Apocalypse said:
I agree with you on YouGov, I think we actually had way too many polls in this election. We don't need that many opinion polls. On the polls being mood music - tbh, even the opinion polls we got in the election weren't great mood music predictors. They implied it was fairly close - when it wasn't in the slightest!Slackbladder said:
Well some polls are better than no polls, and as i've said before, ok as mood music, not seat predictors directly.The_Apocalypse said:
I don't think we should have any polls in the next five years tbh. How can we believe them?Plato said:Many of us were hit over the head with so many polls that it was almost irresistable - how could they ALL be wrong?
As we've learnt subsequently - some were buried and then others fiddled their models to *fit in* so no one was exposed at the end.
Well - all that happened was Collective Guilt not Innocence.
It's certainly bruised my faith in all pollsters for a while.ukelect said:The reason that many seat predictors (including UK-Elect) failed so badly to predict the LibDem seat total was because they were fine-tuned by the Ashcroft constituency polls, which seemed to show that the LibDEm incumbency factor really existed. That made me extremely nervous at the time (I said so at the time) but trusted the data rather than my instincts. Damn.
Theres a not of helpful secondary information which is good
But I think that daily YouGov poll has been a huge mistake.
I think all the polling companies need to go away, have a long hard think, then come back and explain what happened and then present information in a new way with new ideas.
0 -
yes but it was in Gainsborough. He polled 21.3%, 5.7% increased compared to 2010
Emily Benn polled 24.8% in Croydon South (+4.8%)
Con increased their vote share in both seats too.Flightpathl said:
Was Prescott junior standing anywhere?FrancisUrquhart said:
I see Kinnock's son got his seat....felix said:
Labourites love a dynasty!Slackbladder said:
Don't give them ideas....another_richard said:
In a year's time they'll be advocating Young Kinnock.nigel4england said:
I was talking with an ex-Labour MP this morning, we were talking about potential leaders. He doesn't like any at the top of the list, he wants David Miliband back.AndyJS said:One thing Labour might think about addressing is this sort of thing:
A newly-elected MP being booed by Labour activists a matter of seconds after having been declared the winner. Whatever you think of him, he'd just been endorsed by the voters. Maybe not the best attitude to take if you're in the business of winning elections:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgGoOOwXip00 -
Gainsborough, after ill fated attempts to stand elsewhere more Labour friendly I believe. Safe Tory seat.Flightpathl said:
Was Prescott junior standing anywhere?FrancisUrquhart said:
I see Kinnock's son got his seat....felix said:
Labourites love a dynasty!Slackbladder said:
Don't give them ideas....another_richard said:
In a year's time they'll be advocating Young Kinnock.nigel4england said:
I was talking with an ex-Labour MP this morning, we were talking about potential leaders. He doesn't like any at the top of the list, he wants David Miliband back.AndyJS said:One thing Labour might think about addressing is this sort of thing:
A newly-elected MP being booed by Labour activists a matter of seconds after having been declared the winner. Whatever you think of him, he'd just been endorsed by the voters. Maybe not the best attitude to take if you're in the business of winning elections:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgGoOOwXip0
Will Straw failed to win a tighter race in Rossendale and Darwen.0 -
I thought he did well post-riots but came across like a bit of brain donor yesterday.
For a supposedly clever chap he hides it rather too well.FrancisUrquhart said:
Lammy for Leader....now it really is getting bonkers....Putting aside his infamous mastermind performance, he was useless minister, so many cock-ups when he was at Department for Business, Innovation & Skills.david_herdson said:Lammy for Labour leader?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/32671418
If it's true that half of Labour's members come from London, it may happen. For that matter, they could do worse though he's still very lightweight.0 -
Another interesting thing about manifestos; they give the civil servants a template for planning.
Having written three in local government, I know that by the time the election was over, our officers were ready with plans to implement the policies on the following Monday. They would also have had plans to implement Labour's policies too, but those went in the bin!0 -
The awkward squad matter is interesting. Ulster men could still find themselves courted by Dave. Also mr Douglas Carswell? Do the lib demos eight mps have almost as much power as their 57, in reality?0
-
Bills proposing an early referendum. Any votes to comply with EU or ECtHR or ECHR directives. Anything mildly divisive on foreign policy generally like another intervention.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Correct. What are the rebellions going to be on?edmundintokyo said:
What are the Tory troublemakers going to rebel about that will cause trouble for Cameron? Assuming it happens the referendum takes care of a lot of the Europe stuff, and Labour tends to be on Theresa May's side on civil liberties.justin124 said:The Tory majority of 12 is substantially smaller than the 21 achieved by Major in 1992 yet even the latter lost his majority by the end of 1996.Major’s majority did not reach 12 until Feb 1995. Only six by-election reverses needed to take us back to a hung parliament.
Paradoxically, even as things stand , whipping is going to be much tighter than in the last Parliament given that the Coalition enjoyed a majority of circa 70 at its outset. By-elections will become very important – though the commentariat has so far failed to latch on to this.
1. The wets that will oppose replacing EHRA?
2. Wets opposing any tough line/arrangements on the EC referendum?
There are the DUP votes to line up against those for a price of £0.0 -
Now you mention it they may actually have trouble on their EHRA thing, as it sounds like what they'll end up passing is going to be deeply ridiculous. They may even get opposition from the right for not doing what they made it sound like they'd be doing.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Correct. What are the rebellions going to be on?edmundintokyo said:
What are the Tory troublemakers going to rebel about that will cause trouble for Cameron? Assuming it happens the referendum takes care of a lot of the Europe stuff, and Labour tends to be on Theresa May's side on civil liberties.justin124 said:The Tory majority of 12 is substantially smaller than the 21 achieved by Major in 1992 yet even the latter lost his majority by the end of 1996.Major’s majority did not reach 12 until Feb 1995. Only six by-election reverses needed to take us back to a hung parliament.
Paradoxically, even as things stand , whipping is going to be much tighter than in the last Parliament given that the Coalition enjoyed a majority of circa 70 at its outset. By-elections will become very important – though the commentariat has so far failed to latch on to this.
1. The wets that will oppose replacing EHRA?
2. Wets opposing any tough line/arrangements on the EC referendum?
There are the DUP votes to line up against those for a price of £0.0 -
It was me but I missed 2...so 10 gains overall...not it changes your pointSandpit said:
Someone pointed out on the last thread that the Tories only lost eight seats in total, astonishing.Plato said:Labour only got FOUR London gains from the Tories?
Hell's Teeth. I've been so overwhelmed by the total result and the SW that I hadn't noticed.
Blimey.felix said:Some thoughts on the London regional polling. I was harangued on here by either speedy or lucky guy for suggesting that Labour would not get up to 10 London gains from the Tories alone. They actually got 4 - all north of the river and in many other seats the swing went to the Tories. I suspect 3 reasons:
1. Measuring London is very difficult unless you very carefully wight re age, class, registration, etc.
2. There can be enormous variations withing London - Battersea , eg is very different form Hampstead.
3. I suspect Labour missed up to 3 N. London possibilities because of the absurd anti-islamophobia proposal. You target one religious group for support and risk offending others just a few streets away.0 -
Congratulations to N Simms – a GE forecast head and shoulders above the rest of the field.0
-
So Prescott Jnr failed, Benn Jnr failed, Straw Jnr failed, Cash Jnr failed...not a bad result then.
Just Kinnock Jnr in?0 -
That is an incredible prediction by N Simms.0
-
PlatoPlato said:The Tories will surely just drink their blood instead to kill them off?
Well, that's what Miss A appears to think.
I replied to you in the other thread. Here it is, if you haven't see it:
First off Plato, I'd like to thank you for engaging with me (and not being a bit rude!)
I don't think Osborne is a baby eater, but he seems to be someone completely consumed by short-term political strategy more than anything else. I don't sense that he grew up, wanting to go in politics to made the world better, but more for the power of it. For the record, I don't think this is the case for other Tories, namely Theresa May, who I thought was quite a good Home Secretary.
I don't view 11m, as cold-hearted, evil people or anything like that. And equally, given what many on here think about lefties, while this total wasn't enough to win the election 9m voted Labour, 1m voted SNP, and 2m voted LD. 12m people aren't all insane, deluded lefties. LIfe is more nuanced than that, and people come in all shapes and sizes with different views and opinions. I think 11m voted Conservative because they didn't like Ed Miliband, didn't have much trust in Labour, and trusted the Tories economically.
I think both parties were interested in 'buying prezzies' and 'spending others money' at the last election - look at all the unfunded pledges the Conservatives made, despite making the argument there's no money left?
And for all the talk on national debt I actually think it'll be personal debt - garnered from tuition fees, and most likely only being able to get a mortgage after the age of 30, that will most hurt young people.
I also don't think there is anywhere near the amount of people 'scrounging' as many people seem to think. For many people, work is a key part of their identity; their self esteem. Unemployment is a humiliating process. I understand you know those people, but equally I've know many genuinely unemployed people who are not messing with the system. I agree equality is largely one of opportunity - but that means creating a system of opportunity, where everyone has the best chance to succeed as much as possible.0
