politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What went wrong with the polling? More starts to emerge but

@Fishing

'How about this? The polls seem to get about one in every five general elections seriously wrong.

1970, 1992, 2015. You will note the gap between those is 22-23 years.'


Also significantly underestimated the Labour lead in 1997.

RobD said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

GDACS is reporting another massive earthquake in Nepal.

A 7.4 according to the USGS

Looks to be about approx. 90 miles east of the previous one.

A few thoughts:

1) UKIP needs to stop allowing itself to be treated as Farage's plaything.

2) Take a look at Labour's 2020 target list and notice how few of them are in London. With London having a high and increasing proportion of Labour's MPs and activists there going to continue to struggle to relate to medium towns in England and Wales.

3) The Conservative candidates who made gains this year look more real than the self-obsessed idiots and airheads that underachieved in 2010 - the 'Tatler Tories', Louise Mensch etc.

4) When this year's round of local elections was contested in 2003 the LibDems won over 2500 councillors. They have now lost three quarters of those.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2003

From what I remember of the Lord Ashcroft polls, some of the swings were not that inaccurate. For instance he found bigger swings in the North West and London which came to pass but virtually no swing in the East Mids seats such as Loughborough. The pattern was roughly correct but just significantly underestimated the final Conservative vote.

Good morning, everyone.

It's a good time to be in opposition = it's a good time to be impotent, because I don't want kids anyway.

F1: Red Bull say they'll quite unless Renault improves or Audi enter the sport [probably to take them over]:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/32688667

Pathetic whining from a team that won all eight titles from 2010-2013 and have bitched non-stop since their reign of total dominance ended.

DecrepitJohnL said:

antifrank said:

The Lib Dems should choose as leader whoever is prepared to accept immediately that the hard work of two generations has been destroyed, and that a whole new way is required to build a new party. As with Labour, small minds are discussing people when right now great minds should be discussing ideas.

The LibDems need first to identify what has destroyed them. The popular view that it is Clegg allying the party with the baby-eating Tories is not tenable, or at least is hard to square with the large LibDem to Conservative swings seen last week.

My own view is it is Clegg dumping the tuition fees pledge and then saying in so many words that no LibDem pledge can be relied on in future since the best they could hope for is coalition when everything would be up for negotiation.

Thee's a good article (IMHO anyway) by David Steel on the subject in the Guardian.

DecrepitJohnL said:

antifrank said:

The Lib Dems should choose as leader whoever is prepared to accept immediately that the hard work of two generations has been destroyed, and that a whole new way is required to build a new party. As with Labour, small minds are discussing people when right now great minds should be discussing ideas.

The LibDems need first to identify what has destroyed them. The popular view that it is Clegg allying the party with the baby-eating Tories is not tenable, or at least is hard to square with the large LibDem to Conservative swings seen last week.

My own view is it is Clegg dumping the tuition fees pledge and then saying in so many words that no LibDem pledge can be relied on in future since the best they could hope for is coalition when everything would be up for negotiation.

The issue with the coalition is, brutally, what was the point of the lib dems?

What is the point of the lib dems full stop? Clegg tried to position himself in the election right in the middle, and got utterly run over, which is what usally happens when you're in the middle of the road.

It didn't help with them being in coalition, and people like Vince moaning about how awful it was. They knew what they were getting into.

They need to get back to being proper liberals, or just merge with labour. If they're proper liberals then they need to do that properly. Legalise drugs, allow smoking, allow p*rn, utterly anti government controls, low tax.

That would be a unique sellable position, seperate from the tories and labour. Problem is i'm guessing only about 10-15% of people would go there and vote for them. But thats their historical position.

DecrepitJohnL said:

antifrank said:

The Lib Dems should choose as leader whoever is prepared to accept immediately that the hard work of two generations has been destroyed, and that a whole new way is required to build a new party. As with Labour, small minds are discussing people when right now great minds should be discussing ideas.

The LibDems need first to identify what has destroyed them. The popular view that it is Clegg allying the party with the baby-eating Tories is not tenable, or at least is hard to square with the large LibDem to Conservative swings seen last week.

My own view is it is Clegg dumping the tuition fees pledge and then saying in so many words that no LibDem pledge can be relied on in future since the best they could hope for is coalition when everything would be up for negotiation.

The LDs were mostly on the wrong side of public opinion and stayed there: e.g EU, Human Rights, Immigration etc and so got replaced in the GE and also in the minds of the electors partly by UKIP and the Greens. So people were saying what is the purpose of the LDs and thus why should we vote for them.

There is a place for the true Liberals but not lead by Farron.

Theuniondivvie said:

Alistair said:

CarlottaVance said:

Not sure I buy the 'late swing' hypothesis - what would have triggered it? IIRC Wilson blamed poor trade figures (caused by a BOAC Jumbo delivery or some such) for his loss to Heath, but there was no 'revelatory news' in the run up to this election to cause such a swing - just 'more of the same' - "Ed is crap" ("No! Never! Good gracious!) or "Tory Secret Plots".....

FPT:

Chris g - late of this parish is worth following on Twitter - a few tweets from the past couple of days:

'The death of Tory Scotland' (sic)
Con vote in Scotland"
2001 360,658
2005 369,388
2010 412,905
2015 434,097

Con vote total:
2001 8.3 M
2005 8.7 M
2010 10.7 M
2015 11.3 M

Lab Vote Total:
2001 10.7 M
2005 9.5 M
2010 8.6 M
2015 9.3 M


I know, we're supposed to look at 'share'.......but almost all those Tory pensioners from 2001 must be at least 80 by now......

Con Vote Percentage Scotland:
1992 25.6%
1997 17.5%
2001 15.6%
2005 15.8%
2010 16.7%
2015 14.9%

Small but resilient cockroach survives yet another nuclear event but still remains a small cockroach.
You can be sure that if by some quirk of electoral fate the SCons had increased their vote share but lost votes, it would still be portrayed as evidence of their wonderfulness.

Of course for much of the 80s and 90s the SNP was a small but resilient cockroach. Just shows how these things can develop.

Mr. Jonathan, it's fair to say the current Renault engine is not necessarily super.

CarlottaVance said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Alistair said:

CarlottaVance said:

Not sure I buy the 'late swing' hypothesis - what would have triggered it? IIRC Wilson blamed poor trade figures (caused by a BOAC Jumbo delivery or some such) for his loss to Heath, but there was no 'revelatory news' in the run up to this election to cause such a swing - just 'more of the same' - "Ed is crap" ("No! Never! Good gracious!) or "Tory Secret Plots".....

FPT:

Chris g - late of this parish is worth following on Twitter - a few tweets from the past couple of days:

'The death of Tory Scotland' (sic)
Con vote in Scotland"
2001 360,658
2005 369,388
2010 412,905
2015 434,097

Con vote total:
2001 8.3 M
2005 8.7 M
2010 10.7 M
2015 11.3 M

Lab Vote Total:
2001 10.7 M
2005 9.5 M
2010 8.6 M
2015 9.3 M


I know, we're supposed to look at 'share'.......but almost all those Tory pensioners from 2001 must be at least 80 by now......

Con Vote Percentage Scotland:
1992 25.6%
1997 17.5%
2001 15.6%
2005 15.8%
2010 16.7%
2015 14.9%

Small but resilient cockroach survives yet another nuclear event but still remains a small cockroach.

If 434k votes is a 'small but resilient cockroach' what is 491k votes?

A springboard to greatness. Clearly.

Alanbrooke said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Alistair said:

CarlottaVance said:

Not sure I buy the 'late swing' hypothesis - what would have triggered it? IIRC Wilson blamed poor trade figures (caused by a BOAC Jumbo delivery or some such) for his loss to Heath, but there was no 'revelatory news' in the run up to this election to cause such a swing - just 'more of the same' - "Ed is crap" ("No! Never! Good gracious!) or "Tory Secret Plots".....

FPT:

Chris g - late of this parish is worth following on Twitter - a few tweets from the past couple of days:

'The death of Tory Scotland' (sic)
Con vote in Scotland"
2001 360,658
2005 369,388
2010 412,905
2015 434,097

Con vote total:
2001 8.3 M
2005 8.7 M
2010 10.7 M
2015 11.3 M

Lab Vote Total:
2001 10.7 M
2005 9.5 M
2010 8.6 M
2015 9.3 M


I know, we're supposed to look at 'share'.......but almost all those Tory pensioners from 2001 must be at least 80 by now......

Con Vote Percentage Scotland:
1992 25.6%
1997 17.5%
2001 15.6%
2005 15.8%
2010 16.7%
2015 14.9%

Small but resilient cockroach survives yet another nuclear event but still remains a small cockroach.
You can be sure that if by some quirk of electoral fate the SCons had increased their vote share but lost votes, it would still be portrayed as evidence of their wonderfulness.

Of course for much of the 80s and 90s the SNP was a small but resilient cockroach. Just shows how these things can develop.

And how quickly and dramatically things can change in 5 years......

@Scott_P

'@PickardJE: Liberal Democrats could be renamed ‘the Liberals’ under plans being considered by Tim Farron. '

Will they adopt the policies of the former Liberal party or is this just a cosmetic name change?

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Scott_P said:

@PickardJE: Liberal Democrats could be renamed ‘the Liberals’ under plans being considered by Tim Farron.

What's wrong with "New Liberal Democrats?"

Since Farron is closer to the political beliefs held by old Labour, the Greens and Respect, he really is in the wrong party with the label "liberal". Such a pity that our education system fails in this way.

There is also the small matter that when the Liberals and SDP merged, remnants of the old liberals carried on with that name.

Here's a stat for you.

In Scotland, the SNP won 94.92% of the seats.

In the South West and South East, the Tories won 93.48% of all contested seats.

Alistair said:

CarlottaVance said:

Alanbrooke said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Alistair said:

CarlottaVance said:

Not sure I buy the 'late swing' hypothesis - what would have triggered it? IIRC Wilson blamed poor trade figures (caused by a BOAC Jumbo delivery or some such) for his loss to Heath, but there was no 'revelatory news' in the run up to this election to cause such a swing - just 'more of the same' - "Ed is crap" ("No! Never! Good gracious!) or "Tory Secret Plots".....

FPT:

Chris g - late of this parish is worth following on Twitter - a few tweets from the past couple of days:

'The death of Tory Scotland' (sic)
Con vote in Scotland"
2001 360,658
2005 369,388
2010 412,905
2015 434,097

Con vote total:
2001 8.3 M
2005 8.7 M
2010 10.7 M
2015 11.3 M

Lab Vote Total:
2001 10.7 M
2005 9.5 M
2010 8.6 M
2015 9.3 M


I know, we're supposed to look at 'share'.......but almost all those Tory pensioners from 2001 must be at least 80 by now......

Con Vote Percentage Scotland:
1992 25.6%
1997 17.5%
2001 15.6%
2005 15.8%
2010 16.7%
2015 14.9%

Small but resilient cockroach survives yet another nuclear event but still remains a small cockroach.
You can be sure that if by some quirk of electoral fate the SCons had increased their vote share but lost votes, it would still be portrayed as evidence of their wonderfulness.

Of course for much of the 80s and 90s the SNP was a small but resilient cockroach. Just shows how these things can develop.

And how quickly and dramatically things can change in 5 years......

Scottish Tory surge!

Peak SNP......its downhill from here - enjoy it while it lasts!

AllyPally_Rob said:

The Labour post-mortem need look no further than this quote from a life long Lab voter in Nuneaton in the Guardian:

“I didn’t really fancy the look of the man, you know, the leader. I’ve always been a Labour voter but it’s as much habit as anything else. If I think about it, I’m almost glad it’s Cameron who’s in power again. He seems like the least bad of a bad lot.”

Just about sums it up really.

Makes you wonder if the old 'My granddad voted labour, my dad voted labour, and i'm voting labour' mindset is finally breaking down.

What's the difference between the PM and Kevin Petersen?

When Cameron gets 326 he's allowed to bat for England.

@JohnO

'Don't you mean the polls overestimated Labour's 1997 lead?'

Yes..

'

Dixie said:

Mike/TSE, you are amazing. You've brought together a fantastic site with lots of banter and those who bets, potential to make money. I am mainly a lurker but love logging on. A big thank you to you both. I forget to thank you after the election.

What better place to discuss politics or cricket or the intricacies of AV (winks at TSE)?

F1: Coulthard has some good thoughts on where the sport could improve:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/32699924

It could also improve by me having a green race this year [shockingly, I haven't yet].

tlg86 said:

I'm think we should seriously consider banning opinion polling. It probably didn't make much difference but there's no getting away from the fact that the state of the GB polls was, theoretically, good for the Tories.

Would the tories have made so many rash promises such as legislating against tax rises, childcare freebies, rail price freeze etc if they had known they were 6% ahead?

They have painted themselves into something of a corner with some of their commitments.

I'm presuming all the other potential runners in Labour contest are awaiting NEC decisions on timing. When do they meet? Is it tomorrow?

Mr. Eagles, not a cricketist, but I am baffled as to why Pietersen would've thought to text his adversaries.

Mr. C, perhaps. Polling indicated reducing child benefits to the first 2-3 kids was very popular.

JonCisBack said:

tlg86 said:

I'm think we should seriously consider banning opinion polling. It probably didn't make much difference but there's no getting away from the fact that the state of the GB polls was, theoretically, good for the Tories.

Would the tories have made so many rash promises such as legislating against tax rises, childcare freebies, rail price freeze etc if they had known they were 6% ahead?

They have painted themselves into something of a corner with some of their commitments.

Yes, they have a few circles to square coming out of this campaign

Alanbrooke said:

JonCisBack said:

tlg86 said:

I'm think we should seriously consider banning opinion polling. It probably didn't make much difference but there's no getting away from the fact that the state of the GB polls was, theoretically, good for the Tories.

Would the tories have made so many rash promises such as legislating against tax rises, childcare freebies, rail price freeze etc if they had known they were 6% ahead?

They have painted themselves into something of a corner with some of their commitments.

Yes, they have a few circles to square coming out of this campaign

We'll be fine, we'll just take more of Scotland's oil revenues.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

JonCisBack said:

tlg86 said:

I'm think we should seriously consider banning opinion polling. It probably didn't make much difference but there's no getting away from the fact that the state of the GB polls was, theoretically, good for the Tories.

Would the tories have made so many rash promises such as legislating against tax rises, childcare freebies, rail price freeze etc if they had known they were 6% ahead?

They have painted themselves into something of a corner with some of their commitments.

Yes, they have a few circles to square coming out of this campaign

We'll be fine, we'll just take more of Scotland's oil revenues.

Running out of time on that one..... time to open up Clair Ridge?.. *winks*

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

JonCisBack said:

tlg86 said:

I'm think we should seriously consider banning opinion polling. It probably didn't make much difference but there's no getting away from the fact that the state of the GB polls was, theoretically, good for the Tories.

Would the tories have made so many rash promises such as legislating against tax rises, childcare freebies, rail price freeze etc if they had known they were 6% ahead?

They have painted themselves into something of a corner with some of their commitments.

Yes, they have a few circles to square coming out of this campaign

We'll be fine, we'll just take more of Scotland's oil revenues.

Running out of time on that one..... time to open up Clair Ridge?.. *winks*

Yeah, time to start drilling the world's largest secret oil stash.

Scott_P said:

@PickardJE: Liberal Democrats could be renamed ‘the Liberals’ under plans being considered by Tim Farron.

What's wrong with "New Liberal Democrats?"

Now Democratic Liberals

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

JonCisBack said:

tlg86 said:

I'm think we should seriously consider banning opinion polling. It probably didn't make much difference but there's no getting away from the fact that the state of the GB polls was, theoretically, good for the Tories.

Would the tories have made so many rash promises such as legislating against tax rises, childcare freebies, rail price freeze etc if they had known they were 6% ahead?

They have painted themselves into something of a corner with some of their commitments.

Yes, they have a few circles to square coming out of this campaign

We'll be fine, we'll just take more of Scotland's oil revenues.

Running out of time on that one..... time to open up Clair Ridge?.. *winks*

Yeah, time to start drilling the world's largest secret oil stash.

and if they do go independent, we'll just have to borrow an idea from Mr Burns:

http://i.imgur.com/2Y1ouZW.jpg

RodCrosby said:

As for compouter2, anyone seen him/her recently?

RIP OllyT, we barely knew ye?

MarqueeMark said:

I still don't know how they do it, but, moving like those giant murmurations of starlings, the voters seemingly have a collective consciousness that delivers just the result they wanted. In 2010, they did't want Gordon Brown, but they didn't entirely trust new boy Cameron, so they gave us a Coalition. In 2010, the didn't want Ed, and thought that the Tories had just about earned a majority. But no more than just about.

A majority of 12. That will do them. Oh - and the SNP - let's give them a great big block vote of irrelevance. Tee hee hee....

They somehow co-ordinated that result over 650 constituencies. I mean - how the fuck do they do that?

Hah.

Anyway, in all honesty, I was bricking it at the very end and genuinely thought it was over but ...

1) I questioned the herding at the end - just not statistically 'right'

2) I think it was Richard Nabavi who said something around the weekend that the parties themselves were not acting as if it was a tie.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, if Davis plays along, will he lose his standing with (even awkward) Conservatives? The SNP, after all, want to end the union.

They say in the Tory Whips office, they have colour coded all Tory MPs.

Blues are the loyal ones who will vote along side the government

Amber is for those Tories, who might vote against a specific bill for a principled reason.

Brown is for the Shits, like David Davis, who are guaranteed to rebel against the government no matter what

Mr. Eagles, Davis does come across as pretty damned petulant after he failed to beat Cameron. How many browns are there?

Dixie said:

Last week I was derided by Roger when I said the polls were inconsistent with the stats I was reading from voter intention returns. I said that the swing to Labour would be no more than 1%. Labour then blurted that postal votes were not showing a swing. I wanted to tell you more but legally couldn't. So, the Tory stats and Labour's stats were showing 6% gap between the parties.

Once the postal votes were being counted and Labour said they were bad for them, CCHQ pulled us out of Croydon and Battersea and into Twickenham and Kingston; we were after the majority!

I said the difference was: 2% individual voter registration, 2% Labour who won't vote, 2% Tory who are too shy to say.

So, the Tory and Labour stats said 1% swing, which meant Tory victory.

Why am I saying this? Don't bet on polling opinion. Get the stats (not opinions) from the political parties. They absolutely know best, and Labour are the best stats.

The real surprise to me was Tories got a majority on a swing to Labour. That shows UNS will always throw up different results to national opinion. Nobody (Crosby/Jack W/anyone) in the Tory party said we would get a majority. A 7% lead in 2010 led to no majority. a 6% lead led to a majority now, it is how the votes fall seat by seat.

Interesting stuff. There was however a general expectation that the UKIP vote would lead to a far more efficient Conservative vote. A point I felt I had to make each time OGH said that nothing less than an 11% lead in England would prevent the Tories from losing seats.

The Great Canard of 2015....

TheScreamingEagles said:

JonCisBack said:

tlg86 said:

I'm think we should seriously consider banning opinion polling. It probably didn't make much difference but there's no getting away from the fact that the state of the GB polls was, theoretically, good for the Tories.

Would the tories have made so many rash promises such as legislating against tax rises, childcare freebies, rail price freeze etc if they had known they were 6% ahead?

They have painted themselves into something of a corner with some of their commitments.

Ask anyone on here, or the experts, a 6% Tory lead shouldn't lead to a Tory majority.

Messina and Crosby really really earned their money with this performance.

The Tory vote efficiency has improved significantly. This and the impending boundary changes mean we will all need a new rule of thumb for what poll lead gives what majority. Makes Labour's task in England notably harder.

antifrank said:

Alistair said:

antifrank said:

Tissue_Price said:

antifrank said:

Iggypop37 said:

also. no ones mentioned betfair predicts which was supposed to show the actual picture depending on money being put down and traded, and again got it totally wrong, much in line with the pollsters . any ideas ?

Gamblers take notice of opinion polls.

Quite. If there'd been no polling at all I think the betting markets might have got quite close to the Lab/Con result. But they'd have missed royally on the SNP and probably just just as bad on the LDs.

If I had seen no opinion polls I think I would have been much more prepared for a Conservative overall majority. I travel around the country quite a lot and I can scarcely recall a political topic being discussed spontaneously as much as the prospect of a Labour/SNP government. It had cut through to everyday life.

I was baffled that it was not shifting the opinion polls. But then, it was driven by the polls. Lord Ashcroft giveth and Lord Ashcroft taketh away.

But without the opinion polls would people have believed that the SNP would sweep Scotland. We had the evidence of pretty much everyone refusing to believe the obvious when we had opinion polls pointing to SNP 40+ seats in October last year how heavy would the denial have been without opinion polls?

Extraordinarily, numerous so-called Scottish political experts were predicting even at the end that the SNP would get seat counts in the 30s, in defiance of every opinion poll for 6 months.

Who lol ?!

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, Davis does come across as pretty damned petulant after he failed to beat Cameron. How many browns are there?

Around a dozen.

When your majority is 12, then it is a real issue.

But of course it's actually 16 because SF will boycott.

It seems that Labour's internal polling told them things got very bleak after the 2014 Conference. At that point they still had time to replace Ed Miliband. Or for Ed to step down.

I presume that Ed must have known the true state of play - and yet chose to stay on? Or did Lucy Powell sit on that polling as well?

Morning all

For those of us on the wrong side of the election result, whichever Party we supported, it's a period for reflection and sober analysis as to what happened and why it happened and, just as important, what might have happened and why it did not.

I've any number of random thoughts (as have others) and coalescing these around some useful and coherent themes will take some time but as a form of initial brain-dump:

My view is the English electorate (and especially outside the major urban centres) voted for stability, security and continuity. Labour, especially with the threat of a Labour/SNP Government, represented or was made to represent an existential threat to all of these. With such a threat, a vote for the LDs couldn't be relied on - the only way to ensure said security, stability and continuity was to vote Conservative.

This is nothing new - elections are generally won on the themes of stability, security and continuity as most of the time most people are mostly content. The obvious exception was 1979 when the desire for change was overwhelming. Even in 1997, Labour won by convincing millions of disillusioned Conservatives a vote for that nice Mr Blair wouldn't change things too much - less a change rather a change of management.

It's difficult for parties after long periods in office to convince the electorate they've changed - it took the Conservatives two defeats and Labour three before both parties came to realise they needed a new direction and a leader in no way connected with or tainted by what came before.

That can mean choosing not the leader the Party wants but the leader best placed to recover or gain votes and voters. In the immediate aftermath of defeat, it's impossible to do that but after a period of time it can be done. Are Labour ready to do that now ?

For the LDs, the scale of the fall is psychologically severe - it's worse than that suffered by the Conservatives in 1997. For a generation, the Party has not been "small" - it's small again as it as in the 60s and 70s. In some respects, it affords an opportunity for re-invention at all levels but that in turn will take time and thought but as I opined in another place, it's an exciting time to be a young Lib Dem as this is Year Zero and all things are possible.

As for who should lead the Party, as a member of that electorate, I'm undecided. I look forward to the opportunity to hear Tim, Norman and perhaps Alistair at Hustings in London in June or early July and I'll form my view then.

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm absolutely stunned and shocked that the SNP have identified David Davis as the man to help them defeat the government on some bills.

You really need to calm down TSE, and stop attacking your own side. Otherwise you may foster the division you seek to avoid.

We are all Conservatives and need to give each other the benefit of the doubt. Personally, I think quite a few lessons have been learnt since the 1992GE. I might be wrong, but I'm sure as hell not going to help reinforce factionalism within the party and thus maximise the chances of me being so.

I'm hopeful, as I said, I was impressed by the likes of Bill Cash, Graham Brady and Owen Paterson on Sunday.

Even John Redwood praised the Prime Minister yesterday.

Retaining David Liddington as Europe Minister has gone down fine, one Eurosceptic said it was fine, as he's Pro-European, but he's honest.

I've been encouraged I think lessons have been learned.

My reading is that the party will see what Dave gets from his renegotiations.

RobD said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm absolutely stunned and shocked that the SNP have identified David Davis as the man to help them defeat the government on some bills.

You really need to calm down TSE, and stop attacking your own side. Otherwise you may foster the division you seek to avoid.

We are all Conservatives and need to give each other the benefit of the doubt. Personally, I think quite a few lessons have been learnt since the 1992GE. I might be wrong, but I'm sure as hell not going to help reinforce factionalism within the party and thus maximise the chances of me being so.

and Davis himself basically said this on Marr a couple of days ago.

Maybe he did. But fanning the flames isn't going to help anything.

Patrick said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JonCisBack said:

tlg86 said:

I'm think we should seriously consider banning opinion polling. It probably didn't make much difference but there's no getting away from the fact that the state of the GB polls was, theoretically, good for the Tories.

Would the tories have made so many rash promises such as legislating against tax rises, childcare freebies, rail price freeze etc if they had known they were 6% ahead?

They have painted themselves into something of a corner with some of their commitments.

Ask anyone on here, or the experts, a 6% Tory lead shouldn't lead to a Tory majority.

Messina and Crosby really really earned their money with this performance.

The Tory vote efficiency has improved significantly. This and the impending boundary changes mean we will all need a new rule of thumb for what poll lead gives what majority. Makes Labour's task in England notably harder.

Labour have five years to get their own Messina, and the boundary change master strategy still looks flawed: based on old data and assuming there will be no backlash in Wales as there was in Scotland.

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

JonCisBack said:

tlg86 said:

I'm think we should seriously consider banning opinion polling. It probably didn't make much difference but there's no getting away from the fact that the state of the GB polls was, theoretically, good for the Tories.

Would the tories have made so many rash promises such as legislating against tax rises, childcare freebies, rail price freeze etc if they had known they were 6% ahead?

They have painted themselves into something of a corner with some of their commitments.

Yes, they have a few circles to square coming out of this campaign

We'll be fine, we'll just take more of Scotland's oil revenues.

Pump it up as Elvis Costello might say.

I must admit it is extraordinarily generous of the SNP to put off FFA and all other devices that might mean Scotland getting greater access to oil wealth for as long as possible.

We've had a 3 year Indy campaign when they kept the oil wells running. Then a 2015 GE when they ensured 5 years of Conservative government. And since they've done such a smashing job of wrecking Labour it's highly likely they will keep the Cons in power until at least 2025.

I seem to remember 2025 is when NS oil starts to ramp down. Who said Scots are stingy ?

Yes, I'm so glad Scotland wants to keep subsiding us English (and Welsh and Northern Irish)

Huzzah for Scotland, and those Scots that think Cheshunt is in London.

JohnO said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, Davis does come across as pretty damned petulant after he failed to beat Cameron. How many browns are there?

Around a dozen.

When your majority is 12, then it is a real issue.

But of course it's actually 16 because SF will boycott.

That's the problem with you ungrateful southerners you don't know who your friends are.

Firstly the ScotNats helpfully scare the Bejasus out of the elctorate to win you all these seats and then the IrishNats helpfully lower the bar for a majority. And all for no thanks. :-)

Theuniondivvie said:

Alanbrooke said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Alistair said:

CarlottaVance said:

Not sure I buy the 'late swing' hypothesis - what would have triggered it? IIRC Wilson blamed poor trade figures (caused by a BOAC Jumbo delivery or some such) for his loss to Heath, but there was no 'revelatory news' in the run up to this election to cause such a swing - just 'more of the same' - "Ed is crap" ("No! Never! Good gracious!) or "Tory Secret Plots".....

FPT:

Chris g - late of this parish is worth following on Twitter - a few tweets from the past couple of days:

'The death of Tory Scotland' (sic)
Con vote in Scotland"
2001 360,658
2005 369,388
2010 412,905
2015 434,097

Con vote total:
2001 8.3 M
2005 8.7 M
2010 10.7 M
2015 11.3 M

Lab Vote Total:
2001 10.7 M
2005 9.5 M
2010 8.6 M
2015 9.3 M


I know, we're supposed to look at 'share'.......but almost all those Tory pensioners from 2001 must be at least 80 by now......

Con Vote Percentage Scotland:
1992 25.6%
1997 17.5%
2001 15.6%
2005 15.8%
2010 16.7%
2015 14.9%

Small but resilient cockroach survives yet another nuclear event but still remains a small cockroach.
You can be sure that if by some quirk of electoral fate the SCons had increased their vote share but lost votes, it would still be portrayed as evidence of their wonderfulness.

Of course for much of the 80s and 90s the SNP was a small but resilient cockroach. Just shows how these things can develop.

Hope springs eternal.

In the great tradition of PB SCon surgism, when roughly are you predicting the wee beasty evolving beyond the order Blattaria?

Let me be the first PBer to record a Tory surge in 2020.

I'm confident that the Tories will have more MPs in Scotland than Labour in 2020.

Then watch us surge after that.

JohnO said:

JohnO said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, Davis does come across as pretty damned petulant after he failed to beat Cameron. How many browns are there?

Around a dozen.

When your majority is 12, then it is a real issue.

But of course it's actually 16 because SF will boycott.

And I wonder if the two Ulster Unionists will take the Tory whip which would increase the majority to 20.

Eek, another 1992 parallel.

Grexit = Black Wednesday

Perhaps Tissue Price was right, and last Thursday wasn't 1992 but 1983.

So we've got another 14 years of Tory government to go.

Theuniondivvie said:

Alanbrooke said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Alistair said:

CarlottaVance said:

Not sure I buy the 'late swing' hypothesis - what would have triggered it? IIRC Wilson blamed poor trade figures (caused by a BOAC Jumbo delivery or some such) for his loss to Heath, but there was no 'revelatory news' in the run up to this election to cause such a swing - just 'more of the same' - "Ed is crap" ("No! Never! Good gracious!) or "Tory Secret Plots".....

FPT:

Chris g - late of this parish is worth following on Twitter - a few tweets from the past couple of days:

'The death of Tory Scotland' (sic)
Con vote in Scotland"
2001 360,658
2005 369,388
2010 412,905
2015 434,097

Con vote total:
2001 8.3 M
2005 8.7 M
2010 10.7 M
2015 11.3 M

Lab Vote Total:
2001 10.7 M
2005 9.5 M
2010 8.6 M
2015 9.3 M


I know, we're supposed to look at 'share'.......but almost all those Tory pensioners from 2001 must be at least 80 by now......

Con Vote Percentage Scotland:
1992 25.6%
1997 17.5%
2001 15.6%
2005 15.8%
2010 16.7%
2015 14.9%

Small but resilient cockroach survives yet another nuclear event but still remains a small cockroach.
You can be sure that if by some quirk of electoral fate the SCons had increased their vote share but lost votes, it would still be portrayed as evidence of their wonderfulness.

Of course for much of the 80s and 90s the SNP was a small but resilient cockroach. Just shows how these things can develop.

Hope springs eternal.

In the great tradition of PB SCon surgism, when roughly are you predicting the wee beasty evolving beyond the order Blattaria?

Once Holyrood screws up royally, especially if there's fiscal responsibility.

There is a pendulum effect in politics. The left always runs out of money, then the Conservatives come back to fix the mess. The SNP have chosen to be the left, so there will ultimately need to be a right wing party to fix their mistakes when they come home to roost.

The problem preventing that at the moment is that running out of money is blamed on Westminster rather than taking local responsibility.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Patrick said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JonCisBack said:

tlg86 said:

I'm think we should seriously consider banning opinion polling. It probably didn't make much difference but there's no getting away from the fact that the state of the GB polls was, theoretically, good for the Tories.

Would the tories have made so many rash promises such as legislating against tax rises, childcare freebies, rail price freeze etc if they had known they were 6% ahead?

They have painted themselves into something of a corner with some of their commitments.

Ask anyone on here, or the experts, a 6% Tory lead shouldn't lead to a Tory majority.

Messina and Crosby really really earned their money with this performance.

The Tory vote efficiency has improved significantly. This and the impending boundary changes mean we will all need a new rule of thumb for what poll lead gives what majority. Makes Labour's task in England notably harder.

Labour have five years to get their own Messina, and the boundary change master strategy still looks flawed: based on old data and assuming there will be no backlash in Wales as there was in Scotland.

Labour bought their own Messina. He just didn't have a work permit....