politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Dave might not have been so upbeat at PMQs if this Ipsos-MO

So do we know yet if PP counted 3 or more interruptions at PMQs?

I doubt "Dave" is overly concerned by the up and down of individual polls. It's the trend thats important and Labour's trend is down;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png

But as Mike and tim so wisely say: ICM the gold standard on VI and MORI on Leaders' ratings. And the latter is shocking for Ed:

David Cameron’s net satisfaction rating of -16 (% satisfied minus % dissatisfied) is an improvement of 8 points since last month, and his highest this year. 38% are satisfied with the Prime Minister, 54% are dissatisfied. Satisfaction with David Cameron among Conservative supporters has also improved with 78% satisfied and 17% dissatisfied.

30% are satisfied with Mr Miliband’s performance as Labour leader compared with 56% who are dissatisfied. His net rating of -26 has fallen by five points from last month and is his lowest since January 2012. Mr Miliband has a net satisfaction rating of -1 among Labour supporters, with 43% satisfied and 44% dissatisfied.

So Dave on -16, and Ed -26.

I so feel for tim - hi, there buddy, I know you're looking in!

Maybe it'll affect the mood or something, but Mori always seem to be all over the place.

Rouge = Rogue.

Why would Ed's personal ratings be falling?

Didn't Tim and OGH say the UNITE debacle would allow Miliband to portray himself as "strong" and "Prime Ministerial?"

Harriet Harman having a shocker on WATO. When asked about good economic news says "sometimes I think it is worth stepping back from all the figures"

A fight with the Unions will be good news for Ed

@MSmithsonPB
EdM's Ipsos-MORI satisfaction ratings now as bad as Hague at the same stage of his leadership http://pic.twitter.com/GTWuvIV2fn

Oh, wait...

I've put up a couple more charts in the header

Off-topic: Climate hand-grenade time:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/15/there_is_no_scientific_consensus_on_sealevel_rise_say_scientists/

MikeSmithson said:

I've put up a couple more charts in the header

Have you banned all the reds from here on a thread with a red lead of 11%....?

Tumbleweed.....

MikeSmithson said:

I've put up a couple more charts in the header

Ed can at least console himself that he's got some way to go before he reaches "The Quiet Mans" low point. :^O

"Perhaps details are less relevant in the middle of a bloody tussle for the moral high ground. Labour is horrified that the Conservatives think they can take the moral high ground, and the party is even more horrified that what the Tories are saying appears to have resonance. Burnham and colleagues still seem preoccupied with repeating the ‘we love our NHS’ line and praising the producers, while Hunt is a man on a mission to talk about patients. Neither party will allow a score draw: the NHS is too electorally important."

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/07/the-bloody-tussle-for-the-moral-high-ground/

@GIN - As tim's pb carer, I should say in his defence that he expected Dave to overtake Ed in this month's leader-ratings (though doubtless he was playing a bit of the expectations game) but I suspect even he will be disheartened by its margin.

But mid-term polls are mid-term polls. Anything can happen in the next half-hour. Ed is safe. Dave is safe. Clegg is safe. But the future looks blue (though I'd better be careful what I say because as Harry Hayfield will describe next Thursday, we have an important by-election in a traditionally safe ward, but the candidates will only be Cons, UKIP and LibDem...and I don't want my summer ruined by the Nige's purple peril)

GIN1138 said:

MikeSmithson said:

I've put up a couple more charts in the header

Ed can at least console himself that he's got some way to go before he reaches "The Quiet Mans" low point. :^O

Of course the comparison with IDS is the most cruel.

Labour tend not to be good regicides but will the knives start twitching in their hilts if this time next year ICM show Labour on the ropes. What might save Ed at that time is the illusion of the Euro-elections - fools gold in the electoral cycle if there was ever any !!

Scrapheap_as_was said:

At least Labour List is happy about the Mori poll - oh... there's a catch.

I’m loathe to say it – because it feels like we end up here every year – but Miliband will need to give another impressive conference speech to give himself a boost with the public. But more than that, he needs to be more visible and have more to say (in terms of policies) if he’s going to turn this around.

Above all though, he needs to keep his head, when the rest of the party might be losing theirs.

http://labourlist.org/2013/07/labours-lead-is-up-to-11-with-ipsos-mori-the-polls-are-all-over-the-place-but-milibands-personal-ratings-are-a-worry/

@DAaronovitch
“@LabourList: Labour’s lead is up… but Miliband’s personal ratings are a http://labli.st/15lFcUA ” > A masterpiece in not saying the thing.

Pong said:

Quite a difference from ICM - the Mori net satisfaction figures are key, though and that doesn't look good for EdM. His recovery has clearly stalled.

Off topic....

Peter Hunt ‏@BBCPeterHunt 11m
Queen asked if she wants baby to be a boy or a girl says"Idon't really mind.I hope it arrives soon because I'm going on holiday #RoyalBaby

She really is such a nice lady. That's a reply than any great-granny could have give

RodCrosby said:

Putting this through the Lebo & Norpoth model forecasts for 2015....

Con vote lead 6.9%
Con seat lead 51 seats

"Con lead" - over Labour or majority?

@JohnO said :

"As tim's pb carer ...."

.....................................................

Dear God the self sacrifice you must endure JohnO. We are in awe man, awe !!

Jonathan said:

Think Conservative supporters might be getting a touch excited. Seen this before after the EU speech and the veto. Didn't last.

Clearly Ed is having a shit 2013,after a good 2012. He has serious questions to answer.

Clegg is the most consistent of the bunch. Not that it does him any good.

IMO the acid test is whether the Tories are any closer to winning the seats like Eastleigh they need to win a majority? Can't see it yet. Personally still expecting limited Labour gains making the post 2015 aftermath about as messy as possible.

Clegg is the most consistent of the bunch. Not that it does him any good.

I can see a lot of schmoozing for Nick ahead of the GE, and all those threats that we'd never deal with Clegg looking a bit unwise. It won't be the Cleggasm, more of a we can't do without you.

Typical fop celebration of Lynton. Even Boris realised that the flaw in his plan was not to let his opponents think they were winning and look where that got him. Pathetic from those on exeat from Eton.

PB Tories miss the fact that the big story here is Ed Ball's quietude playing the long game. His silence stopped the Fops in their tracks. Just like in Headingley. But NHS statistical illiterates never learn. Remind me what is 50% of 100 again?

And I'll bet you £50 that Jeremy Chum goes to Fopshire on his holidays.

(note: apologies but I feel that there's a certain je ne sais quoi missing from PB at the mo')

Alanbrooke said:

JackW said:

FPT

@Scott_P said:

"The best was Kate Green, who knew what was going to happen, did it anyway, and grimaced through the inevitable response.

@oflynnexpress: Lab is in retreat on welfare, immigration, tax & spend, union links + leader looking his weakest ever. Doesn't look like winning prospectus."

...............................................................


Absolutely Scott_P

And this is mid-term. As the economy improves is it likely that Labour will rebound ? Unlikely in my view. To my mind the question becomes how bad will it become for Labour.

Does Ed enjoy the leadership skills to limit the damage - Is he William Hague of 2001 or Michael Foot from 1983 ?

The clock it is a ticking ....

so Mr W you're a 2010 LD and you've been sulking for 3 years. But as things pick up it looks less likely Ed will win and more likely you'll have a HP. And then that Clegg bloke shows you how the LDs have had more of an impact on the Tories than Ed. Who do you vote for ?

Ah my dear Alanbrooke.

Before the 2010 GE I expected and hoped for a Con/LibDem coalition and I voted for the best placed of the two - Conservative as it happened.

In 2015 I would encourage Coalitionistas to do the same. Vote for the best placed candidate. Ed is not PM material and their present guise as "Not The Coalition" requires of them a further period in opposition to envolve into a viable Social Democrat alternative.

JohnO said:

JackW said:

@JohnO said :

"As tim's pb carer ...."

.....................................................

Dear God the self sacrifice you must endure JohnO. We are in awe man, awe !!

I see it as my modest understated contribution to the Big Society.

There's "Big" and then there's your gargantuan contribution !!

So how long until Ed starts wearing a baseball cap?

Sean_F said:

JohnO said:

@GIN - As tim's pb carer, I should say in his defence that he expected Dave to overtake Ed in this month's leader-ratings (though doubtless he was playing a bit of the expectations game) but I suspect even he will be disheartened by its margin.

But mid-term polls are mid-term polls. Anything can happen in the next half-hour. Ed is safe. Dave is safe. Clegg is safe. But the future looks blue (though I'd better be careful what I say because as Harry Hayfield will describe next Thursday, we have an important by-election in a traditionally safe ward, but the candidates will only be Cons, UKIP and LibDem...and I don't want my summer ruined by the Nige's purple peril)

We don't want things looking too good for the Right too soon. As David L and Stuart Dickson have pointed out, it might prompt Scots to sever their ties with the rest of the UK.

well if they do they do, Scotland knows it will face another government on the right at some point. In any case there's still a +7 or 8 advantage to Labour and the blues need to claw back about 15 points just to stand still.

Sean_F said:

JohnO said:

@GIN - As tim's pb carer, I should say in his defence that he expected Dave to overtake Ed in this month's leader-ratings (though doubtless he was playing a bit of the expectations game) but I suspect even he will be disheartened by its margin.

But mid-term polls are mid-term polls. Anything can happen in the next half-hour. Ed is safe. Dave is safe. Clegg is safe. But the future looks blue (though I'd better be careful what I say because as Harry Hayfield will describe next Thursday, we have an important by-election in a traditionally safe ward, but the candidates will only be Cons, UKIP and LibDem...and I don't want my summer ruined by the Nige's purple peril)

We don't want things looking too good for the Right too soon. As David L and Stuart Dickson have pointed out, it might prompt Scots to sever their ties with the rest of the UK.

Indeed, but on the positive side there are no more PMQs for a while so Ed will not be making such a fool of himself. There is the annual "make or break" conference speech though. Free hint for him: stop playing hide the verb. It is a good game but too many people have cottoned on.

RobD said:

Re: the proposed new runway at Heathrow. £15bn to slap down a bit of tarmac, you gotta be kidding, surely?!

I know a few gentlemen of irish decent which have some tarmac left over from a job...reckon they'll do it cheaper.

Sean_F said:

JohnO said:

@GIN - As tim's pb carer, I should say in his defence that he expected Dave to overtake Ed in this month's leader-ratings (though doubtless he was playing a bit of the expectations game) but I suspect even he will be disheartened by its margin.

But mid-term polls are mid-term polls. Anything can happen in the next half-hour. Ed is safe. Dave is safe. Clegg is safe. But the future looks blue (though I'd better be careful what I say because as Harry Hayfield will describe next Thursday, we have an important by-election in a traditionally safe ward, but the candidates will only be Cons, UKIP and LibDem...and I don't want my summer ruined by the Nige's purple peril)

We don't want things looking too good for the Right too soon. As David L and Stuart Dickson have pointed out, it might prompt Scots to sever their ties with the rest of the UK.

And labour lose a few 10tens of seats of their majority?? Sounds like a win-win to me...

RobD said:

Re: the proposed new runway at Heathrow. £15bn to slap down a bit of tarmac, you gotta be kidding, surely?!

Buying up all the land and property is not cheap. Plus money will be spent on transport infrastructure as well. Also, only ~£5bn would come from taxpayers so it's pretty cheap.

MaxPB said:

RobD said:

Re: the proposed new runway at Heathrow. £15bn to slap down a bit of tarmac, you gotta be kidding, surely?!

Buying up all the land and property is not cheap. Plus money will be spent on transport infrastructure as well. Also, only ~£5bn would come from taxpayers so it's pretty cheap.

It was kinda tongue in cheek, I think they want to build a new terminal too! Let's hope they decide what to do soon and get on with it.

MaxPB said:

RobD said:

Re: the proposed new runway at Heathrow. £15bn to slap down a bit of tarmac, you gotta be kidding, surely?!

Buying up all the land and property is not cheap. Plus money will be spent on transport infrastructure as well. Also, only ~£5bn would come from taxpayers so it's pretty cheap.

People always used to say that a new runway would be built at Heathrow without any public money. What has changed?

OblitusSumMe said:

MaxPB said:

RobD said:

Re: the proposed new runway at Heathrow. £15bn to slap down a bit of tarmac, you gotta be kidding, surely?!

Buying up all the land and property is not cheap. Plus money will be spent on transport infrastructure as well. Also, only ~£5bn would come from taxpayers so it's pretty cheap.

People always used to say that a new runway would be built at Heathrow without any public money. What has changed?

we stopped lying to ourselves ?

OblitusSumMe said:

People always used to say that a new runway would be built at Heathrow without any public money. What has changed?

I think the taxpayer money would be used to build out the transport links and make the M25 and M4 higher capacity. The proposal, as I read it, outlines the full cost of building a third runway as well as everything else that is required for it.

The runway itself won't cost very much and will be paid for privately I'm sure.

RodCrosby said:

Some sensational figures coming out of a Monte Carlo sim (10000 runs) of the L&N model...

Chance of a Labour majority: 0.01% (1 in ten thousand)
Chance of a Labour vote lead. 0.01% (ditto)
Chance of a Labour seat lead: 4.2%
Chance of a Tory majority: 27.7%
Chance of a hung parliament: 72.3%

So 4/1 for a tory majority is about right? And a hung Parliament looks for value.

I've just realised.

Ed's ratings are closer to Clegg than to Cameron's ratings

On PMQ,s thought Cameron won but miliband did his job of getting his line out on lobbying(benson and hedge-funds)this is what sky and bbc news channels are using,you would think ed had a brilliant PMQ's if you watched them.

OblitusSumMe said:

JosiasJessop said:

Off-topic: Climate hand-grenade time:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/15/there_is_no_scientific_consensus_on_sealevel_rise_say_scientists/

That's not a hand grenade, it's not even a rabbit.

The last IPCC report was up front about the uncertainties in mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, so they left them out completely from their projections of 21st century sea level rise.

On sea level rise - without the contribution from ice sheets - the consensus is very clear: sea levels will continue to rise as heat penetrates the deep oceans and mountain glaciers melt.

Not so. The IPCC report excluded the scaled up accelerated ice loss from their sea level calculations but included the standard predicted rate of loss.

You can see the graphs and discussion here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-6-5.html

More importantly both the Register article and the original paper from Nature Geoscience make it clear that their argument is not with the IPCC but with the claims of alarmists that there will be accelerated sea level rise. So you are making rather a straw man of this as a means of deflecting from a finding that clearly you find difficult to stomach.

Mike Smithson‏@MSmithsonPB1m
EdM moves into a negative position amongst LAB supporters in the Ipsos-MORI leader satisfaction ratings pic.twitter.com/uxIwYObJJH

This shows Ed's bravery and leadership in taking on Unite - the negative reaction is presumably just from those 'union-enrolled' Lab supporters and shows how well he is doing if they have reacted so negatively.

Great move, short term pain for long term gain.

(c) Red team

Tykejohnno said:

On PMQ,s thought Cameron won but miliband did his job of getting his line out on lobbying(benson and hedge-funds)this is what sky and bbc news channels are using,you would think ed had a brilliant PMQ's if you watched them.

but will it stick ? Royal baby plus, holidays and no politics means it can only be picked up again In September. Seems an odd time to go on the attack with this.

Interestingly Mori is close to YouGov in both VI and leader ratings.

Richard_Tyndall said:

OblitusSumMe said:

JosiasJessop said:

Off-topic: Climate hand-grenade time:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/15/there_is_no_scientific_consensus_on_sealevel_rise_say_scientists/

That's not a hand grenade, it's not even a rabbit.

The last IPCC report was up front about the uncertainties in mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, so they left them out completely from their projections of 21st century sea level rise.

On sea level rise - without the contribution from ice sheets - the consensus is very clear: sea levels will continue to rise as heat penetrates the deep oceans and mountain glaciers melt.

Not so. The IPCC report excluded the scaled up accelerated ice loss from their sea level calculations but included the standard predicted rate of loss.

You can see the graphs and discussion here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-6-5.html

More importantly both the Register article and the original paper from Nature Geoscience make it clear that their argument is not with the IPCC but with the claims of alarmists that there will be accelerated sea level rise. So you are making rather a straw man of this as a means of deflecting from a finding that clearly you find difficult to stomach.

Ah, okay, so AR4 left out the potential contribution from an acceleration of the mass loss from the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. My mistake.

I still think my main point stands - the study in Nature Geoscience is a no change on the existing IPCC consensus, with the [excellent] GRACE satellites not yet providing enough data. No-one would have expected that ten years worth of data would be enough to detect acceleration, so this is not a surprise either.

I have no difficulty with the finding, I'm just pointing out that it isn't a "hand grenade".

RodCrosby said:

The interesting thing is, month on month since 2010, the L&N model has never shown Labour winning the popular vote in 2015.

For about a year (April 2012 - May 2013) it showed them pulling modestly ahead in seats (never forecasting a majority), but even that now seems to be on the turn.

Reason? Cameron's PM approval ratings are consistently good, and the L&N model shows this is, historically, by far the best predictor of the next election...

Opinion polls are just the voters moaning against the incumbent government, as voters invariably do.

But PM approval shows where they are going to place their 'X' next time...

I've never heard of L&N before.

Would be interesting - if Mike was ok - to have a thread on different models (Baxter, L&N, etc) with a view on pros and cons? Perhaps something for the summer?

RodCrosby said:

The interesting thing is, month on month since 2010, the L&N model has never shown Labour winning the popular vote in 2015.

For about a year (April 2012 - May 2013) it showed them pulling modestly ahead in seats (never forecasting a majority), but even that now seems to be on the turn.

Reason? Cameron's PM approval ratings are consistently good, and the L&N model shows this is, historically, by far the best predictor of the next election...

Opinion polls are just the voters moaning against the incumbent government, as voters invariably do.

But PM approval shows where they are going to place their 'X' next time...

Being a data nerd it would be interesting if you had some plots showing how this is changing with time.