politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Kellner says an overall LAB majority looks less likely afte

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Kellner says an overall LAB majority looks less likely after YouGov reports its lowest lead of the year

This has set off the talk once again that an overall majority for Ed Miliband in 2015 might be not as much in the bag as it appeared. For all though the shares in the poll should, according to the seat calculators, produce a comfortable majority there are reasons which it might be tighter.

Read the full story here

edmundintokyo

At GE2010 Labour was losing vote share and seats all over apart from north of the border where its vote increased by 2.5%. The party came away with 41 of Scotland’s 59 seats and part of the reason, it was argued, was that the then leader, Gordon Brown, was Scottish.

Are you sure we're not double-counting that? If Ed Miliband is less attractive to Scots than Gordon Brown, that should already be in the opinion polls. So if Labour are under-performing in Scotland relative to their YouGov scores, they must be over-performing somewhere else. Is there any reason to think the new location of the Labour votes will be worse at converting into seats than the old one?

edmundintokyo

One factor that might shake up the double-incumbency calculations is that Labour's increased support is likely to come disproportionately - almost exclusively, even - from squeezing 2010 LibDems. Squeezable LibDems aren't evenly distributed, so given an average swing of 6% we'd expect fairly teensy swings in some seats and fairly big swings in others.

It would be interesting to go through the list of Labour target seats and see what happens when you give them half the 2010 LibDem vote. I wonder if you wouldn't find that a fair few of Labour's most winnable seats were actually seats that the Tories won in 2005, not 2010.

CarlottaVance

O/T - other organs having fun at expense of Observer/Guardian:

Guardian/Observer pulls front-page NSA story after source turns out to be a fruitloop who thinks Obama is gay

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100224022/guardianobserver-pulls-front-page-nsa-story-after-source-turns-out-to-be-a-fruitloop-who-thinks-obama-is-gay/

Story still available via google (courtesy of SF Chronicle, now also reporting Observer embarrassment)

http://tinyurl.com/oy4xljb

PaddyBriggs

Reports like this which only have the polling margin of error in small print (if at all) are very misleading. The Labour lead could be anything from 2% to 9% if sampling error is taken into account. This FACT is far less speculative than the report about the likely LibDem seat numbers not falling as much as the poll figures would indicate. But it isn't even mentioned.

edmundintokyo

CarlottaVance said:

O/T - other organs having fun at expense of Observer/Guardian:

To show the old story about how far a lie gets before the truth can get its pants on, Drudge is now linking to Salon's write-up of the Guardian story, since the original Guardian story itself has been pulled.

edmundintokyo

edmundintokyo said:

It would be interesting to go through the list of Labour target seats and see what happens when you give them half the 2010 LibDem vote. I wonder if you wouldn't find that a fair few of Labour's most winnable seats were actually seats that the Tories won in 2005, not 2010.

Take that back, I just tried it. It turns out that if you give Labour half the LibDem vote, you get a total of 57 Lab gains from Con, but all except 4 were seats Con gained in 2010. Here's my list of notional Labour majorities in seats currently held by Con, assuming half the 2010 LibDems just realigned:

Warrington South 10.925
Plymouth Sutton and Devonport 9.715
Northampton North 9.16
Lancaster and Fleetwood 8.785
Cardiff North 8.75
Brentford and Isleworth 8.185
Watford 7.96
Lincoln 7.8
Broxtowe 7.705
Hove 7.53
Weaver Vale 7.065
Pudsey 7.035
Sherwood 7.01
Bedford 6.93
Stockton South 6.895
Wolverhampton South West 6.285
Amber Valley 6.06
Hendon 5.95
Ealing Central and Acton 5.935
Brighton Kemptown 5.895
Carlisle 5.76
Warwickshire North 5.69
Dewsbury 5.65
Stroud 5.485
Waveney 5.16
Thurrock 5.15
Gloucester 4.86
Morecambe and Lunesdale 4.855
Ipswich 4.685
Chester, City of 4.025
Hastings and Rye 3.855
Corby 3.72
Bristol North West 3.705
Worcester 3.635
Colne Valley 3.53
Bury North 3.51
Erewash 3.505
Kingswood 3.315
Nuneaton 3.025
Halesowen and Rowley Regis 2.805
Enfield North 2.265
Wirral West 2.23
Pendle 2.135
Loughborough 2.075
Warwick and Leamington 1.985
High Peak 1.63
Somerset North East 1.565
Cannock Chase 1.475
Blackpool North and Cleveleys 1.36
Swindon South 1.295
Keighley 1.24
Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and 0.755
Croydon Central 0.615
Stevenage 0.31
Calder Valley 0.17
Elmet and Rothwell 0.065
Harrow East 0.045

edmundintokyo

PaddyBriggs said:

Reports like this which only have the polling margin of error in small print (if at all) are very misleading. The Labour lead could be anything from 2% to 9% if sampling error is taken into account. This FACT is far less speculative than the report about the likely LibDem seat numbers not falling as much as the poll figures would indicate. But it isn't even mentioned.

True, and YouGov had a lead of 11 the day before, and the average over a week must be something like 8, so it feels like the underlying lead per YouGov is somewhere around there. But there's probably going to be a bit of unwind in any case, so it's worth working through what would happen on a 5% lead, and trying to figure out what kind of lead Labour really do need to get a majority.

CarlottaVance

YouGov internals up:

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/fyrzoifgft/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-280613.pdf

As is often the case with dramatic top lines, the internals are pretty flat.

Trust in Cameron/Osborne edges ahead : "Who do you trust to run the economy:
Cam/OS 36 (+1)
Ed2: 26 (-3)

Also "staying the course" strengthens:
Stick to current strategy: 35 (+4)
Change: 39 (-3)

Edit - this now means 2013 YTD is completely flat vs 2012.

As does Osborne in "Better Chancellor":
Osborne: 33 (+5)
Balls: 29 (+3)

Financier

YouGov

Who would you trust more to run the economy?
DC & GO: 36(+1)
EdM & EdB:26(-3)
Not sure: 38(+1)

Thinking about the government's economic
policies, which of the following best reflects
your view?
The government should stick to its current strategy
of reducing the deficit, even if this means growth
remains slow: 35(+4)
The government should change its strategy to
concentrate on growth, even if this means the
deficit stays longer or gets worse: 39(-3)
Neither: 10(+3)
Not sure: 16(-4)

Which of these would make the better
Chancellor of the Exchequer?
GO: 33(+5)
EdB: 29(+3)
DK: 38(-7)

CarlottaVance

edmundintokyo said:

PaddyBriggs said:

Reports like this which only have the polling margin of error in small print (if at all) are very misleading. The Labour lead could be anything from 2% to 9% if sampling error is taken into account. This FACT is far less speculative than the report about the likely LibDem seat numbers not falling as much as the poll figures would indicate. But it isn't even mentioned.

True, and YouGov had a lead of 11 the day before, and the average over a week must be something like 8

It is. The difference vs Nov 12 when the gap was this narrow was that the preceding average then had been +10 - so it looks like Lab have had 2 points shaved off - and this poll is not quite as great an "outlier" as the last one. Of course we could easily be back in double digits on Tuesday!

SouthamObserver

A hung Parliament in 2015 has always looked the most likely option. But we are dealing with two (maybe three) things that make interpreting polls and what kind of result we'll get next time very tricky:
1. There is a coalition. Normal rules about how governments and oppositions *should* be doing may not apply.
2. There is, for the first time, a fourth party in England that could realistically get between 5% and 10% of the vote.

The third is how Scotland reacts to whatever happens in the independence referendum. And the variables there are significant - though we can be pretty sure the Tories will make no gains and the LDs will be extremely lucky to hold what they have.

As someone who is very keen on a Lab/LD coalition, my concern is that Labour gets most seats. As things stand, that still looks the likeliest option. But the party is not setting the world on fire and its response to Osborne's spending review was very poor. It reminded me greatly of New Labour's timidity in accepting a Tory agenda instead of seeking to change views. If anything is likely to put off centre left 05 and 10 Lab to LD switchers, that will.

Stuart_Dickson

- "It is hard to see how Labour, even with the progress made since 2010 nationally, can hold on to 70% of the Scottish seats."

I disagree.

It is very true, indeed was quite startling at the time, that Labour actually managed to increase its vote share in Scotland, against trend, under a Scottish leader at UK GE 2010 compared to their performance under an English leader at the previous UK GE. And it is highly likely that, again against trend, their vote share in Scotland will fall again now that they again have an English leader.

However, it would be an error to assume that a fall in SLab's vote share automatically means a fall in the number of SLab MPs sent to Westminster.

For example, if you pump the Scottish splits from this week's ComRes into Baxter’s Scottish seats calculator the result would be a rise in the number of Scottish Labour MPs on a falling share of the vote. And even a slight decline in the Tory vote could actually triple the number of seats that that party wins.

ComRes Scottish sub-sample – Westminster VI
+/- change on UK GE 2010
(usual caveats apply)

Lab 41% (-1)
SNP 26% (+6)
Con 15% (-2)
LD 7% (-12)

Giving seat distribution of:

Lab 43 (+2)
SNP 10 (+4)
Con 3 (+2)
LD 3 (-8)

Lab Gains from LD:
Dunbartonshire East
Edinburgh West

SNP Gains from LD:
Argyll and Bute
Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross
Gordon
Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey

Con Gain from LD:
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk

Just an example, and anybody can experiment with Baxter's calculator to their heart's content. I'm sure other counter-intuitive outcomes crop up.

edmundintokyo

SouthamObserver said:

As someone who is very keen on a Lab/LD coalition, my concern is that Labour gets most seats. As things stand, that still looks the likeliest option. But the party is not setting the world on fire and its response to Osborne's spending review was very poor. It reminded me greatly of New Labour's timidity in accepting a Tory agenda instead of seeking to change views. If anything is likely to put off centre left 05 and 10 Lab to LD switchers, that will.

Right, the LD switching vote has looked pretty firm until now, but maybe it'll crumble given an election campaign consisting of:
Lab: Don't vote for these perfidious LibDems, they betrayed you by accepting Osborne's spending plans.
Interviewer: How do we know you won't spend too much?
Lab: We will stick to Osborne's spending plans!

IanB2

@edmund >"So if Labour are under-performing in Scotland relative to their YouGov scores, they must be over-performing somewhere else. Is there any reason to think the new location of the Labour votes will be worse at converting into seats than the old one?"

Yes, I'd say so. Of course, given that Scotland has less than 10% of the seats, it's likely that the swing from Labour to SNP is lost in the national YouGov roundings, anyway. But Labour has been polling above average in Wales, where it has most of the seats already, and in London due to demographic change, which affects only a few marginals. If we're attributing the change to LibDem voters unhappy with the coalition, these are probably disproportionately in northern cities where Labour has little to gain. And to the extent that the geographical switch is down to leader's character, Miliband as a privileged southerner probably picks up a little from not having the very negative appeal that Brown had across most of the South, where Labour has few realistic chances of winning.

Although equally, Stuart's point about there being few SNP/Labour marginals in Scotland is persuasive in the other direction...

CarlottaVance

SouthamObserver said:

But the party is not setting the world on fire and its response to Osborne's spending review was very poor..

At least it got one thing right:

English lessons or Benefits stopped support (net): +76

Pity the more contentious "7 days wait" was not asked.

SouthamObserver

CarlottaVance said:

SouthamObserver said:

But the party is not setting the world on fire and its response to Osborne's spending review was very poor..

At least it got one thing right:

English lessons or Benefits stopped support (net): +76

Pity the more contentious "7 days wait" was not asked.

By not contesting it, Labour gifted that to the Tories. If it had been asked I'd expect a majority would have been in favour as no-one made the argument against.

Charles

edmundintokyo said:

edmundintokyo said:

It would be interesting to go through the list of Labour target seats and see what happens when you give them half the 2010 LibDem vote. I wonder if you wouldn't find that a fair few of Labour's most winnable seats were actually seats that the Tories won in 2005, not 2010.

Take that back, I just tried it. It turns out that if you give Labour half the LibDem vote, you get a total of 57 Lab gains from Con, but all except 4 were seats Con gained in 2010. Here's my list of notional Labour majorities in seats currently held by Con, assuming half the 2010 LibDems just realigned:

Warrington South 10.925
Plymouth Sutton and Devonport 9.715
[...cont'd...]

Presumably you have a spreadsheet? Would be interested to see what happens if they only get 25% of the LibDem 2010 vote (i.e. half of defectors return) - only if it is easy though...

RobD

CarlottaVance said:

SouthamObserver said:

But the party is not setting the world on fire and its response to Osborne's spending review was very poor..

At least it got one thing right:

English lessons or Benefits stopped support (net): +76

Pity the more contentious "7 days wait" was not asked.

That question was asked in the Telegraph poll, with 53% backing it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/10150555/Voters-back-George-Osbornes-welfare-crackdown-finds-poll.html

edmundintokyo

IanB2 said:

@edmund >"So if Labour are under-performing in Scotland relative to their YouGov scores, they must be over-performing somewhere else. Is there any reason to think the new location of the Labour votes will be worse at converting into seats than the old one?"

Yes, I'd say so. Of course, given that Scotland has less than 10% of the seats, it's likely that the swing from Labour to SNP is lost in the national YouGov roundings, anyway. But Labour has been polling above average in Wales, where it has most of the seats already, and in London due to demographic change, which affects only a few marginals.

Looking at my LibDem-Collapse-Adjusted baseline there are five London seats in the top 57, which isn't bad. I'll grant there's only one Welsh one (Cardiff North), but there are another three not far down (Vale of Glamorgan, Aberconwy, Carmarthen West and Pembrokesh) so strength there seems quite a decent trade for whatever they stand to lose in Scotland, especially if Stuart is right and they don't actually stand to lose _anything_ in Scotland...

Financier

edmundintokyo said:

PaddyBriggs said:

Reports like this which only have the polling margin of error in small print (if at all) are very misleading. The Labour lead could be anything from 2% to 9% if sampling error is taken into account. This FACT is far less speculative than the report about the likely LibDem seat numbers not falling as much as the poll figures would indicate. But it isn't even mentioned.

True, and YouGov had a lead of 11 the day before, and the average over a week must be something like 8, so it feels like the underlying lead per YouGov is somewhere around there. But there's probably going to be a bit of unwind in any case, so it's worth working through what would happen on a 5% lead, and trying to figure out what kind of lead Labour really do need to get a majority.

@EiT

YouGov Polls:

For the last 7 weeks (5 polls per week), Labour aggregate lead per week is

37
38
43
43
44
53
46

edmundintokyo

Charles said:

edmundintokyo said:

edmundintokyo said:

It would be interesting to go through the list of Labour target seats and see what happens when you give them half the 2010 LibDem vote. I wonder if you wouldn't find that a fair few of Labour's most winnable seats were actually seats that the Tories won in 2005, not 2010.

Take that back, I just tried it. It turns out that if you give Labour half the LibDem vote, you get a total of 57 Lab gains from Con, but all except 4 were seats Con gained in 2010. Here's my list of notional Labour majorities in seats currently held by Con, assuming half the 2010 LibDems just realigned:

Warrington South 10.925
Plymouth Sutton and Devonport 9.715
[...cont'd...]

Presumably you have a spreadsheet? Would be interested to see what happens if they only get 25% of the LibDem 2010 vote (i.e. half of defectors return) - only if it is easy though...

I make that 28 gains from Con, so pretty much what you'd expect (ie half the number of gains they'd get if they got 50% of the LibDem 2010 vote). The catch is that all those "majorities" are now under 5%, and they're all 2010 Tory gains, so they could all get wiped out by double incumbency...

Charles

edmundintokyo said:

Charles said:

edmundintokyo said:

edmundintokyo said:

It would be interesting to go through the list of Labour target seats and see what happens when you give them half the 2010 LibDem vote. I wonder if you wouldn't find that a fair few of Labour's most winnable seats were actually seats that the Tories won in 2005, not 2010.

Take that back, I just tried it. It turns out that if you give Labour half the LibDem vote, you get a total of 57 Lab gains from Con, but all except 4 were seats Con gained in 2010. Here's my list of notional Labour majorities in seats currently held by Con, assuming half the 2010 LibDems just realigned:

Warrington South 10.925
Plymouth Sutton and Devonport 9.715
[...cont'd...]

Presumably you have a spreadsheet? Would be interested to see what happens if they only get 25% of the LibDem 2010 vote (i.e. half of defectors return) - only if it is easy though...

I make that 28 gains from Con, so pretty much what you'd expect (ie half the number of gains they'd get if they got 50% of the LibDem 2010 vote). The catch is that all those "majorities" are now under 5%, and they're all 2010 Tory gains, so they could all get wiped out by double incumbency...

And still in hung parliament territory: feels about right

SouthamObserver

One illustration of why coalitions may be different is what happened to the Labour opinion poll share almost as soon as the coalition was announced. Despite an absolute backpacking in May Labour went to around 35% and has been there or above ever since with almost every single polling firm. Is there any other incidence of a losing government getting such an immediate bounce, let alone one that had been so comprehensively defeated just before?

Plato

CarlottaVance said:

O/T - other organs having fun at expense of Observer/Guardian:

Guardian/Observer pulls front-page NSA story after source turns out to be a fruitloop who thinks Obama is gay

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100224022/guardianobserver-pulls-front-page-nsa-story-after-source-turns-out-to-be-a-fruitloop-who-thinks-obama-is-gay/

Story still available via google (courtesy of SF Chronicle, now also reporting Observer embarrassment)

http://tinyurl.com/oy4xljb

Oops - Mr Marsden's Wikipage is rather interesting - he's has some views that aren't exactly mainstream but hey-ho - if the Observer pulled the story that's the most amusing part of the piece.

Don't they use Google in Toynbee Towers?

edmundintokyo

SouthamObserver said:

One illustration of why coalitions may be different is what happened to the Labour opinion poll share almost as soon as the coalition was announced. Despite an absolute backpacking in May Labour went to around 35% and has been there or above ever since with almost every single polling firm. Is there any other incidence of a losing government getting such an immediate bounce, let alone one that had been so comprehensively defeated just before?

Right - the lesson is that Labour or the Tories should insist on Proportional Representation as a condition of going into coalition with the LibDems. Otherwise the LibDems who disagree with them will unite around the main opposition party, and FPTP will strangle the governing party at the next election.

TGOHF

The drift is drifty.

Bit early for swingback ?

Labour still on Planet Complacent ?

richardDodd

O/T Health tourism in the crosshairs.
next should be Tattoo removals and Abortion as a contraceptive

Gilbert_Pinfold

Plato: "if the Observer pulled the story that's the most amusing part of the piece."

Even more amusing is that it's all over page one of the print edition. We may be into Dewey Defeats Truman" territory.

edmundintokyo

TGOHF said:

Bit early for swingback ?

Labour still on Planet Complacent ?

The backdrop to this is Labour quietly burying positions that made the base happy but are hard to hold up in the scrutiny of an election campaign, so that seems like about the right time for a bit of swingback. I don't think it's a sign of complacency, because it involves taking a short-term hit and demotivating your base to get positions that are easier to defend when a serious attack comes, and you don't do that unless you're expecting to be seriously attacked.

DecrepitJohnL

CarlottaVance said:

SouthamObserver said:

But the party is not setting the world on fire and its response to Osborne's spending review was very poor..

At least it got one thing right:

English lessons or Benefits stopped support (net): +76

Pity the more contentious "7 days wait" was not asked.

It used to be that Conservatives attacked the GLC for providing free English lessons.

MikeK

"There’s also an Opinium poll about for the Observer for which we don’t have the details yet. One finding that has been revealed is that 46% said that they blame LAB for Britain’s economic situation while just 29% blamed the coalition." Mike Smithson.
------------
Good Morning. Looks like it's going to be a hot one for a change.

If the question was phrased and put differently. The vast majority of people would blame the Lab/Lib/Con party for our present woes and the state of Britain today, and it wouldn't be just the combined 75%, as above, but more like 90%.

Stuart_Dickson

Mike headlining with "Kellner says" reminds me of another "Kellner says" moment.

Back in May 2011, in a remarkable move for a pollster, he wrote an open letter to Alex Salmond just after his election victory. (Did he write an open letter to David Cameron in May 2010, just after his election victory? If not, why not?)

In it Kellner made 3 predictions. Prediction number 1 has yet to be tested, but the failure of prediction numbers 2 and 3 prove that Kellner is not the all knowing seer that he (and, in fairness, many others) like to think he is:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/what-salmond-will-do-next-snp-referendum/#.Uc_QF-BfXHQ

Millsy

Labour might have done enough recently to avoid the rest of the year being about their poor position, but there's now sufficient hope for the Tories to hopefully bring a bit of unity to the party

Plato

Gilbert_Pinfold said:

Plato: "if the Observer pulled the story that's the most amusing part of the piece."

Even more amusing is that it's all over page one of the print edition. We may be into Dewey Defeats Truman" territory.

That was a cracking frontpage blooper - I first saw it on an album cover and had no idea what it was about...the world before Google made it rather hard to find out what the joke was for a teen like me!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Waves and what an excellent album that is.

AlastairMeeks

DecrepitJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

SouthamObserver said:

But the party is not setting the world on fire and its response to Osborne's spending review was very poor..

At least it got one thing right:

English lessons or Benefits stopped support (net): +76

Pity the more contentious "7 days wait" was not asked.

It used to be that Conservatives attacked the GLC for providing free English lessons.

Are immigrants not expected to arrange their own English lessons at their own expense? Mr Osborne can have that cost-saving idea for free.

TGOHF

Will we see a Labour lead of zero or less this year ? At current rate of decline its feasible. One bad news story over the summer and it could all be lost.

AlastairMeeks

On topic, it's just one poll. And Labour are better-placed strategically in Scotland than our host appreciates.

CarlottaVance

Stuart_Dickson said:

In it Kellner made 3 predictions. Prediction number 1 has yet to be tested, but the failure of prediction numbers 2 and 3 prove that Kellner is not the all knowing seer that he (and, in fairness, many others) like to think he is:

Prediction 2 was:

"Second, you won’t hold such a binding, binary referendum. Instead you will demonstrate your guile and flexibility by finessing the issue. I expect you to hold a referendum with more than two options: the status quo, independence, and (if you’ll pardon the phrase) a “third way.” This would propose more powers for Holyrood over taxes and spending, but not a complete break with Westminster."

It wasn't Salmond's "guile and flexibility" that led to a binary referendum......

Stuart_Dickson

Best prices - next UK GE - overall majority

Lab Maj 5/4 (Hills)
NOM 13/8 (Ladbrokes)
Con Maj 4/1 (PP, SJ, YW)
UKIP Maj 125/1 (Hills)
LD Maj 250/1 (Hills)

TGOHF

antifrank said:

On topic, it's just one poll. And Labour are better-placed strategically in Scotland than our host appreciates.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2

Just one poll ? That red line has a trend.

CarlottaVance

TGOHF said:

Will we see a Labour lead of zero or less this year ? At current rate of decline its feasible. One bad news story over the summer and it could all be lost.

The big wild card is the Indy referendum - short of abject humiliation (very unlikely) the SNP could be well placed in 2015 to "get the best deal in Westminster" for either independence or DevoMax....

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

I agree on Scotland, but it'll be interesting to see how things turn out.

As it will the British Grand Prix, which is at 1pm today.

Plato

OT I'm looking at streaming media providers and LoveFilm is my latest - the range of shows and films seems really limited/old for a firm owned by Amazon. I assume its because they make more right now on DVD sales than downloads - but it seems rather short-sighted.

They also only offer displaying the content using Silverlight/in a box that's embedded and about 4" x 2.5" - I mean really? To watch a movie? It's like YouTube with less choice and charges more.

Can anyone recommend another provider? I've tried Netflix and didn't think much of them either. They just dumped a load of content after falling out with one of their suppliers.

TGOHF

CarlottaVance said:

TGOHF said:

Will we see a Labour lead of zero or less this year ? At current rate of decline its feasible. One bad news story over the summer and it could all be lost.

The big wild card is the Indy referendum - short of abject humiliation (very unlikely) the SNP could be well placed in 2015 to "get the best deal in Westminster" for either independence or DevoMax....

Really ? no seats changed last GE .

RobD

Plato said:

OT I'm looking at streaming media providers and LoveFilm is my latest - the range of shows and films seems really limited/old for a firm owned by Amazon. I assume its because they make more right now on DVD sales than downloads - but it seems rather short-sighted.

Can anyone recommend another provider? I've tried Netflix and didn't think much of them either. They just dumped a load of content after falling out with one of their suppliers.

The only other one I can think of is Hulu. It has all of the 'Thick of it' shows for free, which is nice!

MonikerDiCanio

"It is very true, indeed was quite startling at the time, that Labour actually managed to increase its vote share in Scotland, against trend, under a Scottish leader at UK GE 2010 compared to their performance under an English leader at the previous UK GE. And it is highly likely that, again against trend, their vote share in Scotland will fall again now that they again have an English leader."

Swedish poster , Dickson , incorrectly takes Blair to be English . Blair is Scottish.

NickPalmer

Financier said:

YouGov

Who would you trust more to run the economy?
DC & GO: 36(+1)
EdM & EdB:26(-3)
Not sure: 38(+1)

Thinking about the government's economic
policies, which of the following best reflects
your view?
The government should stick to its current strategy
of reducing the deficit, even if this means growth
remains slow: 35(+4)
The government should change its strategy to
concentrate on growth, even if this means the
deficit stays longer or gets worse: 39(-3)
Neither: 10(+3)
Not sure: 16(-4)

Which of these would make the better
Chancellor of the Exchequer?
GO: 33(+5)
EdB: 29(+3)
DK: 38(-7)

As usual, Financier is cherry-picking the poll. The bits he left out include:
Government spending cuts
Gooo for economy 35 (-2)
Bad for economy 48 (+3)

Necessary 54 (-5)
Unnecessary 29 (2):

Too deep 40 (+1)
Too shallow 14 (-1)

Carlotta's summary that the internals are pretty flat overall is fairer. That said, clearly the Tories have had a good week. It's not that Labour is doing badly (38% is +9 and pretty much the recent norm) but the Conservatives have recovered some of their UKIP losses by making more right-wing noises on benefits and Europe.

Jonathan

The situation in Scotland will not be clear until after the referendum vote. Absolutely no point speculating now.

Clearly Labour are far from winning an easy majority, even if the Tories are even further away. It's a mess.

Plato

RobD said:

Plato said:

OT I'm looking at streaming media providers and LoveFilm is my latest - the range of shows and films seems really limited/old for a firm owned by Amazon. I assume its because they make more right now on DVD sales than downloads - but it seems rather short-sighted.

Can anyone recommend another provider? I've tried Netflix and didn't think much of them either. They just dumped a load of content after falling out with one of their suppliers.

The only other one I can think of is Hulu. It has all of the 'Thick of it' shows for free, which is nice!

Thanks - will have a looksee. It's most irritating that there's oodles out there pirated, and ancient walled garden crap from those who charge. It's like going back 20yrs on teh interwebs when organs like Compuserve gave you email addresses such as 596u7948r7w98er7yw899@compuserve.com or AOL offered 10 pages to visit...

FluffyThoughts

edmundintokyo said:

True, and YouGov had a lead of 11 the day before, and the average over a week must be something like 8, so it feels like the underlying lead per YouGov is somewhere around there. But there's probably going to be a bit of unwind in any case, so it's worth working through what would happen on a 5% lead, and trying to figure out what kind of lead Labour really do need to get a majority.

Just plot some moving monthly-average and observe the first and second derivative at discrete points. Picking individual polls to defend an argument is the folly of amateurs....

edmundintokyo

FluffyThoughts said:

edmundintokyo said:

True, and YouGov had a lead of 11 the day before, and the average over a week must be something like 8, so it feels like the underlying lead per YouGov is somewhere around there. But there's probably going to be a bit of unwind in any case, so it's worth working through what would happen on a 5% lead, and trying to figure out what kind of lead Labour really do need to get a majority.

Just plot some moving monthly-average and observe the first and second derivative at discrete point. Picking individual polls to defend an argument is the folly of amateurs....

You plot it if you like, it's about 8.

Stuart_Dickson

Jonathan said:

The situation in Scotland will not be clear until after the referendum vote. Absolutely no point speculating now.

Err... this is a blog about betting and politics. Speculating is thus the entire raison d'être of the enterprise.

Plato

I had no idea he was so tall! A career in veteran basketballer awaits him if he ever loses his seat...

"When Daniel Kawczynski was contemplating how to vote on same-sex weddings, he said he had been “overwhelmed” by local opposition to gay marriage. The Conservative ministerial aide, who divorced his wife in 2011, decided to call a public meeting to help him make up his mind.

Now that he and his fellow MPs have voted to allow homosexual unions, he has returned to his activists with a surprising message.

“I informed my association a few weeks ago that, following my divorce, I now have a new partner, and it is a guy,” he tells Mandrake.

Kawczynski, who, at 6ft 8½in, is the tallest man in Parliament, declines to name his boyfriend. However, he says he is delighted by the backing that he has received from the many members of his local Conservative association who have become aware of his new domestic arrangements.

“They have been very supportive and kind, which obviously I appreciate greatly,” says the 41-year-old MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10150311/Divorced-Conservative-MP-Ive-fallen-in-love-with-a-man.html

CarlottaVance

edmundintokyo said:

FluffyThoughts said:

edmundintokyo said:

True, and YouGov had a lead of 11 the day before, and the average over a week must be something like 8, so it feels like the underlying lead per YouGov is somewhere around there. But there's probably going to be a bit of unwind in any case, so it's worth working through what would happen on a 5% lead, and trying to figure out what kind of lead Labour really do need to get a majority.

Just plot some moving monthly-average and observe the first and second derivative at discrete point. Picking individual polls to defend an argument is the folly of amateurs....

You plot it if you like, it's about 8.

Its exactly 8:

Lab Lead over Con: (Ave from Anthony Wells Polling summary)
Jan: 10
Feb: 11
Mar: 11
Apr: 9
May: 9
Jun: 8

Tho if you were to track weekly polling averages (probably unwise) across June it works out at 9/8/7/7

Jonathan

Stuart_Dickson said:

Jonathan said:

The situation in Scotland will not be clear until after the referendum vote. Absolutely no point speculating now.

Err... this is a blog about betting and politics. Speculating is thus the entire raison d'être of the enterprise.

Err no. Pure speculation is for fools. Some people actually want to make money betting. Grand predictions about Scottish politics before 2014 is hugely risky IMO. We have never seen anything like this vote. It's a massive rock in the pool.

MonikerDiCanio

Glad to see Salmond's Muirfield posturing exposed ;

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/sport/golf/tom-english-why-is-salmond-objecting-to-muirfield-1-2983909

What a hypocrite and creep.

FluffyThoughts

edmundintokyo said:

You plot it if you like, it's about 8.

Eh?

Eight o'clock, 8%, eight-degrees, one-in-eight? Or are you suggesting that Labour are a) increasing their lead in the polls and b) that the change in that lead is increasing over time? You make as much sense as a Swedish imperialist quoting Scottish sub-samples: What is "eight"...?

DecrepitJohnL

Plato said:

OT I'm looking at streaming media providers and LoveFilm is my latest - the range of shows and films seems really limited/old

Can anyone recommend another provider? I've tried Netflix and didn't think much of them either. They just dumped a load of content after falling out with one of their suppliers.

There is Blinkbox, whose range is also limited, but it has a PAYG rather than subscription model.

Millsy

The Tories haven't reached 33% in a Sunday Times poll since 3 Feb 2013, and Labour haven't been at 38% or lower since Jan 2012

Stuart_Dickson

On re-reading that Kellner open letter from May 2011, I was struck by this line:

- "... the SNP borrowed Labour voters for this particular election to Holyrood."

Hmmm. One could equally argue that, for the time being, Labour borrows SNP voters for elections to Westminster.

Kellner is looking as the pattern from his London-centric perspective. However, that is not the only angle from which to assess the pattern.

edmundintokyo

FluffyThoughts said:

edmundintokyo said:

You plot it if you like, it's about 8.

Eh?

Eight o'clock, 8%, eight-degrees, one-in-eight? Or are you suggesting that Labour are a) increasing their lead in the polls and b) that the change in that lead is increasing over time? You make as much sense as a Swedish imperialist quoting Scottish sub-samples: What is "eight"...?

Sorry, I should have been clearer. The Labour lead is eight grams per fluid ounce.

malcolmg

Stuart_Dickson said:

Mike headlining with "Kellner says" reminds me of another "Kellner says" moment.

Back in May 2011, in a remarkable move for a pollster, he wrote an open letter to Alex Salmond just after his election victory. (Did he write an open letter to David Cameron in May 2010, just after his election victory? If not, why not?)

In it Kellner made 3 predictions. Prediction number 1 has yet to be tested, but the failure of prediction numbers 2 and 3 prove that Kellner is not the all knowing seer that he (and, in fairness, many others) like to think he is:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/what-salmond-will-do-next-snp-referendum/#.Uc_QF-BfXHQ

Certainly full of himself and going by the results so far his opinion of himself seems to be at odds with reality.

Jonathan

Stuart_Dickson said:

Kellner is looking as the pattern from his London-centric perspective. However, that is not the only angle from which to assess the pattern.

How do you think Johann Lamont is getting on?

CarlottaVance

malcolmg said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

Mike headlining with "Kellner says" reminds me of another "Kellner says" moment.

Back in May 2011, in a remarkable move for a pollster, he wrote an open letter to Alex Salmond just after his election victory. (Did he write an open letter to David Cameron in May 2010, just after his election victory? If not, why not?)

In it Kellner made 3 predictions. Prediction number 1 has yet to be tested, but the failure of prediction numbers 2 and 3 prove that Kellner is not the all knowing seer that he (and, in fairness, many others) like to think he is:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/what-salmond-will-do-next-snp-referendum/#.Uc_QF-BfXHQ

Certainly full of himself and going by the results so far his opinion of himself seems to be at odds with reality.

Kellner's second prediction was that Salmond would wriggle out of an in/out referendum and get DevoMax on the ballot. How did that work out?

malcolmg

CarlottaVance said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

In it Kellner made 3 predictions. Prediction number 1 has yet to be tested, but the failure of prediction numbers 2 and 3 prove that Kellner is not the all knowing seer that he (and, in fairness, many others) like to think he is:

Prediction 2 was:

"Second, you won’t hold such a binding, binary referendum. Instead you will demonstrate your guile and flexibility by finessing the issue. I expect you to hold a referendum with more than two options: the status quo, independence, and (if you’ll pardon the phrase) a “third way.” This would propose more powers for Holyrood over taxes and spending, but not a complete break with Westminster."

It wasn't Salmond's "guile and flexibility" that led to a binary referendum......

Your evidence of that, sour grapes due to Salmond leading cameron by the nose to get what he wanted.

Scott_P

@DPJHodges
Tories killing Labour on economy, welfare and leadership. Labour lead slipping. Who'd have thought it.

MikeK

Another 'thin edge of the wedge', by the coalition and EU. Pretty soon Britain will become a complete police state instead of only partially, as it is now.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-148295/Foreign-police-operate-British-soil.html

CarlottaVance

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

In it Kellner made 3 predictions. Prediction number 1 has yet to be tested, but the failure of prediction numbers 2 and 3 prove that Kellner is not the all knowing seer that he (and, in fairness, many others) like to think he is:

Prediction 2 was:

"Second, you won’t hold such a binding, binary referendum. Instead you will demonstrate your guile and flexibility by finessing the issue. I expect you to hold a referendum with more than two options: the status quo, independence, and (if you’ll pardon the phrase) a “third way.” This would propose more powers for Holyrood over taxes and spending, but not a complete break with Westminster."

It wasn't Salmond's "guile and flexibility" that led to a binary referendum......

Your evidence of that, sour grapes due to Salmond leading cameron by the nose to get what he wanted.

So Salmond didn't want DevoMax on the ballot?

"First Minister Alex Salmond demands 'devo-max' fallback option be included in independence referendum

ALEX SALMOND last night demanded the right to put two questions in the independence referendum as he prepared for talks with Scots Secretary Michael Moore today."

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/first-minister-alex-salmond-demands-1116605

Plato

DecrepitJohnL said:

Plato said:

OT I'm looking at streaming media providers and LoveFilm is my latest - the range of shows and films seems really limited/old

Can anyone recommend another provider? I've tried Netflix and didn't think much of them either. They just dumped a load of content after falling out with one of their suppliers.

There is Blinkbox, whose range is also limited, but it has a PAYG rather than subscription model.

Thanks fr the tip - I've done PAYG to several US sites and thought the aggregators would have caught up by now, clearly not.

anotherDave

Plato said:

OT I'm looking at streaming media providers and LoveFilm is my latest - the range of shows and films seems really limited/old for a firm owned by Amazon. I assume its because they make more right now on DVD sales than downloads - but it seems rather short-sighted.

There was a report the other day that Amazon now give a free MP3 version of albums when you buy the CD. Perhaps they'll extend that to DVDs too.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/stevehawkes/100223841/why-the-rise-of-the-unstoppable-amazon-juggernaut-is-worrying-its-rivals/

Plato

anotherDave said:

Plato said:

OT I'm looking at streaming media providers and LoveFilm is my latest - the range of shows and films seems really limited/old for a firm owned by Amazon. I assume its because they make more right now on DVD sales than downloads - but it seems rather short-sighted.

There was a report the other day that Amazon now give a free MP3 version of albums when you buy the CD. Perhaps they'll extend that to DVDs too.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/stevehawkes/100223841/why-the-rise-of-the-unstoppable-amazon-juggernaut-is-worrying-its-rivals/

That's interesting - what I can't quite grasp is how the media market is so far behind the software one. I can't recall the last time I actually bought hard copy/manuals for anything - I just pay for the product, download it and use a key. And if my machine goes kaput or whatever, I simply log back onto say Adobe and download it all over again for free.

I don't want hundreds of DVDs - I just want to watch what's on them!

RobD

tim said:

OT.
I'm looking for a power drill with attachments that both drill and countersink but without those fiddly catches on the carrycase which always difficult to open quickly, especially in cold weather.
Brrr.

Can anyone help?

Surprised you have time for home maintenance given the amount of time you spend here with us on PB

hucks67

There are so many events between now and the election in 2015, that make these polls pretty pointless. From September 2013, we have the start of the court cases involving media phone hacking, which might reveal embarrasing info regarding senior politicians. In May 2014, we have the Euro elections, which no doubt will see UKIP rise again in the polls, at the expense of mainly the Tories. There are also many other issues which could have a severe impact on polling, one of which will be lobbying of MP's, including payments to individuals, as well as to their parties.

Scott_P

@politicshome
Michael Portillo leads Today's Top Ten Must Reads: Osborne has turned an omni-shambles into an omni-rout...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2351766/Osborne-turned-omni-shambles-omni-rout-buried-borrow-Ed-Miliband-says-Tory-big-beast.html

malcolmg

MonikerDiCanio said:

Glad to see Salmond's Muirfield posturing exposed ;

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/sport/golf/tom-english-why-is-salmond-objecting-to-muirfield-1-2983909

What a hypocrite and creep.

LOL< an idiot quoting from a toilet roll, you would have been better showing their other scoop , re mobile phone charges rocketing after independence. You have to love these dumb unionists, look a pig just flew past.

malcolmg

Jonathan said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

Kellner is looking as the pattern from his London-centric perspective. However, that is not the only angle from which to assess the pattern.

How do you think Johann Lamont is getting on?

Not very well

CarlottaVance

The San Francisco Chronicle on the Observer "scoop"

"The article describes Madsen as having "been attacked for holding controversial views on espionage issues."

That's a light way of putting it.

Some of Madsen's controversial views include the belief that President Obama is secretly a homosexual and that the Boston bombing suspects were government agents. He's also reported on a "former CIA agent" alleging the 2000 USS Cole bombing was perpetrated not by al Qaeda terrorists, but by a missile fired from an Israeli submarine.

John Schindler, a professor at the Naval War College and intelligence expert, called Madsen "batsh-- crazy, to use the technical term."

http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/The-Guardian-Revealed-A-Major-NSA-Scoop-Then-4638663.php

malcolmg

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

Mike headlining with "Kellner says" reminds me of another "Kellner says" moment.

Back in May 2011, in a remarkable move for a pollster, he wrote an open letter to Alex Salmond just after his election victory. (Did he write an open letter to David Cameron in May 2010, just after his election victory? If not, why not?)

In it Kellner made 3 predictions. Prediction number 1 has yet to be tested, but the failure of prediction numbers 2 and 3 prove that Kellner is not the all knowing seer that he (and, in fairness, many others) like to think he is:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/what-salmond-will-do-next-snp-referendum/#.Uc_QF-BfXHQ

Certainly full of himself and going by the results so far his opinion of himself seems to be at odds with reality.

Kellner's second prediction was that Salmond would wriggle out of an in/out referendum and get DevoMax on the ballot. How did that work out?

Given , he did not care a jot it worked out very well, he got exactly what he wanted. He either wins everything or at worst he will be set up when the unionists renege after winning and ensure that the next one will be a landslide. Devomax was his worst option.

malcolmg

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

In it Kellner made 3 predictions. Prediction number 1 has yet to be tested, but the failure of prediction numbers 2 and 3 prove that Kellner is not the all knowing seer that he (and, in fairness, many others) like to think he is:

Prediction 2 was:

"Second, you won’t hold such a binding, binary referendum. Instead you will demonstrate your guile and flexibility by finessing the issue. I expect you to hold a referendum with more than two options: the status quo, independence, and (if you’ll pardon the phrase) a “third way.” This would propose more powers for Holyrood over taxes and spending, but not a complete break with Westminster."

It wasn't Salmond's "guile and flexibility" that led to a binary referendum......

Your evidence of that, sour grapes due to Salmond leading cameron by the nose to get what he wanted.

So Salmond didn't want DevoMax on the ballot?

"First Minister Alex Salmond demands 'devo-max' fallback option be included in independence referendum

ALEX SALMOND last night demanded the right to put two questions in the independence referendum as he prepared for talks with Scots Secretary Michael Moore today."

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/first-minister-alex-salmond-demands-1116605

LOL , the Daily ranger , you could not make it up. He played them like suckers , Moore is a donkey and he was well and truly bested. You do understand how to negotiate I presume, sometimes you ask for things you do not want, 1st page of negotiating for Dummies.

CarlottaVance

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

Mike headlining with "Kellner says" reminds me of another "Kellner says" moment.

Back in May 2011, in a remarkable move for a pollster, he wrote an open letter to Alex Salmond just after his election victory. (Did he write an open letter to David Cameron in May 2010, just after his election victory? If not, why not?)

In it Kellner made 3 predictions. Prediction number 1 has yet to be tested, but the failure of prediction numbers 2 and 3 prove that Kellner is not the all knowing seer that he (and, in fairness, many others) like to think he is:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/what-salmond-will-do-next-snp-referendum/#.Uc_QF-BfXHQ

Certainly full of himself and going by the results so far his opinion of himself seems to be at odds with reality.

Kellner's second prediction was that Salmond would wriggle out of an in/out referendum and get DevoMax on the ballot. How did that work out?

Devomax was his worst option.

"The Scottish referendum in 2014 will ask people one question – whether they think Scotland should be an independent country. Yet many surveys and polls suggest that another option – significantly extending the powers of the Scottish Parliament – might be better able than independence to attract support from a majority of Scots."

http://www.scotcen.org.uk/media/1111766/the option not on the table final.pdf

SquareRoot

Labour lead on the slide. Ed's shouty response to the CSR did not help

hucks67

Next story that may affect polling. Apparently DEFRA ministers allow diseased meat to be sold into the human food chain.

http://news.sky.com/story/1109703/meat-from-diseased-cattle-sold-by-defra

Max_Edinburgh

malcolmg said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

Glad to see Salmond's Muirfield posturing exposed ;

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/sport/golf/tom-english-why-is-salmond-objecting-to-muirfield-1-2983909

What a hypocrite and creep.

LOL< an idiot quoting from a toilet roll, you would have been better showing their other scoop , re mobile phone charges rocketing after independence. You have to love these dumb unionists, look a pig just flew past.

The author of that piece is from the Republic of Ireland so I'm not sure how devoted to the Union he's likely to be. I'd suggest not very.

And I don't see what's particularly controversial about pointing out the fact that attending an all male golf club when you claim to be opposed to all male golf clubs is a tad hypocritical.

AndreaParma_82

Thanks to Mark Senior who directed me to where Fife Council buried them, here's transfers for Glenrothes North by-election held on Jun 20th...

LD:
31 to Lab, 15 to Con, 13 to SNP, 8 to UKIP. 16 Non Transferables

UKIP eliminated:
48 to Con, 39 to Lab, 37 to SNP. 60 Non Transferables

Con eliminated:
129 to Lab, 53 to SNP. 153 Non Transferables


First prefes among postal votes
Lab 590
SNP 462
Con 114
UKIP 70
LD 40

Voting on the day

Lab 1306
SNP 1249
Con 158
UKIP 106
LD 43

MonikerDiCanio

malcolmg said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

Glad to see Salmond's Muirfield posturing exposed ;

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/sport/golf/tom-english-why-is-salmond-objecting-to-muirfield-1-2983909

What a hypocrite and creep.

LOL< an idiot quoting from a toilet roll, you would have been better showing their other scoop , re mobile phone charges rocketing after independence. You have to love these dumb unionists, look a pig just flew past.

It's lucky for you as a Scottish taxpayer that Salmond is boycotting the Open in Scotland . On these junkets he tends to be wildly open handed with other people's money.

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/politics/outcry-at-alex-salmond-s-500-000-ryder-cup-bill-1-2665918

Charles

edmundintokyo said:

FluffyThoughts said:

edmundintokyo said:

You plot it if you like, it's about 8.

Eh?

Eight o'clock, 8%, eight-degrees, one-in-eight? Or are you suggesting that Labour are a) increasing their lead in the polls and b) that the change in that lead is increasing over time? You make as much sense as a Swedish imperialist quoting Scottish sub-samples: What is "eight"...?

Sorry, I should have been clearer. The Labour lead is eight grams per fluid ounce.

I hope you're not implying you need to be drunk to vote Labour?

malcolmg

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

Mike headlining with "Kellner says" reminds me of another "Kellner says" moment.

Back in May 2011, in a remarkable move for a pollster, he wrote an open letter to Alex Salmond just after his election victory. (Did he write an open letter to David Cameron in May 2010, just after his election victory? If not, why not?)

In it Kellner made 3 predictions. Prediction number 1 has yet to be tested, but the failure of prediction numbers 2 and 3 prove that Kellner is not the all knowing seer that he (and, in fairness, many others) like to think he is:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/what-salmond-will-do-next-snp-referendum/#.Uc_QF-BfXHQ

Certainly full of himself and going by the results so far his opinion of himself seems to be at odds with reality.

Kellner's second prediction was that Salmond would wriggle out of an in/out referendum and get DevoMax on the ballot. How did that work out?

Devomax was his worst option.

"The Scottish referendum in 2014 will ask people one question – whether they think Scotland should be an independent country. Yet many surveys and polls suggest that another option – significantly extending the powers of the Scottish Parliament – might be better able than independence to attract support from a majority of Scots."

http://www.scotcen.org.uk/media/1111766/the option not on the table final.pdf

I am too busy laughing at the stupidity of the unionist media, printing wholesale the stupid scare story that our mobile phone charges will rocket due to being foreigners , right alongside the story that Europe is banning roaming charges and that they reduce next week and will be banned by 2015.
Hee Haw Hee Haw lap it up

Charles

tim said:

Oliver Cooper ‏@OliverCooper
65% of voters - including 61% of UKIP voters - think we should maintain or increase the number of students allowed to come to the UK.


Even Kippers see sense on this.

Did the question differentiate between high quality students for university and people coming to study at back-street ESL "colleges"?

There's no point in attracting quantity unless you are also prepared to invest massively in infrastructure.

Better to focus on high quality / high margin / premium relationships.

malcolmg

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

Mike headlining with "Kellner says" reminds me of another "Kellner says" moment.

Back in May 2011, in a remarkable move for a pollster, he wrote an open letter to Alex Salmond just after his election victory. (Did he write an open letter to David Cameron in May 2010, just after his election victory? If not, why not?)

In it Kellner made 3 predictions. Prediction number 1 has yet to be tested, but the failure of prediction numbers 2 and 3 prove that Kellner is not the all knowing seer that he (and, in fairness, many others) like to think he is:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/what-salmond-will-do-next-snp-referendum/#.Uc_QF-BfXHQ

Certainly full of himself and going by the results so far his opinion of himself seems to be at odds with reality.

Kellner's second prediction was that Salmond would wriggle out of an in/out referendum and get DevoMax on the ballot. How did that work out?

Devomax was his worst option.

"The Scottish referendum in 2014 will ask people one question – whether they think Scotland should be an independent country. Yet many surveys and polls suggest that another option – significantly extending the powers of the Scottish Parliament – might be better able than independence to attract support from a majority of Scots."

http://www.scotcen.org.uk/media/1111766/the option not on the table final.pdf

Carlotta, the unionists due to arrogance and ignorance chose to gamble on NO rather than give extended powers. I have said on here from the very beginning that if the unionists could only engage their brains they should opt for Devo max as the alternative will guarantee they have gambled all or nothing and will end up with nothing. Stupid stories about how we will be starving behind barbed wire , unable to phone our ex families who are now foreigners will not cut the mustard.

JackW

I do wish Kellner, Baxter and others would keep up.

My ARSE has for yonks been projecting Labour unable to gain a majority, indeed even failing to become the largest party.

The latest ARSE projection will be published exclusively on PB tomorrow morning.

My own view, that I may have noted before, is that Ed Miliband will never become Prime Minister.

CarlottaVance

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

Mike headlining with "Kellner says" reminds me of another "Kellner says" moment.

Back in May 2011, in a remarkable move for a pollster, he wrote an open letter to Alex Salmond just after his election victory. (Did he write an open letter to David Cameron in May 2010, just after his election victory? If not, why not?)

In it Kellner made 3 predictions. Prediction number 1 has yet to be tested, but the failure of prediction numbers 2 and 3 prove that Kellner is not the all knowing seer that he (and, in fairness, many others) like to think he is:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/what-salmond-will-do-next-snp-referendum/#.Uc_QF-BfXHQ

Certainly full of himself and going by the results so far his opinion of himself seems to be at odds with reality.

Kellner's second prediction was that Salmond would wriggle out of an in/out referendum and get DevoMax on the ballot. How did that work out?

Devomax was his worst option.

"The Scottish referendum in 2014 will ask people one question – whether they think Scotland should be an independent country. Yet many surveys and polls suggest that another option – significantly extending the powers of the Scottish Parliament – might be better able than independence to attract support from a majority of Scots."

http://www.scotcen.org.uk/media/1111766/the option not on the table final.pdf

I am too busy laughing at the stupidity of the unionist media.
Hee Haw Hee Haw lap it up

That's the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, not previously denounced as "stupid Unionist media,"

Roger

Why does 'Fluffy Thoughts' surely the most repetitive dull and self opinionated poster ever to post on here keep flagging people as 'Trolls' or 'Off-topic'?

Today he's flagged as 'off-topic' one of the most interesting and discussed posts on the thread. If he had any self awareness the hypocrisy would be extraordinary.

''Tumbleweed;"...??

HYUFD

Have to disagree with Kellner on this, with no reason to tactically vote LD to keep out the Tories, LD MPs with Labour in second place will be virtually wiped out, even today's yougov shows a swing of 10.5% from LDs to Labour since the last election and no incumbent, however personally popular will survive that. The council elections have shown LD councillors swept away in the cities by Labour and I would expect the next election to confirm that

CarlottaVance

Great tweet:

RT @Senorchapman Lots of millenials at #Glasto to hear #RollingStones. Imagine 1965 20-somethings waiting for band that was big in 1917

TGOHF

MonikerDiCanio said:

Glad to see Salmond's Muirfield posturing exposed ;

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/sport/golf/tom-english-why-is-salmond-objecting-to-muirfield-1-2983909

What a hypocrite and creep.

Could apply to Eck or Tom English - a total twerp.

HYUFD

Plato - Shocked by that, met Kawczynski once and never had an inkling he was gay, although I suppose he would seem to be bisexual, but anyway good luck to him and his new partner

richardDodd

You have a tattoo..you pay for it.You have it removed..you pay for it.Why should a taxpayer fork out for a medcal team to remove the idiot emblem

Morris_Dancer

Good morning (again), everyone.

Didn't realise Sven Dicksson had come back. Welcome back, Mr. Dickson.

JackW

I note Young Dickson of the North hath returned to add to the continuing gaiety of PB.

Plato

CarlottaVance said:

Great tweet:

RT @Senorchapman Lots of millenials at #Glasto to hear #RollingStones. Imagine 1965 20-somethings waiting for band that was big in 1917

LOL