Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Just 2 more YouGov daily polls this year and those who bet
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Just 2 more YouGov daily polls this year and those who bet on a 2013 cross-over look set to be disappointed
In the summer PaddyPower attracted a lot of betting interest with a new market on whether the Tories would over-take Labour in at least one poll before the end of the year.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Cameron's lead over Miliband:
All 15% (+6)
Ukip 21%
LD10 4%
(Today's YouGov)
17/18 Dec 2013 +15
11/12 Dec 2012 +8
20/21 Dec 2011 +19
21/22 Dec 2010 +15
Edit: on 2/3 May 2010 Cameron only had a 6% lead over Brown
The clock winds down on another long stretch of Labour opposition.
The next question being who succeeds Ed Miliband in the Autumn of 2015 ? .... and will it really matter come May 2020 ?
I fully expect right wing posters to say 'but I never predicted a Tory win' come 2015
Or maybe you will just change your name 'JackW'?
Con 301 .. Lab 276 .. LibDem 39
So possible Con minority or more likely another Coaltion government with the LibDems.
I've been JackW, warts and all, on PB since Mike Smithson stuck the first shilling in the site meter in 2004. You're stuck with me until the grim reaper attends .... he's tried before but Mrs JackW gave him a piece of her mind and he thought better off it.
My prediction is LAB most seats in a hung parliament but if everything goes the Tories' way they could end up with a handful more seats than LAB.
But I'm happy to go on record with that.
F1: Red Bull are losing out on two more leading engineers (to Mercedes, this time):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/25444218
I don't think this'll affect them in 2014, but in 2015 Newey will have lost about four of his chief lieutenants.
JackW's Chrimbo Quiz Question Coming Up Later ....
JackW is 924 years old...
I blame anyone with a 3-letter long moniker on PB for this..
I tweeted it - I'm clearly a groupie now.
Or is there no observable pattern to the changing fortunes of the parties over time?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10526825/Cameron-prepares-nuclear-option-on-EU-referendum.html
"David Cameron is prepared to use special constitutional powers to ensure that plans for an EU referendum become law before the next election.
The Prime Minister has pledged to use the Parliament Act to overpower the House of Lords and get the EU Referendum Bill onto the statute book before 2015, it is understood.
Mr Cameron fears the Bill, which promises to give the British public a vote on membership of the European Union by 2017, could be killed in the House of Lords by Labour and Liberal Democrat peers.
That would leave the Conservatives vulnerable to attacks by Ukip in the next election"
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2
to see if you can spot any other shifts worth mentioning - I can't! Non-YouGov polls have shown more of a UKIP increase, though.
What next ? He isn't as funny as he used to be ? *
* (c) Viz
I note AVB is a three letter moniker.
However I did make a profit overrall on The Spurs match, Thank you Emmanuel.
I concede it all went wrong for Spurs last night, the moment I started looking for odds on Spurs to win this season's Rumbelows cup.
I'm backing Southampton on Sunday.
And I've not even mentioned your prediction from last night.
Saints to beat Spurs is my latest prediction!
That said, I wouldn't anticipate it in the next two polls. There's only a 1 in 40 chance of a outlier favourable to the Tories and even including the marginal case, the prospect of one of the next two being such can't be more than about 1 in 15.
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/psq_4021.pdf
http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomphillips/how-the-media-will-report-the-apocalypse
It's got everything down perfectly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25444981
I'm also amused that he reckons London is draining the life out of the rest of the country, then uses the term 'provincial' to describe airports not in London. Shade patronising, given places like Leeds and Birmingham are actually in the same country, by any definition.
I also disagree with the comments, largely. Whilst London does get an unfair proportion of museums, art galleries and so forth some degree of this is legitimate given the larger number of people who live there than elsewhere. Also, London does pay its way.
I dislike the London Vs Everywhere Else mentality. If we ever got Labour's mad regional assemblies it'd break up England pretty quickly, as Everywhere Else would demand more central funding, and we'd have a new political War of the Roses almost immediately.
It's true that the polls have given Labour a healthy, election winning lead for some time but there's also plenty of evidence - leader ratings etc - to suggest that no small part of it is pretty unenthusiastic. With the economic debate moving steadily to the Coalition parties (which itself may limit the number of LD losses), that lead looks even less secure.
On the other hand, can the Tories build on their 2010 position? It's only a few gains that'd be needed (assuming they hold what they have) but making those gains again will be no easy task.
In 2010 the winning party made 97.
In 1997 the winning party made 145.
In 1979 the winning party made 62.
In 1970 the winning party made 70.
And so on. In most elections where power has changed hands 68 has been perfectly achievable, and given Labour's inbuilt advantages this time around it is more than possible, it is likely.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/71704000/jpg/_71704747_pa-15724210.jpg ?
Telegraph normally has good ones too.
In any case, 1979 falls short of Labour's requirement, as did 1951 and 1964, when power also changed. On the other hand, without checking, I think 1950 would fit the bill?
Even so, in the 16 general elections since the end of WWII, only two have seen gains on the scale necessary to give Labour a workable majority.
However:
1) Much of the money would be spent on London anyway, for instance on Crossrail 2 and various other projects.
2) There would still be a massively problematic capacity crunch on the railway north of London.
As I have said passim, we need to look into why infrastructure costs us so much when compared to our continental neighbours, and why costs have increased massively over the last two or three decades.
More good news from the UK economy.
As I have said passim, we need to look into why infrastructure costs us so much when compared to our continental neighbours, and why costs have increased massively over the last two or three decades.
Absolutely. This is something that comes up in, for instance, Modern Railways repeatedly (I love to read about the civil engineering -shades of Brunel etc.) One reason has to be railway privatisation and fragmentation into n involved entities and n squared interactions - all good for lawyers and accountants. But this can't explain things like roadworks??
Also Cameron's position falls by 9, as we saw in October, when Farage is put on YouGov's options list.
That could mean the conservative vote share is over estimated and Labours lead maybe less flaky than is also assumed (as someone pointed out last night this would be true if UKIP took 6 Tory votes for every 4 labour)
Seems like kippers get under the skin of con and lab equally.... Analgous to the stereotyped version of incumbent residents to newcomers in a country.... They get the blame, let's keep them out, we like it the way it was, don't give them the same rights etc etc
Some of the changes are relatively rapid - the post-Coalition transfer of Lib Dem votes to Labour, the Vetogasm and Omnishambles. Others are slower - see the steady rise of UKIP taking votes from Labour and Conservatives - which has partially subsided on the Tory-UKIP axis.
That is without considering the knock on effects on other parties. I'm thinking in terms of Labour being seen to be in bed with the Tories in Scotland as part of the No Campaign, which may be a reason for their relatively poor performance there at the moment, or the psychological impacts of Mr Cameron being seen as saving or losing the UK on the Tories vs UKIP further south.
As has been pointed out here there is more than one dividing line in UK politics than the indy referendum - but where the two faults cross is going to be a very weak area ...
Instead of adding Farage they should remove Clegg.
Who are they and what links these three distinguished parliamentarians :
a. Our Andrea's number one now resides in our mans old pad. £1.5M bought plenty then
b. Bob's your uncle, Attlee thought him a top man among his peers. Blacks probably not.
c. Red box problems abounded but he played a first class straight bat.
Meanwhile, the Eurosceptical OpenEurope have run a wargame on hypothetical treaty negotiations, which may or or may not be predictive but anyway makes an interesting read and gives some comfort to all sides:
http://www.euractiv.com/uk-europe/france-sheds-tears-brexit-news-532314?utm_source=EurActiv Newsletter&utm_campaign=6800b65d31-newsletter_uk_in_europe&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bab5f0ea4e-6800b65d31-245514803
@Pulpstar - Sorry, not Geoffrey Howe.
My Labour voting friend was round yesterday when a clip of Milliband came on the news on the radio. Her exact words were "Who is that weirdo? He can't even speak properly".
Smacks of 1960s "grandfather" approach to commonwealth immigration, which basically was a cowardly way of stopping non whites entering the country while trying to appear inclusive.
Another thought I had was that the EU free movement of labour between EU states could be seen retrospectively as racist by Asian, African and Caribbean countries... A cosy agreement between white nations to benefit their citizens while the others have to pass tests, and fit requirements to work in the country
ISTM there's a lack of coherence to Miliband's political philosophy (indeed, I couldn't remotely articulate what it is; can anyone help me out?) and that will surely get exposed as the general election draws near. Opposing the government is fine and is obviously a necessary part of the leader of the opposition's role, but what is Miliband proposing as an alternative? What are his answers to the UK's problems?
@Theuniondivvie
Correct. The Earl of Home is c
The red box problems refers to his time in the Scottish Office when the present Queen ascended the throne. New post boxes in Scotland were deemed unsuitable for the EIIR cipher as there had been no Scottish Elizabeth I. PM Churchill introduced the convention whereby the higher regnal number of English and Scottish monarchs would be used for future sovereigns.
Lord Home also is the only PM to have played first class cricket in his youth - Oxford University, Middlesex and the MCC.
'Santa Brings Yes A Little Present?'
http://tinyurl.com/oyr3tn9
In any case, if we accept UNS, and assume a poll share of 9% for UKIP, 15% for the Lib Dems and 7% for Nationalists and others, leaving 69% for Labour and Conservatives (+2.36 on 2010) then the Hung Parliament zone ranges from a 7% Conservative lead (38:31) to a 1.4% Labour lead (33.8:35.2).
I think it is quite unlikely that the Conservatives will increase their vote share on 2010, and they would need to do so by just over 1 percentage point to win a majority. So, either a Labour majority or Hung Parliament must be the most likely option.
For Labour to win a majority they would likely need to match the vote share they achieved in 2005, with the Tories returning most of the way to their 2005 vote share. I don't particularly see that happening either.
Their by-election performances simply haven't been that impressive. My figures above suggest that Labour require a swing of 4.4% to win a majority. My best guess now is that they will achieve a swing of around 3% - which would leave them with roughly the same number of seats as the Conservatives currently hold.
So they don't have to outperform my expectations by that much to achieve a majority, but I think that they are more downside risks for an Opposition.
It's got little to do with railway privatisation, because as you say, we seem to see the same picture on roads as well. I don't rad Modern Railways - is it any good? (*)
It might also not be a real effect: I've crunched some numbers in the past, and infrastructure projects of all types seem to be increasing in costs at a rate way ahead of inflation, but it is hard to discover a) accurate costs and b) equivalent projects.
There are other possible options, which may not be mutually exclusive or even real: increased profits, the burden of legislation, machinery and manpower costs.
I would really like someone to look into this. But it should not be anyone connected in any way to the big engineering conglomerates.
I'm available for a price. :-)
(*) You might also like the following:
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/
http://www.therailengineer.com/
1945: 92.2%
1950: 95.5%
1951: 98.6%
1955: 98.7%
1959: 98.9%
1964: 98.6%
1966: 97.9%
1970: 98.1%
1974 (1): 94.2%
1974 (2): 93.9%
1979: 95.7%
1983: 93.2%
1987: 93.1%
1992: 93.2%
1997: 88.5%
2001: 87.7%
2005: 83.3%
2010: 86.7%
As you can see, it is possible to win a healthy overall majority even when one in six seats is held by a minor party and it is possible to have a hung Parliament even when only fewer than one in seventeen seats is held by a minor party.
The story since the second world war is in general a story of a rise in the seat count for minor parties. I'm expecting the 2015 election result to produce a combined Labour/Conservative seat count of approximately 90% on this table. That gives plenty of scope for a hung Parliament.
Milliband is probably trying to keep a low-profile whilst relying on low information, tribal and anti-Tory voters to get him home.
The real problems will start for Labour whilst in office. Milliband and Balls will be on the telly every day for 5 years. That isn't going to do them much good in the long term.
@Theuniondivvie - In 1951 when Churchill was returned to office Lord Home was made Minister of State at the Scottish Office and remained there until 1955 when new PM Eden elevated him to the cabinet as SoS for the Commonwealth.
Essex not the place to get ill
(BTW, your comment reminds me of the old joke about Nixon and Khrushchev:
When Nixon visited Moscow, he and Khrushchev had a race around the Kremlin. Nixon came the first. The Russian media reported that: "In the international running competition the General Secretary of the Communist Party took the honorable second place, while President Nixon came in next to last" )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Balfour
I've come to the conclusion that Labour are essentially the anti-Tory party and nothing else. In 2005 for the election their main selling point after 8 years in power was "vote for us to stop the Tories getting in".
How often do you hear Labour shouting about the Tories even when the same thing applies to them eg. non-dom donors
I wouldn't suggest he should do this now as it will have fizzled by the time of the election. December 2014 might be a good time to break out the photo ops with some Johnny-come-lately Labour Business convert.
Also, I remember at conference time there were articles written about how Labour had shown too much leg by releasing lots of policy. People stopped referring to the blank sheet of paper meme for a month then decided the old tunes are the best and returned to pretending Labour have no policies
Damage energy investment by forcing a price freeze, which will also disproportionately harm smaller providers
Damage the housing market by attacking firms who have the temerity to make a profit after numerous years of losses
Oh and allowing councils to build new homes outside their own boundaries. Which sounds mental.
It is madness, plain and simple.
a. Our Andrea's number one now resides in our mans old pad. £1.5M bought plenty then
New Clue - See Naples and die .... from the bay terrace.
b. Bob's your uncle, Attlee thought him a top man among his peers. Blacks probably not.
There were no Elizabeth I post boxes in Hatfield when my kinsman lived there.