Dear oh dear Ed Milliband, what a joke of a man !!!

[Gilzeantoscore]

BTW Trots were those who broke along with Trotsky after he was expelled from the USSR. They adhere to a view that for socialism to succeed it must be based on International revolution, whereas the Stalinists believed in state socialism. George Orwell was a Trot. He fought with a Trot military unit in the Spanish Civil War POUM (Party of United Marxism.)

 

[the dza]

BTW Trots were those who broke along with Trotsky after he was expelled from the USSR. They adhere to a view that for socialism to succeed it must be based on International revolution, whereas the Stalinists believed in state socialism. George Orwell was a Trot. He fought with a Trot military unit in the Spanish Civil War POUM (Party of United Marxism.)

I think I will re-read Homage to Catalonia -- got a lot of love for Eric Arthur Blair!

 

[ShelfLife]

What's all this crap about UKIP winning a bag of seats? Wishful thinking? They will play their part by stealing valuable votes from the 'born to rulers' in marginal seats. They will win about a dozen, but that is it.

'Born to rule pony fukkers'

One of the many great lines from The Thick of It.

 

[markysimmo]

Ed Miliband attacks Sports Direct for employing people on Zero Hour contracts.

Meanwhile, 62 Labour MPs employ staff on Zero Hour contracts

 

[r-u-s-x]

Ed Miliband attacks Sports Direct for employing people on Zero Hour contracts.

Meanwhile, 62 Labour MPs employ staff on Zero Hour contracts

I am against 0 hour contracts in principle, the labour stance is not. They say workers who are actually working regular hours should not be on them. These 62 do not necessarily go against this view point

 

[the dza]

Latest polls --

Comres:

CON 30%, LAB 34%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 19%, GRN 3%.

YouGov:

Con 31%, Lab 33%, LD 7%, UKIP 18%

__________________________________________

Despite all the stuff being thrown at Milliband, and the narrowing of the Labour lead over the course of the parliament, the numbers are bad for the Tory's. Even if they were a couple of points infront, they wouldn't win enough seats to for a majority (whereas Labour would, just about).

It will be an interesting election, but 1 thing is almost certain -- the country will not vote for a Conservative majority (yet again).

 

[markysimmo]

How many people are asked in these polls ??

 

[the dza]

How many people are asked in these polls ??

A couple of thousand, normally. Which is obviously a small sample size, so any 1 poll in isolation isn't particularly useful.

But polls taken week after week, from multiple poling organisations, over the course of months/years can give you a picture of what's going on. IIRC, they were pretty accurate for the last General Election.

 

[milo]

How many people are asked in these polls ??

ComRes interviewed 2,000 British adults online between November 12 and 14. Data was weighted to be demographically representative of all British adults and by past vote recall.

http://gu.com/p/43bmc

 

[scaramanga]

Latest polls --

Comres:

CON 30%, LAB 34%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 19%, GRN 3%.

YouGov:

Con 31%, Lab 33%, LD 7%, UKIP 18%

__________________________________________

Despite all the stuff being thrown at Milliband, and the narrowing of the Labour lead over the course of the parliament, the numbers are bad for the Tory's. Even if they were a couple of points infront, they wouldn't win enough seats to for a majority (whereas Labour would, just about).

It will be an interesting election, but 1 thing is almost certain -- the country will not vote for a Conservative majority (yet again).

The party currently in power always polls low. As do the Conservatives in general as their supporters tend to be less open about their politics.

If those are the numbers being polled them the real figure will be more like 36-40.

 

[scaramanga]

You could say the same of the labour market if it was started all today. Also if we are starting with a blank page,there would be no hospitals or schools,or police,or roads. People may well pay more than 40% to get those.

Aside from the bullying of unions and the ridiculous notion that one can strike without being immediately sacked, I think the labour market is precisely as one would start it from scratch. Obviously nobody would be stupid enough to suggest a minimum wage, but overall not a lot would change.

Anyway it is a thought experiment that bares no basis in reality. 50% is not a shocking left wing politics of envy position. After all the top rate of tax for the majority of your hero Mrs Thatcher's reign as prime minister was 60% was she a trot as well ?

50% is an obscene proportion of tax to charge anyone. Why on earth would any right-minded person want to take half of someone's money away just because they work harder or are more intelligent?
As for Thatcher, we've had that discussion - I'd accept a brief tax rise with the aim being long-term low taxes. What I can't accept though is the politics of the lazy and jealous who don't understand economics.

 

[the dza]

The party currently in power always polls low. As do the Conservatives in general as their supporters tend to be less open about their politics.

If those are the numbers being polled them the real figure will be more like 36-40.

I don't think this was true in 2010, and it's unlikely to be true now. The methods have changed a lot since 1992, for the better.

From Ashcroft polling of marginals to the general trend across all other polls, The Tory's are nowhere near on course to get a majority.

 

[scaramanga]

I don't think this was true in 2010, and it's unlikely to be true now. The methods have changed a lot since 1992, for the better.

From Ashcroft polling of marginals to the general trend across all other polls, The Tory's are nowhere near on course to get a majority.

The methods aren't exactly complex - certainly not for yougov.

They don't ever intend to predict an election - they're openly just polls. Often they'll try and get a balanced cross-section of voters and often they'll adjust for marginals, etc. That doesn't change the three things that will increase the Conservative vote from those figures (barring any major fvck ups) :

1) The sitting govt always polls low
2) Labour voters are far more vocal than their Conservative counterparts
3) Fringe parties always poll high

I agree that the Conservatives won't get a majority, nobody will. The Conservatives will probably get the first option to form one though. Everything coming from the Lib Dems about reducing the deficit responsibly and fairly is clearly an overture to forming another coalition with the Conservatives. UKIP would jump straight in with them too if they do better than the Lib Dems (which they could easily).

Labour have weirded themselves into a corner where the lazy and the fiscally incompetent may vote for them, but only the Greens will help them form a government.

 

[the dza]

We are currently 6 months or so from the election in May 2015.

Sourced from http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2005-2010

6 months before election in May 2010:----------------(C%------L%-----LD%):

YouGov/Telegraph--2009-11-26----------------------------39-------29--------19
Opinium/--2009-11-20-----------------------------------------38-------30--------12
Ipsos-MORI/Observer--2009-11-15-----------------------37------31--------17
ICM/Guardian--2009-11-15----------------------------------42-------29--------19
Opinium/--2009-11-13------------------------------------------39-------29-------16
YouGov/Sunday Times--2009-11-13---------------------41-------27-------18
ComRes/Independent on Sunday--2009-11-12-------39-------25-------17
Populus/Times--2009-11-08---------------------------------39-------29-------18

As you can see, Tory's were always well ahead of Labour, and ended up winning with 36% of the vote. Labour ended up with 29%, roughly what they were polling 6 months out (as you can see above). In this case, the party in power was not polling low. Lib Dems got 23%. Tory's polled a bit high, Lib Dems a bit low, Labour pretty much on the money.

In the 2005 election, the share of the vote was Con-32% Lab-35% LD-22%

sourced from http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005

6 months before the 2005 election, the polls were (C%---L%---LD%):

YouGov/Telegraph--25/11/04-------------------------------32 35 23
CommRes/Independent on Sunday--25/11/04-------31 42 20
ICM/Guardian--14/11/04--------------------------------------30 38 22
NOP/Independent-14/11/04---------------------------------30 39 20
MORI--08/11/04-------------------------------------------------31 35 23
Populus/Times--07/11/04------------------------------------33 34 22

As you can see, half of the polls were spot on, the other half had the government of the day polling high. The Tory poll nubers were either on the money, or within 1-2 points.

So that's the 2 previous elections, where the incumbent government did not poll high and the Tory's did not poll low.

 

[scaramanga]

In that instance the Conservatives really did screw up during the run in. They should have walked it but Cameron ruined just about every public opportunity he had.
I don't expect him to do that this time - he's improved his public speaking and, frankly, he could walk on stage, take a dump and fist his own mother and he'd still come out of it looking better than David's brother.

 

[the dza]

In that instance the Conservatives really did screw up during the run in. They should have walked it but Cameron ruined just about every public opportunity he had.
I don't expect him to do that this time - he's improved his public speaking and, frankly, he could walk on stage, take a dump and fist his own mother and he'd still come out of it looking better than David's brother.

I knew you'd have a "yeah but no but" and that's why I put 2005 in as well. Incumbent government in 2005 polled high, Tory polling was at or near the mark (1-2 point range). But the facts don't support part of your argument, that Tory's always poll low (they don't) and sitting governments always poll low (they don't). I wouldn't bother going back beyond 2005, as the accuracy of the polls is likely to become less and less relevant the further back you go.

Ashcroft (that well known Trot) currently polls that Labour will be the largest party. At the moment, it seems likely that they will have to decide who to go into government with in a coalition. My own feeling is that UKIP will start to eat more into the Tory vote after Rochester, and Labour will pick up after Milliband debates Cameron in the TV debates (like Clegg last time). So I think Labour will get a small majority, though I wouldn't bet my life on it.

I wonder if Alex Salmond will end up as the next Deputy Prime Minister! :lol:

It's all bullsh1t, but I find it interesting.

 

[scaramanga]

I knew you'd have a "yeah but no but" and that's why I put 2005 in as well. Incumbent government in 2005 polled high, Tory polling was at or near the mark (1-2 point range). But the facts don't support part of your argument, that Tory's always poll low (they don't) and sitting governments always poll low (they don't). I wouldn't bother going back beyond 2005, as the accuracy of the polls is likely to become less and less relevant the further back you go.

Ashcroft (that well known Trot) currently polls that Labour will be the largest party. At the moment, it seems likely that they will have to decide who to go into government with in a coalition. My own feeling is that UKIP will start to eat more into the Tory vote after Rochester, and Labour will pick up after Milliband debates Cameron in the TV debates (like Clegg last time). So I think Labour will get a small majority, though I wouldn't bet my life on it.

I wonder if Alex Salmond will end up as the next Deputy Prime Minister! :lol:

It's all bullsh1t, but I find it interesting.

I honestly don't know about 2005. I was out of the country more than I was in it at that time. I didn't see any of the run up to the election.

Regarding the run in for this one, you seriously think the 'special' one will do anything other than dive bomb if he tries to speak in front of the public?

Labour's best chance of winning this election is to lock him in a basement somewhere, give him a steady routine and a lot of number puzzles and keep him as far from cameras and the public as possible.

 

[the dza]

Come on, you seriously think the 'special' one will do anything other than dive bomb if he tries to speak in front of the public?

Labour's best chance of winning this election is to lock him in a basement somewhere, give him a steady routine and a lot of number puzzles and keep him as far from cameras and the public as possible.

:lol: You could well be right.

But I think that the centre-ground voters, the pussies with no balls who decide elections, they will prefer what Milliband has to say than what Cameron has to say. They won't be going to Ukip. The more right-wing Tories will just get angry listening to DC, and get all wet and moist for Farage. The fantasists on the left (like myself) might vote Green, not vote, or vote for Milliband depending on what he has to say. I do think that the debates will only harm Cameron, which is why he isn't too keen on them.

 

[Paxtonloudmouth]

I honestly don't know about 2005. I was out of the country more than I was in it at that time. I didn't see any of the run up to the election.

Regarding the run in for this one, you seriously think the 'special' one will do anything other than dive bomb if he tries to speak in front of the public?

Labour's best chance of winning this election is to lock him in a basement somewhere, give him a steady routine and a lot of number puzzles and keep him as far from cameras and the public as possible.

I have 150 pounds on Ed winning the television debates.

 

[Paxtonloudmouth]

:lol: You could well be right.

But I think that the centre-ground voters, the pussies with no balls who decide elections, they will prefer what Milliband has to say than what Cameron has to say. They won't be going to Ukip. The more right-wing Tories will just get angry listening to DC, and get all wet and moist for Farage. The fantasists on the left (like myself) might vote Green, not vote, or vote for Milliband depending on what he has to say. I do think that the debates will only harm Cameron, which is why he isn't too keen on them.

Shhhhh,we know this. It is only the Tories who don't seem to know it.