UK General Election - May 7th 2015

[Clyde1998]

Labour have put up probably the worst possible candidate they could have in Gordon.

What has he done?

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-cream-of-the-crop/

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

It wouldn't surprise me if Scottish Labour are involved in some nefarious Producers plot to scupper the election for financial gain.

Story in the Times about a Tory candidate having an affair with a headmaster. Not particularly important in the grand scheme of things, but I was horrified to learn the phrase "Cameron's cuties" exists.

[You kip if you want to...]

Interesting analysis by Michael Ashcroft about Lib Dem defectors from 2010:

In particular, and crucially, the Lib Dems attracted a group of voters who did not want to vote for Gordon Brown and thought they had the luxury of voting against Labour without helping to elect a Conservative government. These people are numerous, and furious

What the Lib Dems have achieved, or how different from the Conservatives they can claim to be, is for them neither here nor there. As far as these people were concerned,  the Lib Dems’ most important job – their only job – was to keep the Tories out, and now look what they’ve done.

The Lib Dems aren't winning those voters back anytime soon! lol

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2013/03/what-are-the-liberal-democrats-for/

Stating the obvious, but okay.

As underwhelming as Ed may be, Labour would be doing worse if his brother were leader. If he couldn't manage to defeat his brother then he sure as heck wouldn't be on course to defeat David Cameron.

Plus, imagine him trying to take on any number of the (few) things that have gone right for Ed: phone hacking, Syria, price freeze, omnishambles, etc...

Labour have put up probably the worst possible candidate they could have in Gordon.

What has he done?

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-cream-of-the-crop/

When would Gordon ever have been a "winnable target for Ed Miliband"?

[politicus]

Labour have put up probably the worst possible candidate they could have in Gordon.

What has he done?

He is a 22 year old Northumbrian separatist, who has campaigned against Labour favouritism of Scottish students - and had never been to Scotland until two years ago.

[afleitch]

When would Gordon ever have been a "winnable target for Ed Miliband"?

Because the Lib Dems collapsed and Malcolm Bruce is retiring. Labour were second in the seat in 2005 and were just a bit behind the SNP in 2010.

[Joe Republic]

When would Gordon ever have been a "winnable target for Ed Miliband"?

Because the Lib Dems collapsed and Malcolm Bruce is retiring. Labour were second in the seat in 2005 and were just a bit behind the SNP in 2010.

Yes but with Salmond now running here and the SNP at 43% nationwide, why bother?

[You kip if you want to...]

When would Gordon ever have been a "winnable target for Ed Miliband"?

Because the Lib Dems collapsed and Malcolm Bruce is retiring. Labour were second in the seat in 2005 and were just a bit behind the SNP in 2010.

Yeah, but even pre-surge, it was going to probably go SNP. No one said Labour was in with a shout when Bruce said he was going.

[EPG]

Labour never got more than 30% there when the Liberals stood a candidate.

[MaxQue]

When would Gordon ever have been a "winnable target for Ed Miliband"?

Because the Lib Dems collapsed and Malcolm Bruce is retiring. Labour were second in the seat in 2005 and were just a bit behind the SNP in 2010.

Sorry, Afleitch, but that's anti-Labour hackery and you know it.

[afleitch]

When would Gordon ever have been a "winnable target for Ed Miliband"?

Because the Lib Dems collapsed and Malcolm Bruce is retiring. Labour were second in the seat in 2005 and were just a bit behind the SNP in 2010.

Sorry, Afleitch, but that's anti-Labour hackery and you know it.

It's not hackery to point out that Labour could have targeted Gordon! It only needs an 8% swing which isn't much more than they would need to take Cambridge from the Lib Dems. I'm not saying it was number 1 on their target list, but it's not entirely an un-winnable seat for them demographically speaking.

[afleitch]

An interesting graph from ncpolitics (which is a bit of a stat wank site but all good fun) on 'swingback.' While there are big heavy caveats it does suggest that if the swingback to the government is anything like the average, then the Tories could repeat their 7point lead over Labour.

[ChrisDR68]

As underwhelming as Ed may be, Labour would be doing worse if his brother were leader. If he couldn't manage to defeat his brother then he sure as heck wouldn't be on course to defeat David Cameron.

I disagree with this but obviously we'll never know. All I've heard at regular intervals on tv programmes such as This Week and the Daily Politics is mention of focus groups saying things like "he's not as good as his brother" and "not up to the job".

Every time I hear him in interviews (as against the usual 10 second news bulletin sound bites) I cringe or turn the sound down... but maybe that's just me lol

An interesting graph from ncpolitics (which is a bit of a stat wank site but all good fun) on 'swingback.' While there are big heavy caveats it does suggest that if the swingback to the government is anything like the average, then the Tories could repeat their 7point lead over Labour.

This is probably the hardest graph to decipher I've ever read

[bore]

I'm not saying the tories won't win (I'm inclined to think they will) but that graph seems to be the sort of thing, like, for instance, no president being re elected with X% unemployment, that's a rule until it isn't.

[afleitch]

I'm not saying the tories won't win (I'm inclined to think they will) but that graph seems to be the sort of thing, like, for instance, no president being re elected with X% unemployment, that's a rule until it isn't.

Oh yes, but every government since 1983 (even Major in '97) has seen a 'swingback' over the 6 months prior to an election. If this one doesn't it naturally breaks that rule. But it's a very good thing for the Conservatives to be neck and neck with their challengers at this point in the campaign.

[MaxQue]

When would Gordon ever have been a "winnable target for Ed Miliband"?

Because the Lib Dems collapsed and Malcolm Bruce is retiring. Labour were second in the seat in 2005 and were just a bit behind the SNP in 2010.

Sorry, Afleitch, but that's anti-Labour hackery and you know it.

It's not hackery to point out that Labour could have targeted Gordon! It only needs an 8% swing which isn't much more than they would need to take Cambridge from the Lib Dems. I'm not saying it was number 1 on their target list, but it's not entirely an un-winnable seat for them demographically speaking.

They never ever won Gordon or any past riding covering the area, nor they ever won it in Scottish Parliament. And it's likely Salmond will win that riding in a landslide anyways, no matter who Labour ran.

[Nichlemn]

I'm not saying the tories won't win (I'm inclined to think they will) but that graph seems to be the sort of thing, like, for instance, no president being re elected with X% unemployment, that's a rule until it isn't.

It's quite possibly a spurious relationship, but there's a difference between noting a correlation and asserting a binary "rule" that's cherrypicked and questionable. Nate Silver looked into claims like that for unemployment and found there was little evidence of a strong correlation between unemployment and Presidential votes, but particularly there was no reason to believe that there was some kind of "magic threshold".

[afleitch]

When would Gordon ever have been a "winnable target for Ed Miliband"?

Because the Lib Dems collapsed and Malcolm Bruce is retiring. Labour were second in the seat in 2005 and were just a bit behind the SNP in 2010.

Sorry, Afleitch, but that's anti-Labour hackery and you know it.

It's not hackery to point out that Labour could have targeted Gordon! It only needs an 8% swing which isn't much more than they would need to take Cambridge from the Lib Dems. I'm not saying it was number 1 on their target list, but it's not entirely an un-winnable seat for them demographically speaking.

They never ever won Gordon or any past riding covering the area, nor they ever won it in Scottish Parliament. And it's likely Salmond will win that riding in a landslide anyways, no matter who Labour ran.

But Salmond running only happened after the referendum as did the SNP surge. Labour in a more natural climate where they were trying to form a government could have targeted Gordon, even with Labour's vote maxed out in Scotland. While Salmond's personal vote here will more than likely replace Bruce's, had Salmond not stood and had the SNP not been in the position they are currently in, Labour could have challenged in this seat. I have the knowledge of the local political climate to know that to have been the case. Now it is off the table, as naturally it should be, because Salmond is standing there.

[Clyde1998]

An interesting graph from ncpolitics (which is a bit of a stat wank site but all good fun) on 'swingback.' While there are big heavy caveats it does suggest that if the swingback to the government is anything like the average, then the Tories could repeat their 7point lead over Labour.

So we should expect to improve their current position by around 4% by the general election?

[afleitch]

The guy that blogged it suggested that it would be between a 2 and 8 point Conservative lead; midpoint would be 5.

[bore]

Yeah, I agree that the conservatives probably like their position better than labour at the moment, just that, simply because we have so few data points, we shouldn't (not that afleitch was) say if we add 7 points to the tories current ratings we'll have our final result.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Opinion polling has changed substantially in recent years; all polling companies now modify their figures (though not in the same way) in an attempt to eliminate the volatility and perceived unreliability (the industry in Britain still operates in the shadow of 1992) of previous decades.* In some respects every published opinion poll is a prediction as much as it is a survey. This means that a degree of caution is required when assessing the use of historical polling patterns to a contemporary political situation.

_{*This is not necessarily a good thing.}

[YL]

Why are 2001 and 2005 omitted from that graph?

[Lurker]

I'm not saying the tories won't win (I'm inclined to think they will) but that graph seems to be the sort of thing, like, for instance, no president being re elected with X% unemployment, that's a rule until it isn't.

Oh yes, but every government since 1983 (even Major in '97) has seen a 'swingback' over the 6 months prior to an election. If this one doesn't it naturally breaks that rule. But it's a very good thing for the Conservatives to be neck and neck with their challengers at this point in the campaign.

Actually, Labour's lead at this point in 2001 and 2005 were bigger than their results in the election.

Also, it should be noted (obvious as it is) that even though the Tories are "neck-and-neck" in polls, that would translate to Labour easily getting more seats, by some margin. For the Tories to get a majority or even a plurality of seats, they need a substantial lead in the popular vote.

[MaxQue]

Mark Pack is a LibDem. Apparently LibDems diversified and now do misleading line charts, instead of sticking only to misleading bar charts.

[afleitch]

Why are 2001 and 2005 omitted from that graph?

Mark Pack is a LibDem. Apparently LibDems diversified and now do misleading line charts, instead of sticking only to misleading bar charts.

Because it's to do with Conservative governments and Labour was in power then. Labour's 2010 'swingback' is there for reference in red. You're all getting a wee bit defensive over some analysis! No one is saying that this is definitely going to happen.