UK General Election - May 7th 2015

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Here's the thing: there's a none too unreasonable chance that the greens will multiply their 2010 vote by more than six times and simultaneously lose their only seat.

FPTP, don't you love it !!

It makes elections a hell of a lot more interesting.

nah, the most interesting results come from STV

I assume you guys have all seen the Plaid-SNP-Green "alliance"? It seems they will barter in a block in a minority government - and scrapping Trident is one of their key demands (good!). Plaid, bless them, seem rather lost at the moment. Look at the next Welsh Assembly polls - they barely have improved from their 2011 drubbing, and sometimes slip below UKIP.

Chilcott inquiry will not be published before the election, despite calls by MP's.

Some criticism of Farage's health insurance policy, courtesy of UKIP's health spokesperson.

[afleitch]

Crazy Poll week continued with YouGov

CON - 32
LAB - 30
UKIP - 15
GRN - 10
LIB - 8

[You kip if you want to...]

If this election's lost because of Green voters, Natalie Bennett and Caroline Lucas deserve to be 'Nader'ed.

[afleitch]

SNP at 52% in Scotland with Ipsos Mori

[politicus]

SNP at 52% in Scotland with Ipsos Mori

What has been their best polling so far?

[You kip if you want to...]

The Lab situation in Scotland makes Tories 1997 look like a walk in the park.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

If this election's lost because of Green voters, Natalie Bennett and Caroline Lucas deserve to be 'Nader'ed.

Are you becoming BTRD? The Greens don't have the power to tank the election. Labour seem perfectly happy to do that to themselves - as the behaviour of Murphy and various other people coming out of the woodwork demonstrates.

I'm increasingly glum about this election mainly because of Scotland.

[Insula Dei]

If this election's lost because of Green voters, Natalie Bennett and Caroline Lucas deserve to be 'Nader'ed.

Are you becoming BTRD? The Greens don't have the power to tank the election. Labour seem perfectly happy to do that to themselves - as the behaviour of Murphy and various other people coming out of the woodwork demonstrates.

I'm increasingly glum about this election mainly because of Scotland.

A major problem also is that Labour's been banging on about the 'cost of living crisis' for the past two years and that wages do seem to be picking up at just about the worst possible moment for that tortuous case to cut any wood, so that they're stuck with attacking the government over the NHS, which is going to look slightly disingenuous. There's no clear message to show for  5 years of opposition as far as I can see.

On the other hand, if the party is in the low 20's in Scotland and still ahead of the Tories in national polls, they're presumably doing okay in English marginals.

[YL]

SNP at 52% in Scotland with Ipsos Mori

What has been their best polling so far?

Their previous best was also 52%, also in a Mori poll, back in October:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_United_Kingdom_general_election#Scotland

[Clyde1998]

SNP at 52% in Scotland with Ipsos Mori

What has been their best polling so far?

Their previous best was also 52%, also in a Mori poll, back in October:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_United_Kingdom_general_election#Scotland

Poll to two decimal figures:
SNP - 52.54% (should be rounded up to 53% on the headline figures)
Labour - 24.04%
Conservative - 12.33%
Liberal Democrat - 4.31%
Green - 3.70%
UKIP - 1.23%
Socialists - 0.92%
Independents - 0.77%
Other - 0.15%

33% of SNP voters say they are "much less likely" to vote Labour now Jim Murphy has become Scottish Labour leader, and he has a trust rating of -42% among SNP supporters.

[ChrisDR68]

If this election's lost because of Green voters, Natalie Bennett and Caroline Lucas deserve to be 'Nader'ed.

If Labour loses it will be because they chose the wrong brother as their leader 5 years ago.

[Phony Moderate]

If this election's lost because of Green voters, Natalie Bennett and Caroline Lucas deserve to be 'Nader'ed.

If Labour loses it will be because they chose the wrong brother as their leader 5 years ago.

Same thing would be being said if they had chosen David.

[EPG]

On the other hand, if the party is in the low 20's in Scotland and still ahead of the Tories in national polls, they're presumably doing okay in English marginals.

Thumbs up. An important point as I see it. But, remember that Scotland's population is small compared to England's.

To put some numbers on this effect, a 12% fall in Labour's Scottish vote causes a 1% fall in their GB-wide vote, which is what polls purport to reflect. Another way to think of this is that a 10% fall in the Scottish vote is almost equal and opposite to a 1% rise in the English vote. Finally, an 11% fall in the Scottish vote is mirrored by a 1% rise in the England and Wales vote.

So if Labour is down by about 18 points in Scotland compared to 2010, that is reflected in a 1.5% lower GB figure. They got 29.5% GB-wide last time, so they begin the rest of this analysis at 28%. Take that as given. If they poll 31% GB-wide, up 1.5 points from last time, they must have gained over 3 points in England and Wales. If they poll 35%, up 5.5 points, they are actually up 7.5 in England and Wales.

What does an extra 2 points mean in seats? This kind of crude thought experiment is where uniform national swing is actually useful, where we know the figure we produce is only giving us a rough idea. UNS on 2010 figures in England and Wales suggests a 2 point swing to Labour from Conservatives is typically worth 20 to 30 seats; a swing from Lib Dems is worth 10 to 20 seats. In gap terms (Labour minus Conservative), the Conservative 2 point swing is worth 40 to 60 and the Lib Dem swing is worth 15 to 30.

These figures are slightly vulnerable to regional variation in turnout rate changes.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Oakeshott seems to want to be the Steyer of Britain, donates ££ to "progressive" Lib Dems, Labour and Caroline Lucas.

The seven sitting Lib Dems:

Norman Baker, Lorely Burt, Tessa Munt, John Pugh, Martin Horwood, Adrian Sanders and Jenny Willott

as well as the new candidates for Watford, Berwick, Winchester and Devon West (apparently he wants to decapitate Letwin or something? )

and 30 Labour newbies fighting marginals (as well as the candidate for Great Grimsby, for fear of a kipper surge.)

[EPG]

Not insignificant - a necessary step for the SNP to align towards a Labour government at Westminster.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Crazy Poll week continued with YouGov

CON - 32
LAB - 30
UKIP - 15
GRN - 10
LIB - 8

While the one out tonight from them (and curiously the Sun made less fuss of this, does anyone have any theories as to why?) reads: Labour 34, Con 33, UKIP 14, Green 8, LDem 6

[Zanas]

If this election's lost because of Green voters, Natalie Bennett and Caroline Lucas deserve to be 'Nader'ed.

Are you becoming BTRD? The Greens don't have the power to tank the election. Labour seem perfectly happy to do that to themselves.

Yes, let's just all end this "the election was lost because of spoilt votes for party Y instead of X" routine. We know better, don't we ? An election is lost because party X didn't convince enough voters to vote for party X instead of party A, B, or even Y, or even staying at home eating crisps watching telly. Period.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Devon West (apparently he wants to decapitate Letwin or something? )

Letwin is West Dorset not West Devon. West Devon they held 1997-2005.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A major problem also is that Labour's been banging on about the 'cost of living crisis' for the past two years and that wages do seem to be picking up at just about the worst possible moment for that tortuous case to cut any wood,

On the contrary, it will take years (and not one or two at that) for living standards to recover to where were before the financial crisis hit, and people are aware of this instinctively (i.e. when people talk of there being 'no recovery' - as they still often do - this is what they mean). It's a good line of attack (and happens to be morally right, though that's by the by), but the question is whether Labour can deliver it effectively during the campaign.

[ObserverIE]

While the one out tonight from them (and curiously the Sun made less fuss of this, does anyone have any theories as to why?) reads: Labour 34, Con 33, UKIP 14, Green 8, LDem 6

"Nicole, 22, from Bournemouth" was too busy to phone in her analysis?

[SNJ1985]

I know little about UK politics, but is there a possible for a Conservative-UKIP coalition?

Well for one thing, UKIP will probably only win 2 seats. 3 would be like a huge feat. Even then, that's not going to be the difference between a minority and a majority. So it's a moot point.

Nothing can be written off for UKIP. They were underestimated in the 2013 locals, last year's local and Europeans, so I'd assume this years GE too.

What do you think their ceiling is in the GE?

[afleitch]

I know little about UK politics, but is there a possible for a Conservative-UKIP coalition?

Well for one thing, UKIP will probably only win 2 seats. 3 would be like a huge feat. Even then, that's not going to be the difference between a minority and a majority. So it's a moot point.

Nothing can be written off for UKIP. They were underestimated in the 2013 locals, last year's local and Europeans, so I'd assume this years GE too.

Actually if anything, UKIP are over-estimated in the polls. They had a worse set of local elections in 2014 than they did in 2013, down 5% to 17% in the estimated national vote share. In the European elections held on the same day, they were overestimated by a range of 1-6 points in national polling at the time (Labour were also slightly overestimated and the Tories underestimated) YouGov called that one 'correct'; they had had UKIP sitting lower in the polls in the final two weeks than other pollsters, but incorrectly had them just behind Labour until their last poll.

[Insula Dei]

A major problem also is that Labour's been banging on about the 'cost of living crisis' for the past two years and that wages do seem to be picking up at just about the worst possible moment for that tortuous case to cut any wood,

On the contrary, it will take years (and not one or two at that) for living standards to recover to where were before the financial crisis hit, and people are aware of this instinctively (i.e. when people talk of there being 'no recovery' - as they still often do - this is what they mean). It's a good line of attack (and happens to be morally right, though that's by the by), but the question is whether Labour can deliver it effectively during the campaign.

I'm clearly in no position to estimate the mood on the ground (who is, though?), but as far as I can see the line doesn't play too well with the mainstream media. The narrative at this point seems to be one of economic growth and dipping unemployment figures. There are worse circumstances for an incumbent government to be fighting an election campaign under.

(I'm not disagreeing with you as to the reality of the matter, but I'm feeling slightly despondent of the quality of Labour's communication at the moment. Not saying it'll cost them the election, as what's actually being said is hardly the most important thing at this point.)

[afleitch]

A major problem also is that Labour's been banging on about the 'cost of living crisis' for the past two years and that wages do seem to be picking up at just about the worst possible moment for that tortuous case to cut any wood,

On the contrary, it will take years (and not one or two at that) for living standards to recover to where were before the financial crisis hit, and people are aware of this instinctively (i.e. when people talk of there being 'no recovery' - as they still often do - this is what they mean). It's a good line of attack (and happens to be morally right, though that's by the by), but the question is whether Labour can deliver it effectively during the campaign.

I'm clearly in no position to estimate the mood on the ground (who is, though?), but as far as I can see the line doesn't play too well with the mainstream media. The narrative at this point seems to be one of economic growth and dipping unemployment figures. There are worse circumstances for an incumbent government to be fighting an election campaign under.

(I'm not disagreeing with you as to the reality of the matter, but I'm feeling slightly despondent of the quality of Labour's communication at the moment. Not saying it'll cost them the election, as what's actually being said is hardly the most important thing at this point.)

Given that Labour were at worse nurse to or at least chaperone to the economic crisis it probably won't give them much of a boost. In opinion polls on who to blame for the current economic problems, Labour still score highly.

[ChrisDR68]

On the contrary, it will take years (and not one or two at that) for living standards to recover to where were before the financial crisis hit, and people are aware of this instinctively (i.e. when people talk of there being 'no recovery' - as they still often do - this is what they mean). It's a good line of attack (and happens to be morally right, though that's by the by), but the question is whether Labour can deliver it effectively during the campaign.

Allied to this though is the rapidly falling petrol and household energy prices (something I didn't expect a year ago but am very happy about as everybody else is I'm sure . Couple this with the personal allowance finally reaching £10,000 in the spring and a lot of people will be feeling quite buoyant about their personal finances just in time for the general election.