UK General Election - May 7th 2015
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 04:21:05 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  International Elections (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  UK General Election - May 7th 2015
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 59 60 61 62 63 [64] 65 66 67 68 69 ... 75
Author Topic: UK General Election - May 7th 2015  (Read 275005 times)
Gary J
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 286
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1575 on: February 27, 2015, 11:40:23 PM »

Ed Milliband's principal rival was his older brother David. David's reputation has risen because he was not elected, but I always thought that Ed was better at simulating normal human behaviour than David was. No doubt if David had been elected, the general opinion now would be that Ed would have been the better option.

The other candidates for the Labour leadership were Ed Balls (now Shadow Chancellor), Andy Burnham (former Health Secretary now shadowing the job) and Diane Abbott (a black London MP who appears on television a lot).

A truly dreadful field. I would not have voted for any of them, even if I had been a Labour supporter. However, if absolutely forced to choose, I would concede that Ed was the least worst of them.

Mind you the recent Conservative and Liberal Democrat leadership candidates have not been much better. I think all UK parties had better quality leaders in the past. At least they usually tended to have been prominent political figures for a lengthy period, during which they had done things and stood for something more important than winning the next election.


Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1576 on: February 28, 2015, 05:40:58 AM »

Update:
Here is a list of seats (excluding the Speaker's seat and Northern Ireland) where Labour currently has no candidate, based on the list of candidates compiled by andyajs of the VoteUK forum.

Arundel & South Downs
Banff & Buchan
Beaconsfield
Bradford West
South Cambridgeshire
North Cornwall
South East Cornwall
East Devon
Edmonton*
Grantham & Stamford
Halifax*
North East Hampshire
Midlothian*
Orkney & Shetland
East Surrey
Torfaen*
Truro & Falmouth
Yeovil
York Central*

Seats marked with an asterisk have had their sitting Labour MPs announce their retirements fairly recently.  I think it's fair to say that all the others, with one exception which is related to some recent posts, are no hopers for the party (even if one of them had a Labour MP fairly recently due to a defection).
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1577 on: February 28, 2015, 08:12:03 AM »

And we have another dodgy constituency poll!

South Thanet, courtesy of Survation (oh dear) and funded by UKIP donor Alan Bown: UKIP 39, Labour 28, Con 27, Green 3, LDem 2

If this is to be compared to other polls of the same constituency, then it should be noted that this one, unlike the others so far, prompted with candidate names, and that one of the candidates has very high name recognition.

In other news, I've found out who I would vote for if I lived in Cities of London & Westminster Smiley.
Logged
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1578 on: February 28, 2015, 08:19:49 AM »

Ed Milliband's principal rival was his older brother David. David's reputation has risen because he was not elected, but I always thought that Ed was better at simulating normal human behaviour than David was. No doubt if David had been elected, the general opinion now would be that Ed would have been the better option.

The other candidates for the Labour leadership were Ed Balls (now Shadow Chancellor), Andy Burnham (former Health Secretary now shadowing the job) and Diane Abbott (a black London MP who appears on television a lot).

A truly dreadful field. I would not have voted for any of them, even if I had been a Labour supporter. However, if absolutely forced to choose, I would concede that Ed was the least worst of them.

Mind you the recent Conservative and Liberal Democrat leadership candidates have not been much better. I think all UK parties had better quality leaders in the past. At least they usually tended to have been prominent political figures for a lengthy period, during which they had done things and stood for something more important than winning the next election.




The best potential Labour leaders of course chose not to run. Alan Johnson would have probably been the best choice...and (dare I say it?) Harriet Harman would have been better than any of the five who stood.
Logged
ChrisDR68
PoshPaws68
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 395
United Kingdom
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1579 on: February 28, 2015, 10:40:22 AM »

Ed Milliband's principal rival was his older brother David. David's reputation has risen because he was not elected, but I always thought that Ed was better at simulating normal human behaviour than David was. No doubt if David had been elected, the general opinion now would be that Ed would have been the better option.

A truly dreadful field. I would not have voted for any of them, even if I had been a Labour supporter. However, if absolutely forced to choose, I would concede that Ed was the least worst of them.

That's got to be a joke right? Shocked

Ed won because he was the more left wing candidate compared to David. That's why certain lefty trade unions recommended him in their ballots without mentioning his brother. Democratic huh? lol

Labour has a rich tradition of voting the more lefty candidate as leader. Harold Wilson won in 1963 because he aligned himself with Aneurin Bevan in the late 40's. Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock were the lefty candidates in 1980 and 1983 respectively and Jim Callaghan won in 1976 because he was seen as a friend of the unions (ironic I know).

Only when they got desperate after 4 election defeats did the Labour movement start electing "right wingers" to the party leadership (John Smith in 1992 and Tony Blair in 1994).

David would have been dull, boring and wooden (as is his personality) but I'm certain his approval ratings would have been light years ahead of Ed's right now had he won the leadership in 2010 because he looked and sounded the part of a potential prime minister. 

What appeals to the Labour movement internally is very often not what appeals to the British public as a whole.
Logged
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1580 on: February 28, 2015, 11:19:17 AM »


Rightly or wrongly, it was the narrative going around in the run-up to the election.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


He won for the same reason that Mitt Romney and Michael Dukakis won their respective party nomination - he was the best or least worst of an unimpressive field.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The big Labour-supporting unions are certainly not 'lefty' in Labour Party factional terms.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, because we all know that union members are not capable of researching candidates on their own terms and have to be told who to vote for... Tongue

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except on those occasions when they haven't (which is quite often).

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

He won because he was up against a drunken idiot in the second round. He would have lost a two-way battle between himself and Callaghan. Just over two years prior to his election, Wilson lost by a 2-to-1 margin to Hugh Gaitskell.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Granted, though Heffer was obviously to the left of Kinnock.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

And, as I previously said, those unions are generally not on the Labour left.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Smith had been seen as Kinnock's natural successor even when a 1992 victory looked likely. The main alternative to Smith was the then-leading moderniser Gordon Brown (though of course he did not contest). Blair, yes, although he charisma had a lot to do with it too.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have you ever seen that image of him holding a banana? As for looking and sounding like a potential Prime Minister, the same could have been be said of Tony Benn.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, but there is little correlation between the faction of party leaders and their electoral successes/failures. Of Labour's three most successful post-WWII leaders, two (Wilson, Attlee) were from the left and one (Blair) from the right. Of Labour's two lowest post-WWII vote shares, one came under a left-winger (Foot) and the other a right-winger (Brown).
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1581 on: February 28, 2015, 11:27:04 AM »
« Edited: February 28, 2015, 11:29:49 AM by Charlotte Hebdo »



vs.

Logged
joevsimp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 482


Political Matrix
E: -5.95, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1582 on: February 28, 2015, 11:49:06 AM »

the gif in your sig is more appropriate than ever Cheesy
Logged
BundouYMB
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 910


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1583 on: February 28, 2015, 12:53:18 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Link: www [dot] telegraph [dot] co [dot] uk/comment/columnists/matthewd_ancona/7969638/Labour-leadership-Ed-Miliband-jealousy-could-make-a-leader-of-David.html

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Link: www [dot] newstatesman [dot] com/uk-politics/2010/08/david-miliband-balls-candidate

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Link: www [dot] theguardian [dot] com/politics/2010/aug/30/david-miliband-labour-leadership-contest

Just a little reminder.

(I can't post links yet, btw, so that's why I did them that way.)
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1584 on: February 28, 2015, 01:21:28 PM »

Callaghan was the leading right-wing candidate (ahead of Jenkins, Healey and Crosland) in 1976 and the voting for the last round against Foot mostly (though not entirely) split down factional lines.

As for 2010, David Miliband lost because he ran a sh!tty and complacent campaign; particularly damaging was his failure to shut up certain unpopular supporters of his (this alienated 'swing voters' like me) and his failure to put pressure on USDAW (which has a large and growing membership and which is solidly on the Right) to campaign for him in the way that the large unions backing his brother had for him.
Logged
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1585 on: February 28, 2015, 02:21:21 PM »
« Edited: February 28, 2015, 02:24:21 PM by Clyde1998 »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-would-cut-billions-from-scottish-budget-to-fund-english-tax-cuts-10076356.html

UKIP are saying that they would cut the Devolved Governments Budget (to save £8bn) by scrapping the Barnett Formula.

Using Scotland - the tax revenue in Scotland is around £53bn and the Scottish budget is £46bn. Not having everything back is fair enough - as Scotland has to pay for its share of military spending, border controls, welfare, etc.

£53bn includes 84.2% of the North Sea oil revenue (which is based on the geographic location of the oil). With a population share it was £48.1bn and without oil it was £47.6bn. Regardless of the amount of oil allocated to Scotland, there was a net loss for that year based on total spend allocated to Scotland.

However, based on the historical GERS figures, between 1980-81 (when the Barnett Forumla was introduced) and 2011-12 - Scotland's total surplus was up to nearly £150bn. This includes the debt that Scotland effectively had in 1979-80 (around £9bn). This is based on Scotland being independent (either politically or financially), having a geographic share of oil, generated the same tax and had the same expenditure. Also, as it's based on Scotland being independent, Scotland has no UK debt after 1980 allocated to it. (See section 6)

Scotland isn't subsided by the UK. The solution to the problem is giving each devolved government Full Fiscal Autonomy - and allowing each government to borrow money when it needs it.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,600
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1586 on: February 28, 2015, 03:39:36 PM »

How surprising! English nationalists hate Wales and Scotland.
Logged
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1587 on: February 28, 2015, 03:45:42 PM »

How surprising! English nationalists hate Wales and Scotland.
I think a major issue is that there is a strong view that England subsides the rest of the UK - when it doesn't. This is never countered by the media, as the biggest media sources are based in England, so people continue to believe it.
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1588 on: March 01, 2015, 04:29:54 AM »

How surprising! English nationalists hate Wales and Scotland.
I think a major issue is that there is a strong view that England subsides the rest of the UK - when it doesn't. This is never countered by the media, as the biggest media sources are based in England, so people continue to believe it.

I think the main issue for me is that 'who gets what' shouldn't actually matter on the basis that any sound economy is operated on moving wealth around the country and secondly, Scotland by this type of measurement is less 'subsidised' than Northern Ireland, or Wales or indeed the North East of England, the North West, Yorkshire, East and West Midlands and, taking into account the large amount of subsidy by the government for departments/civil service as well as other infrastructure schemes; London.
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,816
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1589 on: March 01, 2015, 05:35:32 AM »


Rightly or wrongly, it was the narrative going around in the run-up to the election.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


He won for the same reason that Mitt Romney and Michael Dukakis won their respective party nomination - he was the best or least worst of an unimpressive field.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The big Labour-supporting unions are certainly not 'lefty' in Labour Party factional terms.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, because we all know that union members are not capable of researching candidates on their own terms and have to be told who to vote for... Tongue

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except on those occasions when they haven't (which is quite often).

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

He won because he was up against a drunken idiot in the second round. He would have lost a two-way battle between himself and Callaghan. Just over two years prior to his election, Wilson lost by a 2-to-1 margin to Hugh Gaitskell.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Granted, though Heffer was obviously to the left of Kinnock.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

And, as I previously said, those unions are generally not on the Labour left.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Smith had been seen as Kinnock's natural successor even when a 1992 victory looked likely. The main alternative to Smith was the then-leading moderniser Gordon Brown (though of course he did not contest). Blair, yes, although he charisma had a lot to do with it too.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have you ever seen that image of him holding a banana? As for looking and sounding like a potential Prime Minister, the same could have been be said of Tony Benn.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, but there is little correlation between the faction of party leaders and their electoral successes/failures. Of Labour's three most successful post-WWII leaders, two (Wilson, Attlee) were from the left and one (Blair) from the right. Of Labour's two lowest post-WWII vote shares, one came under a left-winger (Foot) and the other a right-winger (Brown).

I was literally just about to say this haha, you've hit the nail on the head. Brilliant Analysis.

As a labour member, there's pretty much 3 reasons why Ed Miliband won

1) He had ideas about how to reform the country, and the economy. He actually knew that after 2008 the markets had failed, and we need reform
2) He had high profile backing from across the party-not just the unions. About 45% of members and MP's voted for him.
3) David Miliband acted like he deserved the leadership-he tried to coup Brown in 2008 and backed out because Brown was despite his faults a good operator. His 2010 campaign had an air of 'clinton 2008' where he assumed that the nomination would a naturally come to him. He didn't distance himself from the blairites, he was shamefully New labour and we just faced our biggest defeat since 1918.

In regards to trade unions, they're often ironically voting on the right of the labour Party. A lot of members want to scrap Trident, but the Trade unions block it because it gives like 400 people jobs. And as said they don't simply meet in a smoke filled room, and individual members can vote as well.

Ed won in 2010, and I believe that the same could happen in 2015.

The problem with UK politics, is the crap that comes out in polling.

'The two parties are too similar... Ed Miliband is too left wing'
'I don't like Career Politicians... Ed Miliband looks weird''
'labour crashed the economy... Ed Miliband supports Austerity''
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1590 on: March 01, 2015, 05:38:32 AM »

This week's YouGov polls:

24 Feb: Con 33 Lab 33 UKIP 13 LD 8 Green 7 SNP/Plaid 4
25 Feb: Con 35 Lab 33 UKIP 14 Green 7 LD 6 SNP/Plaid 5
26 Feb: Lab 33 Con 33 UKIP 15 LD 8 Green 6 SNP/Plaid 5
27 Feb: Lab 34 Con 33 UKIP 13 LD 8 Green 6 SNP/Plaid 4
1 Mar: Lab 34 Con 34 UKIP 14 LD 8 Green 5 SNP/Plaid 4
Logged
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1591 on: March 01, 2015, 07:07:44 AM »
« Edited: March 01, 2015, 07:09:18 AM by Phony Moderate »

Even if the campaign goes badly, Miliband can probably expect his personal ratings to rise into the low 30s (or thereabouts) by election day on the back of a 'rally around the party' effect of those 40% of Labour voters who currently say he is doing badly.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1592 on: March 01, 2015, 11:39:19 AM »

The LD pulls in the single digits, how many seats would they be expected to lose, and who would pick them up? LD seems to me this odd duck where in some seats, their main competitor is the Tories, and in others, the Tories are near invisible, and the race is with Labor.  It's almost schizophrenic.
Logged
ChrisDR68
PoshPaws68
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 395
United Kingdom
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1593 on: March 01, 2015, 12:09:57 PM »


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well that's a judgement you are making and one I don't share.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was thinking mainly of Len McCluskey of Unite who I think you'll agree is pretty left wing.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

They sure can although putting Vote Ed leaflets in the ballot envelope still seems a little bit dodgy to me Cheesy

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


You seem to be saying Wilson's success in that leadership election had little to do with him aligning himself with Labour's left. A doubtful argument.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well I've seen polls showing only about 14% of the British people view themselves as "very left wing" so I'd imagine Tony Benn's appeal to the general public would be similarly limited despite him having been a fluent communicator.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe I'm wrong about this but almost everything that Ed says seems to be opportunistic and short term in order to court popularity for a few days. Something appears in the headlines and the next thing you know Ed makes an announcement on it (the latest being banning MP's from having second jobs).

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No argument there. I still think he's the superior politician when choosing between the two though.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

About two thirds of the blame for the financial crisis was with the banks themselves (and mainly American banks at that). The other third was with the last Labour government in respect to how they were regulated. As Gordon Brown changed the way they were regulated as soon as Labour was elected in 1997 he has to take the lion's share of the blame for the dangers that built up over the next 11 years (particularly the capital ratios they were required to hold in their vaults in case of a crisis occuring).
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1594 on: March 01, 2015, 12:26:13 PM »

The LD pulls in the single digits, how many seats would they be expected to lose, and who would pick them up? LD seems to me this odd duck where in some seats, their main competitor is the Tories, and in others, the Tories are near invisible, and the race is with Labor.  It's almost schizophrenic.

On the first point, no one really knows. The LibDems are weirdly optimistic (insisting that their vote will only crash in places where it doesn't matter) but the excessive optimism is in their nature. I note that as recently as 1992 they had just twenty seats and that was with a much higher share of the vote (18%) than currently looks realistic. That isn't a prediction, but a reminder that there's no reason to assume that they will automatically have a large block of MPs.

As for who benefits (perhaps), then it depends where. But it's certainly true that the Tories finished second in most LibDem seats and that many of these seats were reliably Conservative before 1997. Tory hopes of a majority rest (to a considerable extent) on the idea that they can gut their coalition partners while holding their ground elsewhere.
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1595 on: March 01, 2015, 12:44:52 PM »

The LD pulls in the single digits, how many seats would they be expected to lose, and who would pick them up? LD seems to me this odd duck where in some seats, their main competitor is the Tories, and in others, the Tories are near invisible, and the race is with Labor.  It's almost schizophrenic.

On the first point, no one really knows. The LibDems are weirdly optimistic (insisting that their vote will only crash in places where it doesn't matter) but the excessive optimism is in their nature. I note that as recently as 1992 they had just twenty seats and that was with a much higher share of the vote (18%) than currently looks realistic. That isn't a prediction, but a reminder that there's no reason to assume that they will automatically have a large block of MPs.

As for who benefits (perhaps), then it depends where. But it's certainly true that the Tories finished second in most LibDem seats and that many of these seats were reliably Conservative before 1997. Tory hopes of a majority rest (to a considerable extent) on the idea that they can gut their coalition partners while holding their ground elsewhere.

The two steepest drops in the Liberal share occurred in 1979 and 1992 and the Liberals were shielded somewhat from loosing more than 2 seats on each occasion. In 1992 they even achieved swings towards them in many seats that would later fall to them five years later. So if we are looking at 'gentle' decline down to the high teens I would actually expect them to hold on to 2/3rds of what they have. As you say however, they are polling at a two generational low and there's a lot of confidence that we don't know is misplaces or not. There are some places where they seems to be resilient locally, their London suburban seats, Eastleigh, Lewes and fortress Westmoreland for example, so I think their ground game will be good enough to see them overperform UNS.
Logged
Lurker
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 765
Norway
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1596 on: March 01, 2015, 04:00:44 PM »
« Edited: March 01, 2015, 04:21:22 PM by Lurker »

The LD pulls in the single digits, how many seats would they be expected to lose, and who would pick them up? LD seems to me this odd duck where in some seats, their main competitor is the Tories, and in others, the Tories are near invisible, and the race is with Labor.  It's almost schizophrenic.

On the first point, no one really knows. The LibDems are weirdly optimistic (insisting that their vote will only crash in places where it doesn't matter) but the excessive optimism is in their nature. I note that as recently as 1992 they had just twenty seats and that was with a much higher share of the vote (18%) than currently looks realistic. That isn't a prediction, but a reminder that there's no reason to assume that they will automatically have a large block of MPs.

As for who benefits (perhaps), then it depends where. But it's certainly true that the Tories finished second in most LibDem seats and that many of these seats were reliably Conservative before 1997. Tory hopes of a majority rest (to a considerable extent) on the idea that they can gut their coalition partners while holding their ground elsewhere.

The two steepest drops in the Liberal share occurred in 1979 and 1992 and the Liberals were shielded somewhat from loosing more than 2 seats on each occasion. In 1992 they even achieved swings towards them in many seats that would later fall to them five years later. So if we are looking at 'gentle' decline down to the high teens I would actually expect them to hold on to 2/3rds of what they have. As you say however, they are polling at a two generational low and there's a lot of confidence that we don't know is misplaces or not. There are some places where they seems to be resilient locally, their London suburban seats, Eastleigh, Lewes and fortress Westmoreland for example, so I think their ground game will be good enough to see them overperform UNS.

But are the any reasons to believe that the Lib-Dems could have a result in the high teens (17-19%)? It's only two months from election day, and they are not even averaging half of that result in the polls.

I know that the British polls are of dubious quality (to put it kindly), but even if the Lib-Dem's support is being underestimated, they would need a pretty great campaign to get near such numbers.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1597 on: March 02, 2015, 10:24:11 AM »

And how much to numbers change, or individual races change, due to strategic voting in the end? How many voters engage in strategic voting?
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1598 on: March 02, 2015, 11:15:26 AM »

Latest Ashcroft/Rubber Ball poll: Con 34, Labour 31, UKIP 14, Greens 7, LDem 7

(of course what's going to happen now - you can just tell - is that after a whole campaign doubtless bouncing around in all directions, his final poll will flukishly get it about right).
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1599 on: March 02, 2015, 11:20:14 AM »

And how much to numbers change, or individual races change, due to strategic voting in the end? How many voters engage in strategic voting?

Here's the fun part: it is impossible to tell.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 59 60 61 62 63 [64] 65 66 67 68 69 ... 75  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.075 seconds with 12 queries.