UK General Election - May 7th 2015 (The Official Campaign Thread)

[Clyde1998]

So, a generation  = two years, or so, in Scotland.

It is in some parts of Glasgow.

The second referendum question brings me on to this:

BBC Scotland/Ipsos Mori Poll:
Please give each policy statement a score between 1 to 10, where 1 means that you think it should never be put in place, and 10 means that it is very important and should be put in place quickly.

Listed below are the average scores for each are in square brackets []

Increase the minimum wage for those aged 21 and over from £6.50 to £7.85 per hour [8.2]
Guarantee that old age pensions will rise over the next five years [7.9]
Stop energy companies from increasing prices for 20 months [7.7]
Ensure authorities cannot access personal data unless an individual is suspected of taking part in an illegal activity [7.6]
Introduce a tax on homes worth more than two million pounds, commonly known as the Mansion Tax [7.4]
Give the Scottish Parliament the power to increase benefits and old age pensions [7.3]
Increase the top rate of tax to 50p in the pound for those earning more than £150,000 a year [7.2]
Give the Scottish Parliament full control of welfare benefits [7.1]
Stop migrants from the EU from claiming welfare benefits until they have been in the UK for at least four years [6.8]
Give the Scottish Parliament full control of income tax [6.8]
Give the Scottish Parliament control of all areas of policy apart from Defence and Foreign Affairs [6.5]
Bring the railways into public ownership [6.5]
Increase spending on public services even if the deficit doesn't get eliminated by the end of the next Parliament in 2020 [6.3]
Put a cap on the total amount paid in welfare benefits to a household [6.3]
Impose a limit on the number of people coming to live in the UK [6.3]
Increase the amount spent on the armed forces [6.2]
Hold a referendum to ask people whether they wish to stay in or leave the European Union [6.1]
Reduce the amount the government borrows by cutting spending rather than by increasing taxes [5.7]
Hold another referendum on Scottish independence within the next five years [5.6]
Charge better-off older people for some things which are currently free to all older people [5.2]
Eliminate the deficit by the end of the next Parliament in 2020 even if that means reduced spending on public services [4.6]
Reduce taxes even if that means cutting public services [4.0]
Renew and upgrade Trident, Britain's nuclear deterrent [4.0]

Data Tables for Wave One: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/07_04_2015_electionpoll.pdf
Data Tables for Wave Two: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/08_04_2015_poll_daytwo.pdf

Hold another referendum on Scottish independence within the next five years [5.6]
1-4 - 42% - Not Important
5-6 - 10%
7-10 - 48% - Very Important

Seems it's not too unlikely to come back quickly after all...

[Phony Moderate]

Ashcroft's national poll is notorious for its zig zagging, so maybe his constituency polls do the same thing (or would do if they were as regular as his national poll).

Interestingly, Political Betting isn't spinning these as good news for the Tories as you might expect.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Constituency polling is a notoriously... aha... difficult... field for all pollsters, not just Cashcroft. And the Noble Lord had to edit some constituency polling results late last year due to errors if you recall (very embarrassing). Having said that, Stockton South as a better Labour prospect than those other seats polled seems to make more sense than what was shown last time.

[You kip if you want to...]

Ashcroft (and the pundits who are riskily taking his word/polls as gospel) could wake up with plenty of egg on their faces on May 8th if the (former) Lord hasn't pulled it off properly.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Well Ashcroft has announced he is resigning from the House of Lords in order to focus more on his polls. So we have plenty more where they came from!

[Silent Hunter]

Ashcroft (and the pundits who are riskily taking his word/polls as gospel) could wake up with plenty of egg on their faces on May 8th if the (former) Lord hasn't pulled it off properly.

I'd say his constituency polls are better than nothing and I've used them in my own predictions, but the jury is still out on that first part.

[Phony Moderate]

Several of those seats were also polled as far back as May of last year and there's virtually no change (at least in the Lab-Con difference) despite the national polls back then showing a consistent Labour lead.

[afleitch]

If you take them all, then on average the Tory vote is only down 0.3% on 2010, with Labour up 3.6. That's a swing of less than 2%.

[Silent Hunter]

If you take them all, then on average the Tory vote is only down 0.3% on 2010, with Labour up 3.6. That's a swing of less than 2%.

With the Lib Dem collapse that's more than enough to ensure Cameron needs to think about calling the movers in.

[Phony Moderate]

If you take them all, then on average the Tory vote is only down 0.3% on 2010, with Labour up 3.6. That's a swing of less than 2%.

Exactly the same as the national share changes in 1992 compared to 1987...

[afleitch]

If you take them all, then on average the Tory vote is only down 0.3% on 2010, with Labour up 3.6. That's a swing of less than 2%.

With the Lib Dem collapse that's more than enough to ensure Cameron needs to think about calling the movers in.

That's making an assumption that Lib Dem voters are doing the same thing in every seat. Which they aren't as two seats of the ten have swing to the Conservatives in this poll despite a similar Lib Dem collapse. That's one thing that's difficult to measure nationwide and will vary seat by seat. It's entirely possible that with numbers like this as in 1987 and 1992, the Conservatives may snatch a few seats from Labour, lessening the damage.

[YL]

Ashcroft's national poll is notorious for its zig zagging, so maybe his constituency polls do the same thing (or would do if they were as regular as his national poll).

Interestingly, Political Betting isn't spinning these as good news for the Tories as you might expect.

The margin of error in these should be similar to his national polls (i.e. about 4% for vote shares) and there is indeed a bit of bouncing around.  All these seats have been polled for him before, and they appear to have been chosen because they were close before (which means that people should be careful about quoting average swings based on them; they are not a random sample of marginals).

I would be particularly cautious about Loughborough (university seat polled in vacation).  Of the others, some are supporting previous disappointing Ashcroft polls for Labour (e.g. Gloucester, Pendle and especially Kingswood) while others look better (Harrow East, Stockton South, Hove); because of the latter type the May2015 forecast (which takes Ashcroft polls as gospel truth) has shifted by three seats to Labour today.

[YL]

(It was estimated in 2005 that Iraq cost Labour 3% and 3% only)

I would argue that, in the context of UK general election swings, 3% is actually quite a lot for a single issue.  And there are still people who won't vote Labour, or are reluctant to do so, because of Iraq; I know some of them.

[I'd be a bit sceptical of any precise claim about how big the effect was, anyway; it's not going to be an easy thing to measure.]

Could someone be so kind as to explain how the Iraq War affect(s)(-ed) parties in the UK? I don't know much about UK politics. Is the Labour Party seen as the "pro-war" party? Or is it an awkward, "they're generally anti-war, Iraq was an exception" mixed view?

And how do the Conservatives fit into this?

Historically Labour have generally had more of an anti-war element than the Tories, but Blair was very much not part of that (not when PM, anyway) and so he led the UK into the war.  There was a substantial minority of Labour MPs (getting on for a third of the parliamentary party) who voted against.  The Tories were generally in favour, with a smaller minority (including Ken Clarke) who were against, and the Lib Dems were against.  Among left-liberal voters who voted Lib Dem rather than Labour in 2005 and 2010, Iraq would be commonly given as a reason.

[YL]

Nominations close at 4pm tomorrow.

[Clyde1998]

Nominations close at 4pm tomorrow.

I've noticed that Labour, Conservatives and Lib Dems don't have candidates in a couple of Scottish seats (so far). I can't tell if that's tactical or not...

[Silent Hunter]

If you take them all, then on average the Tory vote is only down 0.3% on 2010, with Labour up 3.6. That's a swing of less than 2%.

Exactly the same as the national share changes in 1992 compared to 1987...

In 1987, the Tories won a landslide; in 1992, they barely got a working majority. In 2010, they didn't even get a majority.

Also, the thing with polling averages from polls with widely varying methodologies is a bit like Amir Khan and Vitali Klitscho having a boxing match; interesting but produces no meaningful result.

[Clyde1998]

There's yet another debate tonight - this time on BBC Scotland.

Scotland's UKIP MEP reckons that Alex Salmond is still the SNP leader...

[bore]

This isn't at all embarrassing.

[rob in cal]

I'm intrigued by the idea of Labour and SNP winning a majority of seats with nowhere near a majority of votes.  Any ideas on what the bare minimum of a total vote share might be needed to pull this off?

[Clyde1998]

I'm intrigued by the idea of Labour and SNP winning a majority of seats with nowhere near a majority of votes.  Any ideas on what the bare minimum of a total vote share might be needed to pull this off?

Labour won a majority of seats in 2005, with only 35% of the vote - so I assume it can't be too far away from that.

[Phony Moderate]

YouGov: Lab 35, Con 34, UKIP 13, Lib Dems 8, Greens 5

[Gary J]

I'm intrigued by the idea of Labour and SNP winning a majority of seats with nowhere near a majority of votes.  Any ideas on what the bare minimum of a total vote share might be needed to pull this off?

It is impossible to say in a relative  majority system, with an as yet unknown number of candidates and votes. The minimum number of votes to win a seat (leaving aside the drawing of lots to break a tie, which I saw happen once in a local election - where dice throws decided who won), is one more vote than the second placed candidate.

I happen to have the official results of the 2001 general election to hand. That includes a table of the seats in rank order of the winning party's share of votes. The range is from 77.8% (Labour in Liverpool Walton) down to 29.7% (SNP in Perth). The vote actually needed to win is not totally predictable in advance.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Though we can usually say that a candidate who polls over 40% is 'unlucky' to lose and one that polls under 35% is 'lucky' to win.

[You kip if you want to...]

Any constituencies with a winner between 25-30% this time do we think?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No more than a small handful, I suspect.