Another pollster gives Dave a double digit lead
December 1st, 2007
Tory ICM margin moves from 6% to 11%
A new poll from ICM for the News of the World shows a Tory lead of 11% and means that four surveys from four separate polling organisation in the past week have recorded significant moves to the Conservatives.
Based on what limited information is available the shares are with changes on the last ICM survey a week ago - CON 41% (+4): LAB 30% (-1): LD 19% (-2).
Given Labour’s appalling week party officials might have been expecting much much worse. At least this poll has them still in the 30s.
The 11% deficit equals that which the party recorded in March 2007 which was the biggest margin for at least a decade an a half.
So the four polls this week have had Tory leads of 14% (COMRES), 11% (ICM and YouGov) and 9% (Ipsos-Mori) - meaning they are all in the same ball-park.
Although the seat predictors suggest that these polling numbers are likely to give the Tories an overall majority (325 seats or more) punters on the spread-betting markets are being much more cautious.
My guess is that we won’t see serious betting market moves until we get some polls during more normal times. The last few weeks have clearly been abnormal. I’m still a buyer of Tory seats though I’ve reduced my position to just under £100 a seat.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Testing
I’ve forgotten what it ws look to have the Gordons. How things change. Seems to conform the ICM poll last time was a touch rouge.
Mike, I thought the last ICM poll had the Labour party at 31, how can they be -5?
Mike you’re conflating two separate ICM polls for the movements i think?
The last ICM is looking like it was a rogue wrt Tory share.
Oh corrected.
5-I think we had a vision!!!!!=)
re 2. Just check this piece from September 25th
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/09/25/so-will-11-gordons-influence-the-election-decision/
What are normal times? Brown has lost credibilty - his announcement on party funding begs the question that if Labour ignores existing law why should anyone believe they wouln’t try to get around new laws?
From my distant eyrie in a palace hotel in Jaipur with only source the online comment pieces I really can’t see that Gordon has the ability to “move on”, he’s reactive rather than proactive and all the worst elements of his character are exposed.
One thought - in the early October polls there was an apparent hardening of voters towards either Conservative or Labour away from others. This has softened but IMHO if an election was likely we would see similar hardening and that would be in favour of Conservatives - there is the beginning of a real anti-Labour sentiment.
Turkey’s invaded Iraq.
Alex- the last thread- I think you’re right when you say that there is at least one merit in a minority government.But if Cameron had a tiny majority, I think the same thing would also apply(they would be forced to seek consensus too).
Labour will surely drop under 30% with ICM before the end of the month.
This may be stating the bleedin’ obvious, but 2008 is going to be an absolutely massive year. The challenge for Cameron is still in terms of policy and creating a ckear vision for what he and his party wants to do for the country. In 2008 we’re going to need one policy annoucement a month, with each policy having a clear theme running through them that connects the policies and create’s a general narrative and idea in the publics mind about where a Tory government would take them.
For Brown the challenge is all of the above, plus to get past all the recent trials and tribulations and stop any more disasters from occuring. Moreover Brown also needs to improve his personality to make himself more easy to relate to and get the media back onside. Finally he needs a respectable performance at the 2008 local elections - A meltdown at the 2008 locals would put pressure on his future as PM, IMO.
Clearly the odds are staked in Cameron’s favour going into 2008.
looking at the graph,
1) Conservatives benefited from Gordon Brown’s General Election bluff.
2) Lib Dems are benefiting from Labour’s legal dificulties
10 - Yes i agree. But the difference is that in the minority scenario it would be forced by the electoral arithmetic, and in the majority scenario it would be forced by dissent on his backbenches. A majority govt would be left forever having to make choices whether to seek support from the centres or the extremes.
It turns out that if you compare the current poll with the eve-of-election poll from the same pollster, it has a pretty large effect on the outcome.
I’ve tried before to take out the “that’s a different pollster” effect and crunched the numbers on the last three Parliaments (92-97, 97-01, 01-05), which showed that when you took the swing from the pollsters (those who hadn’t dramatically changed their methodology over that period, that is - which would invalidate the “compare like with like” concept) the centre of the error peak for Con/Lab swings was 0.11% (standard deviation 0.87%) towards Labour (expected value for unbiased polls would be exactly zero). When measuring the traditional way - from the actual last election result to the current poll score, when compared with the actual swing created, the centre of the from comparable eve-of-poll versus 2.46% (standard deviation 1.02%) towards Labour when measuring from actual result.
Okay, all well and good. Maybe the approach is valid; maybe it isn’t. I happen to think that comparing eve-of-election poll from one election to the eve-of-election poll from the same pollster for the next election is a good way to allow for any polling systematic error, for the reason above. But the issue is the effect that this can have.
On my own probabilistic calculator (like Rod’s, based on Curtice’s notes, but without regional swing patterns) and with zero tactical voting unwind and a 1% incumbency/targetting swing to the LD’s, the effect is to add fifty to the Tory majority.
(Calculating the swing from the actual GB results to the ICM results gives me a Tory majority of 2-42; calculating the swing from the ICM eve-of-election poll to today - treating today’s ICM as an eve-of-election poll and comparing like with like - gives a Tory majority of 52-92)
Even if you consider my logic on using “poll-to-poll” swing as fatally flawed, it illustrates how important small poll changes within the MoE can be. last election was considered a triumph for the pollsters - if the next election is similar, even these minor errors can have huge effect on the projected majority.
2 Seems to conform the ICM poll last time was a touch rouge.
Yes indeed Woody, a touch rouge!
If you go back to 1992 after the ERM thing the polls didn’t instantly change, they sagged and then held a bit, then they sagged a bit more, then a short shallow recovery… then another slump and so on.
I think Brown is probably on or near the bottom of this cycle, barring any more really serious revelations in the Sundays tomorrow, he will; fight back next week and probably manage to stabilise the flow of negative press, in any case the public have tired of the ‘Brown in trouble’ line now, I think.
Two things will affect the polls next in my view:
1) What we Tories do - the public will soon be saying ‘all right, if we are getting a Conservative Government next, what will they do about….?’ so we have to continue to come up with good ideas and themes to improve the things that worry people like rampant political correctness (the local Junior school in my constituency that has banned the kids from wearing fairy wings from the nativity play as a ’safety measure’ is a good example).
2) Who the LD’s do, the next Lib Dem leader has to quickly make some hard decisions on what the LD strategy is going to be in the run up to 2010 - carry on slugging away at the 50p top rate, anyone-but-the-Tories strategy of the last 15 years or something genuinely new.
If both opposition parties rise to the challenge then Labour will bob about on 30-33% for a bit before the next round of bad news over house prices early next year, then they will drift further and further down.
14 - And of course the other thing about all these “are the Tories doing enough for an overall majority debates?” is that we are in the territory where huge numbers of seats can fall on tiny swings (and therefore tiny errors in the polling predictions).
16 - I’m sorry Marcus, but i hardly think that David Cameron is going to focus his underlying electoral pitch on combatting political correctness! Sounds like something coming out of Hague’s party circa 2001!!
Well another good poll for us Conservatives, but given the last month perhaps we could do better?
That said I seriously think it will take a bit of time for the damage to sink in.
The other thing is Labour sleaze is not good for us Conservatives as people remember the worst Labour spin of the Major years.
All those David Camerons - it’s like that episode of the Simpsons where Homer keeps cloning himself.
Scary……
Of course the people really worried by that will be Labour supporters. Has Nick Palmer paid up yet?
13-Alex-”the minority scenario it would be forced by the electoral arithmetic, and in the majority scenario it would be forced by dissent on his backbenches.”
I agree with you, but I think that in a minority government, Cameron would also have dissidents (polls are not always good, and this can only fuel those who disagree with the government)
Observer’s post #73 on previous thread:
“owing to my position in the party I’m unable to provide you with my real name and address.”
With respect, you should have thought about this problem before you entered into the bet with Mike - the onus is on you to sort it, without the need to enter into some convoluted arrangement on Betfair. Still, should you lose, it need not be a problem, simply post 10x £50 notes/postal orders by special delivery to Mike or to PtP, as someone has previously suggested.
From previous thread….
“97 - Rod, what i meant was - have you attempted to run your model (or rather your model as you might have developed it at the time) as if it were currently 1996, 2000, 2004 or whatever?
However i assume this is rather beyond what is worthwhile attempting, so instead:
How dependent is the final predicted outcome on the specific regional swings that you predict? Is the regional swing thing something any user can input?”
If I understand your first question you are asking if I have been modelling previous elections based on the data available at the time? Yes, I have been modelling elections since 1983 when I started on a ZX Spectrum, and have been refining the model over time.
In answer to the second question, I thought long and hard about this. Initially, I thought about allowing any user inputs, but there are several problems with that approach:
i) It’s very hard to know what to input, whilst also ensuring that overall the national vote proportions balance out sensibly, and there is no straightforward algorithm to achieve it.
ii) Also, I’m sure there would be a tendency for party rampers to adjust the inputs to show their party doing above average “everywhere”, which is clearly nonsense.
iii) Out of curiosity, I wanted to see what actual previous patterns would show.
I thought therefore that the actual variation in previous elections would be a more appropriate option to select, since these variations of course did balance out overall in those real elections. As it happens, there aren’t huge differences in seat projections - except for 1992, when the Tories did manage to underperform just about everywhere apart from winning a massive bonus in Scotland - a pattern which unsurprisingly damaged them in terms of overall seats.
As I’ve said before, I suspect the Tories will obtain a pattern similar to 2005 or a negative 1997 pattern - the key point in both these patterns is that they will do significantly better in London, the South East and the East, which have a lot of marginals. That chimes with the Brown-Cameron/Scots-English/Old Labour-New Tories cleavage that appears to be developing. I’d be interested to know what people think of that. But if the Tories do best in the South-East triangle, they have to do worse somewhere else, which leaves Scotland, Wales, the North and the South West [the Midlands have tended to swing around the average recently]. No-one can be sure of the extent of the variation. For example 2001 and 2005 were quite a bit more uniform than were 1997 and 1992, at least when we examine the regional level.
Of course, all of this is only a guidance, and several other factors may emerge to either accentuate or negate the regional variation. No model can realistically account for everything.
http://www.titanictown.plus.com/Swingometer.rar
The easiest way to see the regional differences [and LibDem pattern] is to press the “Show Different” button. This will show seats that would go differently due to the regional swings (versus uniform), sorted by region….
Daily Mial may have another dodgy donor for labour
24) perhaps even the Daily Mail!
Thinking about Nick Ps canvass and why he may be finding that he has only lost a few votes.
Labour won last time with 36%. The polls are on average reporting 30%. So we have a drop of 1 in 5. That drop is higher in the South and lower in an area like Nick’s where it may be nearer 1 in 10. With the usual churn in voters, a drop of 1 in 10 may not appear large to Nick.
Nick was also canvassing today in a L/LD area. With the LDs also dropping by 1 in 5, the p;osition of Labour may show little change.
26 Thinking about Nick Ps canvass and why he may be finding that he has only lost a few votes.
Or maybe he’s just an optimist!
7. Fantastic Mike. Just had a read through various Labour posters predicting the death of Cameron and the Conservtive Party!!
28 i liked this comment
Superb poll, but lib dems clearly too low. Labour also has a 16 point lead among women voters. Looks like Gordon refreshes the parts old Dave can’t reach!
by Redflump September 25th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
good link fitaloon:
Labour Party’s second biggest donor - Iranian-born car dealer, Mahmoud Khayami, a French citizen, has given £830,000 in the past eight months.
Why does a foreigner is funding Labour. What does he get in return?
Rod , I remain unconvinced by your argument that the regional swing to the Conservatives at the next election will follow the same pattern as the 2005 regional swings . It could be argued that the 2 election regional swing from 2001 to the next election will even itself out rather than accentuate the differences at the 2005 GE ie London which had a large swing in 2005 will have a lower swing next time . I have done no analysis of previous elections so just putting this forward as a possibility .
30 Wow! There could be some mileage here (no pun intended). I wonder if this was Iain Dale’s embargoed news story?
29. Rather bad form this but I liked this
Thank God he gave a really bad speech,(according to the blue harpies) what would Brown’s lead be if he’d given a good one?
I wonder what the Blue Harpies will be saying if after DC’s speech, yougov publish a Tory lead of 11%, bet that poll will be ok, perhaps even better than ok.
DC had better give one hell of a speech, it’ll have to make the Gettysburg Address pale into insignificance, let alone, ‘Never in the field of human conflict…..’ Or else its the IDS solution, ‘The quiet man is here to stay and he’s turning up the vol…..aaaaagh’
by grumpy-old-man September 25th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
24. Interesting one this. Probably wouldn’t make much of a story normally as he’s not done anythign illegal, but it looks ever so slightly ropey.
30 He has lived in this country since 1986 and is on the electoral roll ( for local and Euro elections ) therefore is a permissible donor , don’t think there is any mileage here .
Re 24,Fitaloon, whilst it can’t help labour I cant see it adding much to the existing damage.
31. I kind of agree Mark. My area saw relatively big swings to the Tories at the last 2 elections. I think this was down to the anti Europe and anti immigration focus. This focus wont be there at the next election (to the same extent), and I would therefore think that the swing to the Tories in my area will be smaller than average.
Like you, I have nothing to back this up with. Just my hunch.
Mike Smithson:
Excellent link.
I like this one from Rod Crosby:
The Tories are dead ducks. I suspect the next election will be the last under that label…
Rod, any comments?
And someone to listen to - Kingbongo said:
the fact he knows that 11 points could melt like April snow - having an election now isn’t rational. However, if he doesn’t do it now he will have to wait until 2009 earliest and probably 2010
34 Interestingly Daily Mail says he made his first donation the day after it became legal.
Mike, they may not be in the thirties - they could be 29.6%.
Re 32, Peter from Putney “0 Wow! There could be some mileage here (no pun intended). I wonder if this was Iain Dale’s embargoed news story?”
*Cough* no, that was the Yougov Lib dem poll! (Second item in the google search Mike linked to)
Brown pushing state funding up the agenda now is just madness. Another gift for Dave. Nobody will care he has caved in on a £50K limit they just be furious he wants taxpayers cash now he cant raise any himself.
re 30 Noodle obvious - what do donors to Labour get? Why a peerage of course.
For what I see the donantion is legal, so why is this a “scandal”? It may be strange, but I don’t know what’s wrong(yet).
if the Clegg story is true I’ve hopefully rescued a very bad position on the LDs. Now if Cable or Goldsworthy won it’d be drinks all round!
Re 38, JSFL,
I have to say as a member of the oldest political party anywhere, at 300 odd years old people have been predicting our demise on and off for a very long time.
It is nice to remind the soothsayers once in a while
44-Errr….donation!
31. It’s an interesting question. However, there appears to be no obvious reason why it should “even out.” Each election has its own dynamic.
In 2001 Hague did well in
Yorks/Humber
North-East
Wales, while underperforming in
London
South-East
It’s only a hypothesis, but could that be related to
his regional accent / beer-swilling exploits
Ffion / reasonable success as Welsh Secretary in the previous Tory government?
The pattern was quite different in 2005, well above average for the Tories in the South-Eastern triangle, well below in Yorks and the South West, slightly below everywhere else.
I posted a full list of patterns since 1992 a couple of threads back.
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/11/30/tories-take-9-lead-with-ipsos-mori/
As I’ve said, apart from 1992 there aren’t huge differences between the overall outcomes for these patterns.
30 As he is a French citizen , he cannot get a peerage .
Off Topic, but well anyway (again)
David Penhaligon (part 2): “What if”?
1988: Penhaligon becomes Lib Dem leader
1992: Lib Dems get (say) 35 seats (not 20) thereby making a minority Conservative government (instead of a majority of 21)
Therefore the next general election is 1994 instead of 1997
1994 (May 5): Labour wins the general election with a majority of (say) 100 seats; John Smith becomes PM
1994 (May 12): John Smith dies and Tony Blair becomes PM
Therefore Tony Blair eventually leaves office earlier
2003: Tony Blair retires and Gordon Brown becomes PM
Therefore Brown mucks everything up within 6 months
2004: Conservative landslide, including gains in Bootle and Western Isles
26/27 the candidate/incumbent is always the last to find out….
7
I hear that Milburn has a go at Brown in the Sunday Times
48 Fair enough Rod but on that basis would you not have been predicting above average swings to the Conservatives in the 2005 GE in Yorks , Wales and the North East because that was the pattern in 2005 .
50-What if:
2003-Gordon doesn’t invade Iraq?
50. I strongly suspect that had Labour already been in power, Brown would have been leader pre Blair.
53 oops pattern in 2001 .
re 49 where in the below does it say that you can’t make a Frenchman a life peer?
Life Peerages Act 1958
1958 c.21 6_and_7_Eliz_2
1.
— (1) Without prejudice to Her Majesty’s powers as to the appointment of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, Her Majesty shall have power by letters patent to confer on any person a peerage for life having the incidents specified in subsection (2) of this section.
52-It seems that “people” are really following Daniel Finkelstein list:
“Alan Milburn publishes a pamphlet urging more progress on public service reform. He says that he is just trying to be helpful”
23 - Thanks for your reply Rod.
Re: the Iranian donor - the story seems to be that at a time when Gordon was promising a “fresh start” to Labour’s approach to party funding, he was never the less prepared to have his fund-raisers running around actively pushing the boundaries of the law in his desperation for money for an early election. In that sense, although apparantly legal, it does give an insight into the atmosphere that allowed other, illegal, practices to continue unchecked.
The Conservatives would be wise to leave this one to the press though - if they’re going to get involved they should stick strictly to those practices which broke the actuality of the law, not the spirit.
If labour had been in power in 94, there would have been no urgency in the Labour party to elect Blair, or for the whole new Labour shebang.
re 58, Me, ““Alan Milburn publishes a pamphlet urging more progress on public service reform. He says that he is just trying to be helpful””
And I am sure Gordon takes in in that spirit :lol::lol::lol:
38. I haven’t changed my view substantially. I do not believe the Tories have shown a capacity to win a majority, despite these recent polls. In real votes in real elections they are simply not delivering. e.g. Southall, Bromley and anaemic council by-elections.
However, I underestimated Labour’s capacity for self-cannibalization…
All this just makes a hung parliament more likely imho. Two useless parties that no-one is going to give untrammelled power to…
61-Benedict-As we all know, Alan loves Brown. Everytime he gives an advice, it can only be to help his great friend!
62 - Isn’t it the case that the Tories are doing consistently well in local by-elections. Just the high base (and large number of councils controlled) is creating the potential for some poor result?
Or are they just picking up votes in the wrong places?
Re 63, Me, “61-Benedict-As we all know, Alan loves Brown. Everytime he gives an advice, it can only be to help his great friend!”
62. Fair enough - we shall see in due course….
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7123285.stm
oops
11% is about right.
Another gutless performance by Watford today - what a joke!
I feel sorry for those who go down there and waste their money supporting this rubbish - they will be in League 1 next year if they are not careful.
Re 67, Test, Yes I heard that on BBC news 24 earlier.
It does get worse though… they sent all the data of people with ISA’s etc through the post in the same way.
Real concern for our data!
53. You are losing me, but if I understand you correctly - No, the Tories had a new leader, and a whole lot of things had “gone on” since 2001. Every election has its own dynamic (although there are longer-term trends as well)
The point surely is whatever they were doing, it went down best in the South East. Take Cameron. How many million-pound houses do you imagine there are in… the North East, North-West, Scotland or Wales. That’s a policy that was targeted to the South-East, and Labour knew they had to match-it. It seems clear the Tories are pursuing a specific South-East strategy…
60. There would have been an urgency to choose a new PM when John Smith died. When I was at university in 1992, we had a discussion in our group during which one person specifically predicted that John Smith would be forced to retire on health grounds, and that Blair would succeed him as the new leader. I think that even by 1992 or 3 it was fairly clear that it would be Blair not Brown.
54. Blair’s retirement would be in the aftermath of the glorious and successful liberation of Iraq, just before it started going wrong.
68 What have you done with my friend Ave It?
Get out foul impersonator!
11% is just the beginning and Super Watford Campiones!
60/71 - Gordon Brown in 1994 was one of the most unpopular politicians in the country as Shadow Chancellor. God knows what his ratings would have been as Chancellor in the aftermath of ERM!
72 - 11% will do = 100 maj
Watford may be championes league 1 next year - what a bunch of #s
68 I’m beginning to think you’re actually my brother as that’s exactly what he says
38 According to roger I add colour to the sight. I hadn’t realised I had such penetrative insight too!! I suppose a fluke can happen to anyone
75 - does he support that shyte too lol
According to Chris Grayling on ConHome
“It is now very clear Gordon Brown had ordered a ‘dash for cash’ ahead of an early Election.”
This was about the the Mahmoud Khayami story.
Looking at the story a bit more it looks like the Mail On Sunday thinks it is dodgy because
a) He is a second-hand car dealer
b) part French
c) part Iranian
d) Muslim
Whilst it appears they were close to a story, it looks like, in this case ,all is above board and someone has rightly made sure the rules have been complied with.
77 What’s his religion got to do with it?
it’s getting worse for Wendy
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1874611.0.wendy_did_she_lie.php
79 - sorry folks - the link didn’t work - back to find the right link
79 a comment on Guido suggests Dougie is in it deeper than Wendy and all will be revealed next week.
Enjoy my SNP colleagues (as we are now working together
)
BBC political reporter has been pushing the line this evening that “conventional wisdom” has it that Govt’s can recover from being at 34/35% in the polls to form a Govt at the next election, but (sustained) ratings of the level we are seeing at the moment is severe danger territory.
Never heard it put like that before, but makes reasonable sense looking at polls from the past. Hearing of the apparently relaxed demeanour of Nick P and other Labour MPs I have to say one can begin to have some sympathy with the view that Thatcher was knifed unjustifiably. After Conservative ratings before she was deposed were nowhere near as bad as Labour ratings now!
78) Nothing apart from to the Mail on Sunday, thats the point
Re 77, Fitaloon, “Whilst it appears they were close to a story, it looks like, in this case ,all is above board and someone has rightly made sure the rules have been complied with.”
Its the last part that in the light of recent events seems so shocking!
Fancy someone in Labour’s fundraising arm getting it right
81. Excuse me, I think I’m going to be….
http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/m3/feb2007/2/3/B51D30A7-9B73-D29D-32B820593A8C1A4B.jpg
Meanwhile, you’d never guess what Iain Dale is reporting
85. LOL!
85) For sick and Alexanders try this
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44049000/jpg/_44049038_wendybodytwo.jpg
85) or watch this for an apology (not)!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_7120000/newsid_7120600?redirect=7120622.stm&news=1&bbram=1&nbram=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1
77. Still looks dodgy though, for all the reasons cited. We are at the stage where mud of almost any sort is going to stick. Ironic, when you think about how Labour got off largely scot-free over far more genuine horrors earlier in their term - Ecclestone, foot-and-mouth etc.
85/88-LOL!!!!
82. Sure - but Thatcher was knifed because of Europe - the ‘we will lose the next GE with her in charge’ excuse was just a cover story to get nervous (and thick) backbenchers on side.
Re 86, Chris A, “Meanwhile, you’d never guess what Iain Dale is reporting :)”
Go on surprise us
Re 90, Harry, very true.
90 - it’s not in the Conservatives’ interest to having simple mudslinging going on, without evidence of lawbreaking. It gives validity to Labour’s desperate attempts to turn the problems into ones common to all parties, and to turn the spotlight on various Tory arrangements.
85. as a parrot?
94.But if our own funding cannot stand intense scrutiny then we would be no better than Labour and their desperate attempts to this into a common problem for all parties would be valid?
94. No it doesn’t. The ‘corrupt’ tag has already stuck to Labour, so ever bit of reinforcement helps. No-one is listening to Labour’s desperate attempts to point the finger at others.
96. “to *turn* this into a common problem for all parties”
According to SKY’s Boulton and Co they have an Exclusive Guess what?
http://adamboulton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/12/exclusive—lib.html
So in effect this poll confirms that Labour are staying at 11% behind the Conservatives. It’s very far behind but at least the worst seems to be over (for now). Does anyone know the sample size of the Com Res Polls?
96 - If the only problem with Labour funding was the question of whether it stuck strictly to the spirit of the laws passed then yes a strategy of portraying it as a common problem would be valid. Everyone knows Party funding is murky, and can never satisfy the theoretical ideals of total transparency and absence of circumstantial quid pro quos. As such, the only sensible basis on which it can be can judged in by carefully codifying what is and isn’t allowed within the law, and ensuring that those laws are enforced rigidly. It is the failure to adhere to the law that has got Labour into trouble, and it benefits nobody to mix in other cases where no lawbreaking has gone on, simply to reinforce an impression of corruption.
101 *and where new practices come to light which are not generally considered acceptable, further legislation should be introduced to maintain confidence in the system.
100 staying behind and sinking with every subsequent poll you mean…
100 - Labour in “don’t lose another percentage point in a day” shocker!
101. 102. Alex - overly theoretical, I think. This is about putting the boot in.
Not sinking. The tory lead peaked at 12.05% nearly a week ago. I expct it to be under 5% by the end of the year.
100.”It’s very far behind but at least the worst seems to be over (for now).” If that was a prediction from a sports commentator on a Scotland game I would be preparing for an own goal.
We never grow bored of Matthew’s weekly “Bluffer’s guide to dodgy use of statistics” slot.
105 - Well we’ll see. Chris Grayling’s measured comment on the story says differently. I suspect Cameron is secretly regretting his raising of the integrity question last week.
Re 99, Fitaloon, wow!
Just because my projects are (slightly) better than yours doesn’t mean that they are ‘dodgy’ or that I am bluffing. Have you got any qualifications in that area perchance?
Apologies for the typos but I have yet to be convinced that comparing polls on a company basis is better than doing it chronologically.
111 - Qualifications in the area of bluffing or the dodgy use of statistics?
Abrahams: 10 Labour officials were “in the know”..
Matthew your approach, of minutely analysing every individual poll in relation to the one that has gone previously would be dodgy, IMO, even if there was only one polling company.
As it is we have several polling companies using different methodologies, and importantly which will give different headline figures on the same base data. If Communicate Research and Populus poll on successive days, but find no significant differences in the two samples, then you will be reporting a widening Conservative lead if the Populus poll is reported first, or that Labour are recovering if the reverse!
Sky now saying Clegg: 58 Huhne 42…
112 no doubt you’ll be mopping up all the free money on the Commons seat market then.
I would try and get hold of a basic book on statistics though as your predictions are based on a nonsensical and deeply flawed methodology.
Good luck with it - but an approach that has you confidently predicting a hung parliament on Nov 24th and a 54 seat tory majority 3 days later with no significant polling differences really doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously. If it makes you very rich then congratulations and well done you.
115 (con) *and that’s without even broaching the subject of natural sample variation, margin of error etc etc
re 112, Mathew, “Apologies for the typos but I have yet to be convinced that comparing polls on a company basis is better than doing it chronologically.”
106 hahahahahahahaha
Con min lead 10% until next GE
106.That is quite a prediction and we will see if it comes to fruition.
One thing that has struck me about the constant and never ending bad headlines for Labour is the fact that some of them were known about for weeks before the relevant minister announced them and came clean with the details. I am thinking of the Jacqui Smith and Jack Straw admissions rather than the donor, lost discs and Northern Rock scandals. I hope that they were kept back so that proper investigations of the extent of the problems could be carried out rather than kept in a holding pattern to be released gradually after an Autumn GE?
I also hope that is the last of the bad news and we have no other major disasters sitting waiting to be declared at a later date.
116 On the telly? I can’t see it on the web.
Con gain everything
Background stories have it that the tories have a huge fat book of dirt on gordo
They haven’t used any of it yet as nulab keep giving them gifts on a plate each week
I’d retire now if I was him before the truth is out
112 Matthew, For pity’s sake, how many times do you have to be told before it sinks in?
From a previous thread:
QUOTE-
Matthew - your approach to polling analysis is rubbish - complete rubbish. You can only compare surveys from the same pollster using the same methodology. All three polls this week have shown sharp reverses for Labour. Learn to live with it.
by mike smithson November 30th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
END-QUOTE
Did David Abrhams really keep his father’s corpse for 3 days in his bed? That’s very weird
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=499089&in_page_id=1770
What a difference a week makes, only last week we were reading about “Labour’s most difficult week since Brown took over” in this article in the Observer.
Wendy won’t like to read today’s Sunday Herald.
http://www.sundayherald.com/
Another classic from Matt:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/12/02/matt.gif
What all you betting folk are not thinking about is whether real elections are true nowadays. Cameron might have a 10+% lead but still not achieve a majority, if only a few 1000 fraudulent votes are successfully delivered into the key contituencies.
The level of postal vote fraud, heavily concentrated into marginals could have swung the 2005 election for Labour. It takes only a few 1000 votes in the correct place for voting fraud to be highly effective.
You should also ask yourself why the government maintains deliberately a fraud-prone electoral system, unless the fraud that it creates was seen as beneficial to the Labour cause.
Now the criminality of Labour’s funding is becoming blindingly obvious, people might at last be more receptive to the idea that elections are being effectively rigged in the UK. I wrote on my blog yesterday about this for those who are interested, and I will be writing again later today (Hong King time). http://www.the-tap.blogspot.com
This is a pointless debate since I believe that a WMA is better than a rolling average. In this I have the support of the majority (or at least a sizable minority)f the US polling community although the UK polling community tends to use the rolling average.
Ironically, the difference is that I believe that Labour is 10-11% behind and starting to catch up (or at least bottoming out), you believe that it is 7-8% behind but continuing to fall behind. For a joke I looked at the Con Home website - it’s rolling average is actually more optimistic for Labour than my weighted moving average.
130. The question is - was there a higher swing to Labour (or lower swing against Labour) in seats which Labour won narrowly?
ie How many seats that Labour actually won would Labour have lost if there had been a uniform swing in every seat in the UK?
I don’t know the answer but I suspect it would be very, very few.
More bad news for Gordon, this time back to the armed forces
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2983826.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797084
“How many seats that Labour actually won would Labour have lost if there had been a uniform swing in every seat in the UK?”
Lab was down 5.4 in UK, Con up 0.6 and LD up 3.8
So it would mean that using uniform swing all Lab majorities under 6% over the tories should have fallen and under 9.2% majorities over LDs too.
Labour held versus the Tories:
Dumfries and Galloway
Dorset South
Selby
Thanet South
Gillingham
Enfield North (6% majority in 2001)
versus LDs:
Oldham East (6% maj in 2001).
A little idle speculation: I wonder if there is any link between the Channel 4 ‘briefing’ about the lack of business ‘footprint’ for Abrahams and the Mail story about the French donor?
That does seem unlikely although it would explain the Mail’s printing of the story. They must suspect something, otherwise it is a non-story.
Perhaps more damaging is the Mail story that Abrahams approached a Labour MP about a peerage six years ago and four years ago started making big donations to the Labour party. Coincidence, I am sure, but it does show that he was well enough known to get to the central lobby and ask an MP to join him there. And then to put his question about a peerage.
134. Thanks Andrea. So Labour in fact won 7 seats that they would have lost on a UNS.
To complete the analyis, how many seats did Labour in fact lose that they would have won on a UNS?
Sorry to give you so much work!
88. I’m quite aroused by that. Possibly a career in porn beckons if she gets cowbagged from ScotLab.
134 8 minutes! You answered a complex query in only 8 minutes! Great work Andrea.
I hereby apply to join the vast ranks of the Andrea fan club.
Good point made by the Sunday Telegraph leader about one of the pitfalls of state funding of parties:
“Furthermore, state funding would not solve the problem of lack of integrity and transparency in party finance. One of the most striking facts about the latest scandal is that the money donated by Mr Abrahams under assumed names was not to help Labour fight a general election: it was to help one candidate for the Labour deputy leadership defeat another candidate. Even the most extensive scheme for the state funding of political parties cannot include making everyone else pay for the battles fought between members of one party.”
Re 138, Disraeli “8 minutes! You answered a complex query in only 8 minutes! Great work Andrea.”
Andrea must have been making a coffee, he is normally much quicker than that
“To complete the analyis, how many seats did Labour in fact lose that they would have won on a UNS?”
Over 6% majorities lost to Con:
Peterborough
Shrewsbury & Atcham
Scarborough & Whitby
Preseli P
Putney
Hemel Hempstead
Wrekin
Croydon Central
Wimbledon
St Albans
Gravesham
Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale
Reading East
Enfield Southgate
over 9.2% maj lost to LD:
Rochdale
Leeds NW
Falmouth & Camborne
Cambridge
Hornsey
Withington
Looking at Scottish and Welsh swings, Labour should have lost Ochil to SNP but won the “To complete the analyis, how many seats did Labour in fact lose that they would have won on a UNS?”
Over 6% majorities lost to Con:
Peterborough
Shrewsbury & Atcham
Scarborough & Whitby
Preseli P
Putney
Hemel Hempstead
Wrekin
Croydon Central
Wimbledon
St Albans
Gravesham
Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale
Reading East
Enfield Southgate
over 9.2% maj lost to LD:
Rochdale
Leeds NW
Falmouth & Camborne
Cambridge
Hornsey
Withington
terrible editing of my comment..I must go to bed
Re 142, Andrea, “terrible editing of my comment..I must go to bed :-(”
Perhaps you should not have had decaffe coffee!
141. Thanks Andrea - fantastic work as always!
So Labour:
1) Won 7 seats they would have lost on a UNS
2) Lost 21 seats they would have won on a UNS
So this clearly does not support the idea that they won seats by delivering fraudulent votes in key constituencies.
In fact Labour did worse than expected in key constituencies with a net loss of 14 additional seats.
Labour are clusterf*cked…..
Whatever next? : Is David Abrahams Barry George’s Dad?
Re 145, Rod “Labour are clusterf*cked…..”
Yep. Good isn’t it?
“Whatever next? : Is David Abrahams Barry George’s Dad? ”
No, Wendy is wee Dougie’s brother.
She is to resign, as I predict here:
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2007/12/wendy-alexander-to-resign-official.html
As a Lbourite,lets see DC win,albieit narrowly in 2010,and within 12-18 vonths of his election,pick a fight over the Local Government Pension Scheme that results in industrial action that makes Ted Heath’s 3-day week in 1974 look like a teddy bears picnic-result-new Tory govts image shattered,they limp on for 3-4 years befor being voted out..
Re 147, Patrick, “pick a fight over the Local Government Pension Scheme that results in industrial action that makes Ted Heath’s 3-day week in 1974 look like a teddy bears picnic”
Just about every one else will look on public sector pensions and say “Go Dave go!”
The Labour donations scandal threatens to run into 2009, raising the nightmare scenario for Gordon Brown of his colleagues potentially being on trial at the time the prime minister wants to hold a general election, writes David Leppard.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2983895.ece
Re 149, Rod, nothing surprises me about Labour right now, however I am off to bed… G’night all!
We cannot go into all the allegations against [Mendelsohn] because he has instructed lawyers to take up the trusty sword of truth against the newspapers that printed them.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2983673.ece
ROFLMAOPIMP ….!!!!!
And now for a music question…..
“Who composed Mendelsohn’s Classical Movement for Fiddle?”
A. Mendelsohn
B. Mendelsohn
C. Abrahams
D. Mendelsohn
You have 50/50, Ask the Audience, and phone a (proxy) friend….
152-I don’ know!!!!!LOL!
Er, dunno Chris, I’d better take the 50/50….
************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
A. Mendelsohn
D. Mendelsohn
*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Er, can I ask the Audience, Chris……..
I know everybody is sleeping but:
“Brown’s agony gives Blair something to smile about”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2220664,00.html
Audience, fingers on your keypads - remember there are only TWO possible answers….. If you believe the answer is A “Mendelsohn” press “A”. If you believe the answer is D “Mendelsohn” press “D”
**************************************************************************************************************************************
A: 51%
D: 49%
**************************************************************************************************************************************
Chris, I’m gonna have to phone a friend…
OK, who are you gonna call?
I’ll phone GORDON, Chris….
OK, tell us about GORDON…..
156: BREAKING NEWS
77% of the audience of this episode of Millionaire (filmed in Birmingham) voted by post, and THEY all voted ‘C’
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/7days/story/0,,2220480,00.html
Twelve Ways In Which Things Could Possibly Get Worse For Gordon Brown Over The Next Few Weeks….
1 A junior official in the Home Office confesses to having mislaid a prison.
2 Scientists have accidentally released a strain of bacterium into the atmosphere that gives everyone in Britain mild diarrhoea for five months.
3 A decimal point has been in the wrong place at the Treasury for the past 23 years and we’re actually a Third-World economy.
4 Harriet Harman unwittingly gave Carlos the Jackal refuge for two months in 1989.
5 Jack Straw is spotted lying drunk and face down in a wedding cake at a reception to which he was not invited.
6 Peter Hain gets into a punch-up with Jemima Khan.
7 Ruth Kelly admits to having run over a badger in her car and then driving off.
8 Ed Balls finds out that he’s an illegal immigrant.
9 Squirrels chew a hole in the Thames Barrier.
10 A plane carrying 100 tons of Andrew’s Liver Salts accidentally crashes into Lake Windermere, resulting in the permanent shutting down of Cumbria.
11 David Miliband once had a pet hamster called Little Allah.
12 It is announced the 2012 Olympics going to London was actually a clerical error and they’re going to Paris after all.
159: no.12 would be good news surely…
141. Fraud could have been concentrated into marginals, but you feel from the numbers th