DS Forums

 
 

Opinion Polls Discussion Thread (Part 3)


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 28-04-2015, 00:12
SULLA
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,038
and many of us would consider the last 5 years a disaster for the country, so it's rather how you read history.
My history tells me that in the past 5 years the coalition have saved the country.


For example, I'm sure the "Bedroom Tax" had a 55% (or more support) just prior to it being implemented. It won't have that kind of support now will it?
It's not a tax.
SULLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 28-04-2015, 00:14
Amanda_Raymond
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,796
Significantly, Sturgeon told Evan Davis tonight that she would back Labour Queen's Speech and seek to exert influence afterwards.
She might want that but Labour won't let her.
Amanda_Raymond is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2015, 00:25
vald
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 30,976
She might want that but Labour won't let her.
She said that the SNP would have X number of seats and they would have their say in the House, not that she'd be twisting Ed's wrist.
vald is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2015, 00:32
Amanda_Raymond
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,796
She said that the SNP would have X number of seats and they would have their say in the House, not that she'd be twisting Ed's wrist.
Oh I agree with that, and that goes for whoever the government is, If they do win all the seats in Scotland, they must have a say even if the Tories are in power
Amanda_Raymond is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2015, 00:33
ItJustMyOpinion
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London
Posts: 21,494
Those Tories on Political Betting, are insane though - the kind of people who really make you think about the Conservative Party. There's something not quite right about them - their tendency to overreact to polls is hilarious.

Nonetheless, I wonder if we'll start to see a trend across all pollsters towards the Tories now? I have a (bad) feeling that they'll be the largest party in a hung parliament - only really, the LD parliamentary party, and federal executive committee can stop a full blown Tory/LD coalition now, IMHO. Especially as Clegg doesn't appear to be drawing the EU ref as a red line - if he's prepared to accept it, then that's one huge milestone out the way. That of course depends on Clegg keeping his seat, which is still a knife edge situation right now. If he goes, along with Alexander that's a huge loss for the Tories in regard to coalition hopes. Even if the Tories form a minority government, I suspect without LD support at the least it wouldn't be able to pass a Queen's Speech (in fact, maybe even with LD support, with SNP + Lab combination, it could still lose). Oh well, we've still got a long way to go. But even I'm starting to have a feeling that the Tories, with the SNP tactic have edged away, although I think it's a small lead.

If they do make managed to form a government, it'll be interesting to see how they make it out of a period that will include an EU ref (and how the Tories avoid tearing themselves a part over it), perhaps another Scottish ref (when Scots may well leave the union), and if they'll even meet their targets of cuts, given how they've not managed to do so in this term.
Don't we have to factor in Labours built in advantage within the voting system though? The Tory's have to be about six points ahead of Labour just to get the same number of seats or something like that.

Many Tory's and Lib Dem's don't want another coalition and neither do I. The best option is a Tory majority but as that seems impossible I now would prefer Labour to be the largest party.
ItJustMyOpinion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2015, 00:40
Amanda_Raymond
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,796
Having a look at Labour's target seats , Great Yarmouth is 74. Tories lead by 9.9 in the last election, Lord Ashcroft's latest poll says Tories lead by 2. If that proves accurate, that's swing of almost 8 to Labour
Amanda_Raymond is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2015, 00:44
PrincessPerfect
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: In the red mist
Posts: 19,787
Don't we have to factor in Labours built in advantage within the voting system though? The Tory's have to be about six points ahead of Labour just to get the same number of seats or something like that.

Many Tory's and Lib Dem's don't want another coalition and neither do I. The best option is a Tory majority but as that seems impossible I now would prefer Labour to be the largest party.
AFAIR, the Tories needed a 7-point lead to get a majority - they can get an equal/similar number of seats to Labour, or be the largest party in a hung parliament with a less % lead. Nonetheless, from what I understood - even with an equal vote share to Labour, Labour would still have more seats than the Tories (due to Lab's electoral advantage). Which is why, I'm slightly confused by the projections from various sources, but particularly Newsnight showing the Tories leading by roughly 30 seats or so, on a equal vote share. I don't get how they get those projections. Out of interest, why do you think a Labour majority is better than a Con-Lib coalition? At least you get some right-wing influence in that situation.
PrincessPerfect is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2015, 00:54
Hildaonpluto
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 23,724
She said that the SNP would have X number of seats and they would have their say in the House, not that she'd be twisting Ed's wrist.
Precisely. Our political culture needs to understand the importance of the art of negotiation and compromise instead of these pantomime cartoon caricatures of arm twisting and people constantly being held to ransom. It's school kids talk.
Hildaonpluto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2015, 01:12
dodrade
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,106
So to clarify:

Tory - 283
Labour - 270
SNP - 48
Lib Dem - 24
DUP - 8
Others - 16
Labour+SNP+PC+SDLP+Galloway+Lady Sylvia=326 and Miliband as PM.
dodrade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2015, 01:23
Pat_Smith
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: The South, thankfully.
Posts: 2,089
Nonetheless, from what I understood - even with an equal vote share to Labour, Labour would still have more seats than the Tories (due to Lab's electoral advantage). Which is why, I'm slightly confused by the projections from various sources, but particularly Newsnight showing the Tories leading by roughly 30 seats or so, on a equal vote share. I don't get how they get those projections.

I think the Labour electoral skew in their favour, where less votes equals more seats, requires that they aren't routed in Scotland. Labour being dead north of the border seems to result in a electoral balance.
Pat_Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2015, 02:38
Hildaonpluto
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 23,724
Labour+SNP+PC+SDLP+Galloway+Lady Sylvia=326 and Miliband as PM.
Don't forget the Greens!
Hildaonpluto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2015, 05:21
FusionFury
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,884
Labour+SNP+PC+SDLP+Galloway+Lady Sylvia=326 and Miliband as PM.
And this is why Miliband is the bookies massive odds-on favourite to be PM after the election.

Unless the Tories can win some of the voters around or get the ones who haven't yet to a polling station
FusionFury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2015, 07:43
smudges dad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fort William
Posts: 22,269
Don't we have to factor in Labours built in advantage within the voting system though? The Tory's have to be about six points ahead of Labour just to get the same number of seats or something like that.

Many Tory's and Lib Dem's don't want another coalition and neither do I. The best option is a Tory majority but as that seems impossible I now would prefer Labour to be the largest party.
AFAIR, the Tories needed a 7-point lead to get a majority - they can get an equal/similar number of seats to Labour, or be the largest party in a hung parliament with a less % lead. Nonetheless, from what I understood - even with an equal vote share to Labour, Labour would still have more seats than the Tories (due to Lab's electoral advantage). Which is why, I'm slightly confused by the projections from various sources, but particularly Newsnight showing the Tories leading by roughly 30 seats or so, on a equal vote share. I don't get how they get those projections. Out of interest, why do you think a Labour majority is better than a Con-Lib coalition? At least you get some right-wing influence in that situation.
Both the Tories and Labour have an inbuilt advantage. Is it fair that a party getting 15% of the vote may end up with 2seats instead of about 100?
smudges dad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2015, 07:46
Boyard
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London
Posts: 5,138
Precisely. Our political culture needs to understand the importance of the art of negotiation and compromise instead of these pantomime cartoon caricatures of arm twisting and people constantly being held to ransom. It's school kids talk.
Agreed. It's frankly embarrassing.
Boyard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2015, 07:53
MartinP
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: North London, UK
Posts: 28,048
Both the Tories and Labour have an inbuilt advantage. Is it fair that a party getting 15% of the vote may end up with 2seats instead of about 100?
Labour have the biggest advantage. Not that you'll admit it..
MartinP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2015, 08:00
smudges dad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fort William
Posts: 22,269
Labour have the biggest advantage. Not that you'll admit it..
The Labour advantage is minor compared to the advantage BOTH the Tories and Labour have over all the other parties, not that you'll admit it
smudges dad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2015, 08:07
David Tee
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 22,520
Both the Tories and Labour have an inbuilt advantage. Is it fair that a party getting 15% of the vote may end up with 2seats instead of about 100?
How about we focus on your neck of the woods where a party may get 18% of the vote and end up with 0 seats instead of about 8....
David Tee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2015, 08:16
smudges dad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fort William
Posts: 22,269
How about we focus on your neck of the woods where a party may get 18% of the vote and end up with 0 seats instead of about 8....
No need to focus on anywhere, we need a more representational system so all political viewpoints which are voted for in numbers are properly represented.
smudges dad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2015, 08:41
Living4Love
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Brighton
Posts: 1,973
Don't forget the Greens!
Lets just hope Labour's negotiation team are better than that of 2010, only Peter Mandelson - who I don't even like! seemed organised. Ed Balls clearly ****ed up a Lib Dem pact by letting his ego get in the way. Labour better have learned some lessons and have a plan in place for May 8th, if not this won't work.
Living4Love is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2015, 08:42
David Tee
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 22,520
No need to focus on anywhere, we need a more representational system so all political viewpoints which are voted for in numbers are properly represented.
I'm on the fence - although leaning more and more towards PR. But playing Devil's advocate with you, unless that representation actually carries through to results - what is the point?

As an example, under PR we might have a situation where UKIP have 78 seats,. Because of the weight of the Coalition against them, UKIP will almost certainly not get any of their front line policies accepted. So, I repeat - what is the point?

(Apologies for derailing the Polls thread, don't know about anyone else but I'm finding the polls all over the place these days)
David Tee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2015, 08:48
BA Baracus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Los Angeles Underground
Posts: 100
A bad set of numbers for Ukip in the Ashcroft polls.

Castle Point still seems possible (Ukip and Conservatives were pretty much neck and neck in the unweighted numbers) but worrying for for them that all the effort invested there doesn't seem to have advanced their position.

The Great Grimsby poll is a disaster for them. That's another consituency where they have invested huge effort but they've slipped right back.
BA Baracus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2015, 08:49
MattXfactor
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 3,125
Having a look at Labour's target seats , Great Yarmouth is 74. Tories lead by 9.9 in the last election, Lord Ashcroft's latest poll says Tories lead by 2. If that proves accurate, that's swing of almost 8 to Labour
That's a swing of 3.95%.
MattXfactor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2015, 08:52
MattXfactor
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 3,125
AFAIR, the Tories needed a 7-point lead to get a majority - they can get an equal/similar number of seats to Labour, or be the largest party in a hung parliament with a less % lead. Nonetheless, from what I understood - even with an equal vote share to Labour, Labour would still have more seats than the Tories (due to Lab's electoral advantage). Which is why, I'm slightly confused by the projections from various sources, but particularly Newsnight showing the Tories leading by roughly 30 seats or so, on a equal vote share. I don't get how they get those projections. Out of interest, why do you think a Labour majority is better than a Con-Lib coalition? At least you get some right-wing influence in that situation.
The reason most projections still predict a tory seat lead on the night is most projection models are still forecasting a late small movement to the tories
MattXfactor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2015, 08:57
niceguy1966
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 12,479
I'm on the fence - although leaning more and more towards PR. But playing Devil's advocate with you, unless that representation actually carries through to results - what is the point?

As an example, under PR we might have a situation where UKIP have 78 seats,. Because of the weight of the Coalition against them, UKIP will almost certainly not get any of their front line policies accepted. So, I repeat - what is the point?

(Apologies for derailing the Polls thread, don't know about anyone else but I'm finding the polls all over the place these days)
The point would be that the government represents the wishes of the majority. UKIP are unique in their position on a few major policies, so you either love them or hate than, but they will struggle to find friends in Parliament. Like the main parties they could move nearer the centre but that would kind of defeat the point.

They are a minority party and will not hold the reigns of power while that is the case.
niceguy1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-04-2015, 08:58
Inspiration
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 53,387
Nat Silver has just announced his predictions:

Given that UKIP will definitely win at least 2 it makes me worried about 'the worlds best pollster".
Indeed. Didn't see the programme but BBC News just showed the ending and I agree.. he's effectively just read out the predicted seats from polling. Which as you rightly point out.. has UKIP on 1 seat when they look pretty good bets for at least 2 seats, possibly 3. It was just a gimmick basically.

Would have been much better to have had someone like Ashcroft do it.
Inspiration is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 23:19.