Poll: General election voting round 5 (final one)

[AGD]

What's more amusing is that the tories blocked house of lords reform so the lib dems then blocked reworking the constituency boundaries.

 

[joeyjojo]

Here's a great article by Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman on why austerity didn't work.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion

Thanks for sharing, will read later.

This is pretty much where I stand at the moment, I want to vote for UKIP, but do not want to see Labour win.

I think people should vote for their first choice, and tactical voting doesn't do anyone any favours. At the very least it sends a message and gets your party of choice a bit of money.

 

[D.P.]

Their polling data appears not to include 'others' such as the DUP/PC/SNP.

They do have that data but it doesn't appear in the poll of polls for various reasons, not least the pollsters often don't poll regional parties like the SNP.
Not least it would give a very false impression of the British national average and the outcome of the election, e.g. the SNP is something like 3.5% of the British vote but it only makes sense to look at SNP in the context of Scottish seats.

Also the method use to poll typically involves a careful selection of 1000-1500 people that aim to represent the national average demographic, i.e. it is not a random 1000 people but carefully selected 1000 people. After the polling they then look at the demographics they questioned and modify the vote percentages to reflect the true national demographic, e.g. if they inadvertently ended up with more old people, or males, or working class than the national average then they correct for this. This is what makes them reasonably accurate and consistent with each other when normally a random 1000 people sample would be meaningless.

the problem with the small regional parties is that if apply their voter scores nationally you risk corrupting the data, e.g. just because x% of people of a sample including Scottish voters vote for SNP doesn't mean that x% of the entire UK will vote SNP.

It is much easier to only sample national parties, and do separate regional polls for scotland, NI etc.

 

[AGD]

For people arguing about polls, the best forecasting model I have seen is the one at fivethirtyeight:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/uk-general-election-predictions/

They fully explain their model and it's a forecast rather than a nowcast.

 

[delta0]

The economist have gone for conservatives.

 

[D.P.]

Other websites I frequent have a similar distribution of votes - but they tend to be filled with people with reasonable disposable income if that makes a difference?

It makes a big difference.

 

[ubersonic]

Here's a great article by Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman on why austerity didn't work.

Unlike most people I have nothing but respect for Paul Krugman, his prediction that the internet was a fad and most people would have lost interest in it by 2005 was bang on the money, I am super serious.

 

[jimjamuk]

Here's a great article by Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman on why austerity didn't work.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion

Key takeaways:

- The harsher the austerity, the lower the growth
- UK austerity meant lower growth in the first two years of the last parliament
- UK is alone in believing that austerity has worked and the economic evidence for austerity leading to higher growth has been discredited

This would suggest that austerity going forward will result in lower growth - hence the Tory/UKIP plans would most harm the economy.

So if the austerity didn't put us in the position now where we are growing faster than all the other European countries, then haven't we got a double win by growing faster than everyone else and by cutting the deficit by as much as we have? I wonder what this chap thinks of Greece and the teetering on financial collapse still whilst they talk about spending more money than they actually have.

 

[D.P.]

For people arguing about polls, the best forecasting model I have seen is the one at fivethirtyeight:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/uk-general-election-predictions/

They fully explain their model and it's a forecast rather than a nowcast.

May2015 also explain their model in detail, and that includes forecasting and not just now-casting (e.g. they model historic election day swings).
They agree with each other, most of the predictions do (May2015 list the other predictions.

 

[Mr Jack]

How many times do Labour need to ruin the economy before people stop voting for them.

There is no statistical difference in GDP growth under Labour and the Tories. The last Labour government produced the longest continuous period of growth since records began while this government killed the recovery they inherited and led to the worst recovery on record. Yet somehow we're supposed to believe the Tories are the ones we should trust with the economy?

 

[cheesyboy]

So if the austerity didn't put us in the position now where we are growing faster than all the other European countries, then haven't we got a double win by growing faster than everyone else and by cutting the deficit by as much as we have? I wonder what this chap thinks of Greece and the teetering on financial collapse still whilst they talk about spending more money than they actually have.

It's worth remembering that we were growing faster than all the major european countries before the recession. And we don't have the millstone of the Euro.

 

[gobbo]

I can understand why that would panic some people, sure. Common sense is the enemy of your average lefty.

This is what riles me up about some UKIP supporters, this misguided approach of ANYONE who opposes you MUST be a raving socialist.

Just because we don't want Nigel "man of the people" Farage anywhere near Westminster, don't see the EU as this big evil empire and don't think it's fair to blame the failings of the NHS, traffic congestion, high house prices and rubbish social care on immigration doesn't make us all lefties.

 

[jimjamuk]

There is no statistical difference in GDP growth under Labour and the Tories. The last Labour government produced the longest continuous period of growth since records began while this government killed the recovery they inherited and led to the worst recovery on record. Yet somehow we're supposed to believe the Tories are the ones we should trust with the economy?

I'll agree for the first couple of terms Labour were blessed with a boom cycle but in that time spent all the money making services better and employing lots of civil servants. Times were good as money was being thrown around. Towards the end though, not a week went by where people looked at things like house prices and the price of credit and the abundance of it all so we could continue to spend, and thought there's trouble coming if this keeps up. Then the recession hit and whilst I agree Labour didn't cause that recession - they had spent the rainy day fund this country had to get through it. to top it they bailed out every man and dog and stuck it on the countries credit card.

 

[Mickie]

They give people other peoples money for being too stupid to operate a condom?

What the actual ****?

Thanks. Pretty offensive.

What happened to me was I earned good money while we had our daughter.

The economy messed up. It wasn't my fault. I paid into the system and now I'm asking for some of my tax back while I get on my feet. I don't want to be where I am right now. I want to be where I was. Earning above 30k again. But the credit I get I currently rely on. Sorry if this upsets you.

 

[Stusteel]

And the reply to that article http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/06/paul-krugman-got-it-wrong-austerity-jeffrey-sachs

Here's a great article by Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman on why austerity didn't work.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion

Key takeaways:

- The harsher the austerity, the lower the growth
- UK austerity meant lower growth in the first two years of the last parliament
- UK is alone in believing that austerity has worked and the economic evidence for austerity leading to higher growth has been discredited

This would suggest that austerity going forward will result in lower growth - hence the Tory/UKIP plans would most harm the economy.

 

[delta0]

Milliband ruled out a formal coalition, he didn't rule out any other kind of deal, such as a vote of confidence to block the Tories.


You don't need a majority party/coalition to become the prime minister, you just need to pass the house vote of confidence. Labour can do that without an official coalition with SNP, they can e en do it without any explicitly deal. the SNP will vote no to any Tory proposed government, and they wont want a re-election so voting in confidence for any kind of Labour government is in their bets interest. This is what makes it so easy for labour, they don't have to do anything to get SNP on their side.


The other way to look at is is to is there any path where the Tories will be able to pass a vote of confidence. And there basically isn't from the current polls, even with reasonably large gains the Tories. There is an incredibly narrow chance where absolutely everything to go in the Tories favor. They have to win every single marginal labour seat and UKIP seat, the mid dems have beat every marginal labour seat, and the lib dems would have to agree to a Tory Coaliton which is looking increasingly unlikely, especially if that invovled any DUP or UKIP MPs. Even then things become exceedingly fragile, e.g. they might just make it without a single spare seat, or only 1 or 2 over. In which case if 1-2 members of that coalition gets sick or stuck in traffic unable to turn up to the queens speech then the Tories will be out voted.

So the options left are some kind of Labour government, even just labor alone as a minority, or a labour-tory coalition. The former is far more likely than the latter.

If conservatives get over 283 seats then they are very likely to get support. As current incumbents they get the first chance to form government and so will automatically take lib again. This means supporting vote from DUP, UKIP, UUP and lib may pull in APNI if they get a seat.

 

[elmarko]

Possibly, but I'd argue that it IS the fault of the unskilled or untalented that they ARE unskilled or untalented in the first place. You don't need a paid-for education to drag yourself up off the bottom rung.

The idea of a 'self made man' is a myth, it's frankly laughable to still believe in it in this day & age.

 

[jimjamuk]

It's worth remembering that we were growing faster than all the major european countries before the recession. And we don't have the millstone of the Euro.

But those times were fuelled by consumer credit , which was effectively given away to anyone who wanted it. Those days are gone so the fact we are outpacing everyone else whilst still cutting back is a credit I think to how it was done. Sure I might feel different if something I relied on had been cut but overall I would take more of the same again

 

[cheesyboy]

Of course I would. But then this comes back to my debate about whether people are (or are not) in a position to have children

Only if you want to create a circular logic

 

[escape sanity]

If conservatives get over 283 seats then they are very likely to get support. As current incumbents they get the first chance to form government and so will automatically take lib again. This means supporting vote from DUP, UKIP, UUP and lib may pull in APNI if they get a seat.

If the Lib Dems go into a coalition with UKIP, they can wave goodbye to whatever seats they haven't already lost come the 2020 election.