Support NeoGAF

[JonathanEx]

Interesting! Well, I'm not going to doubt ICM for being different, but it's interesting how the different methodologies (phone vs online) are producing these different results. This might be a bit more interesting again now.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

ICM/Guardian 2010-04-11 Con 37 Lab 31 LD 20

From the same week in the campaign last election. Pretty close to the final result, just a bit low for the Lib Dems and one point higher for Labour.

 

[CyclopsRock]

It's one poll. A poll which has UKIP at 7% which frankly doesn't seem believable. ICM may be the goldstandard (that's debatable by the way) but they're still susceptible to the odd outlier. This looks to be as much an outlier as the two huge Labour leads last friday. Even ICM reckon the sample may have been a "touch too tory"

It's shifted the poll of polls to a (whopping) 0.1% Tory lead. That's it, election's done, go home everyone.

Murphy has just claimed that the manifesto states that Labour are the only party dedicated to ending austerity, which is basically the opposite to what it actually says. Chuka had to slap him down. The IFS has said that they have no idea what Labour voters are voting for. Sounds like they're setting the bar fairly low for the Tories tomorrow, but they've never been ones to shirk from a challenge; let's see how they can fluff it tomorrow.

 

[gerg]

Oh no, I'm suggesting exactly the opposite - that arts education funding is the best use of that money. There's not much in terms of specifics in the manifesto, but going on Labour's history of stuffing the arts council with its friends and a fair bit of dosh, it's that I have a problem with. Given the manifesto says "The arts should belong to all and be open to all to take part in," I'm not holding out hope this will change. Personally I'd see the Arts Council scrapped entirely and all the money put into proper arts education, as young as possible.

Well then I'm not sure we're necessarily disagreeing, except I don't think that an Arts Council is in theory a bad idea and I'm not so offended by the jargon of the manifesto.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Oh, and another bit of info from that same poll:

The survey gives Cameron a remarkably strong net personal rating of +18, with 52% of voters rating him as doing a good job, and only 34% suggesting he is doing badly. This is by some way the prime minister’s strongest showing with ICM since his honeymoon, in August 2010, since when he has mostly been scoring in modestly negative territory. For example, Cameron’s net score was -3 last November.

Cameron’s personal rating remains comfortably ahead of Ed Miliband’s. The Labour leader recovers a touch from a net -42 last November, but still languishes on -30. Cameron’s standing is also streets ahead of that of all the other political leaders: Clegg is on -20; Nigel Farage on –16; Natalie Bennett of the Greens on –6. Only Nicola Sturgeon of the Scottish National party (SNP) scores positively, with a net +12.

Dat positive rating.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

It's one poll. A poll which has UKIP at 7% which frankly doesn't seem believable. ICM may be the goldstandard (that's debatable by the way) but they're still susceptible to the odd outlier. This looks to be as much an outlier as the two huge Labour leads last friday.

One constant of the last couple of weeks is that UKIP's vote is unwinding. 7% is a tad low, but I'm not usually one to question ICM. The last time I did that was when they had the Tories on 36 and 4 points up, after that all the others fell in line with that general picture.

The Tory squeeze on UKIP is definitely underway, how well it is doing is definitely up for debate, but ICM is showing that they are going great guns.

The two Labour leads were by Survation and Panelbase, with the greatest respect to the both of them and their employees, they are no ICM. ICM's methodology has been proved right again and again. The Guardian pays ICM well above market rates for phone polls for a reason and Lord Ashcroft uses ICM phone polling for a similar reason. They are, without doubt, the best pollster for UK politics. Ipsos/MORI run them a close second because of their unprompted "issues" index and their leader ratings which has acted as a canary in a coal mine for successive elections.

 

[Par Score]

Never put much stock in any single poll, whether you like the result or not. Pay attention to the trends people, the trends.

(We're at roughly level pegging and have been for months)

 

[kmag]

One constant of the last couple of weeks is that UKIP's vote is unwinding. 7% is a tad low, but I'm not usually one to question ICM. The last time I did that was when they had the Tories on 36 and 4 points up, after that all the others fell in line with that general picture.

The Tory squeeze on UKIP is definitely underway, how well it is doing is definitely up for debate, but ICM is showing that they are going great guns.

The two Labour leads were by Survation and Panelbase, with the greatest respect to the both of them and their employees, they are no ICM. ICM's methodology has been proved right again and again. The Guardian pays ICM well above market rates for phone polls for a reason and Lord Ashcroft uses ICM phone polling for a similar reason. They are, without doubt, the best pollster for UK politics. Ipsos/MORI run them a close second because of their unprompted "issues" index and their leader ratings which has acted as a canary in a coal mine for successive elections.

ICM seem to be ones questioning ICM.

The sample is too tory, you can see that in the leaders personal ratings. Cameron's has went through the roof in this poll despite a week where even his Mother would suggest he's not exactly had the best of it.

 

[CyclopsRock]

ICM seem to be ones questioning ICM.

The sample is too tory, you can see that in the leaders personal ratings. Cameron's has went through the roof in this poll.

That's because he's the D-dawg. The big DC. The Cam-Man! The people just love him.

 

[mr-paul]

The results of this ICM poll for the Scottish people they asked was SNP 44%, Con 35%, Lab 12%. There's no way that's an accurate reflection of the situation up there, so it's likely that this poll is a outlier with a extremely tory sample.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

ICM seem to be ones questioning ICM.

The sample is too tory, you can see that in the leaders personal ratings. Cameron's has went through the roof in this poll despite a week where even his Mother would suggest he's not exactly had the best of it.

The sample may be a bit top heavy for the Cons, but the weightings have the 2010 vote sorted out. Also, we had the same warnings from ICM before their poll two months ago which had the Tories on 36, four points ahead of Labour and that poll was not an outlier, just ahead of the curve with other polls showing the Tories on 36 or higher and the Con lead with other polls at 3 or 4 points.

This may be an outlier, but I'm not going to dismiss it as one.

 

[Lego Boss]

The results of this ICM poll for the Scottish people they asked was SNP 44%, Con 35%, Lab 12%. There's no way that's an accurate reflection of the situation up there, so it's likely that this poll is a outlier with a extremely tory sample.

This has got to be BS. How did they get those numbers?

Tend to agree with line about trends. If we had PR, this parliament would be hung like Mad Dog McRee. With the FPP, it still might be tight, but I can see Labour, somehow being able to form a govt with assistance from others.

They're really going after the minority seats.

I'm in Loughborough constituency, where Nicky Morgan is the sitting MP 2010 it was about there were about 600 seats in it and now she's SoS fror education, so Labour are really going after it.

 

[killer_clank]

The results of this ICM poll for the Scottish people they asked was SNP 44%, Con 35%, Lab 12%. There's no way that's an accurate reflection of the situation up there, so it's likely that this poll is a outlier with a extremely tory sample.

to be fair, just because the scottish subsample says that doesn't automatically invalidate the poll, subsamples like that just have a massive margin of error. it's not been too odd to see tories ahead of labour in scottish subsamples once in a while for the past few months.

i'd imagine this poll is a bit of an outlier in that it's above the margin of error, but at the same time there's no point in excluding it outright. keep to the poll of polls.

 

[ferrasvansen]

The results of this ICM poll for the Scottish people they asked was SNP 44%, Con 35%, Lab 12%. There's no way that's an accurate reflection of the situation up there, so it's likely that this poll is a outlier with a extremely tory sample.

Yeah pretty much invalidates the whole poll. There is more chance of Lord Lucan turning up on election night than that being the Scottish result, maybe they mixed up Labour and Conservative. Also the poll has conservatives way ahead in the north, erm I do not think so.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Interesting that if this is a big outlier - and it's worth remembering that in the last 2 monthly ICM polls the Tories have been on 36, so it's not the huge jump for ICM that the poll-of-polls suggests - that it's still coming at the expense of UKIP. Well, they lost 2 just like Labour but that's a big ol' chunk of their vote gone. And the Greens are up 3 points? If it's a funky sample, I think it's more complicated than just "too tory", no?

 

[Mr Git]

That's because he's the D-dawg. The big DC. The Cam-Man! The people just love him.

In the north he's known by other names.

 

[kmag]

The sample may be a bit top heavy for the Cons, but the weightings have the 2010 vote sorted out. Also, we had the same warnings from ICM before their poll two months ago which had the Tories on 36, four points ahead of Labour and that poll was not an outlier, just ahead of the curve with other polls showing the Tories on 36 or higher and the Con lead with other polls at 3 or 4 points.

This may be an outlier, but I'm not going to dismiss it as one.

ICM also had the Tories on 28% in December. That was obviously bullshit, as is this. That 36% ICM was a small jump from the pack which was 33%-34%. The pack are still at 33%-35% where as this is at 39%

Still 3 more polls out tonight.

 

[killer_clank]

The weekly Ashcroft is also out:

CON 33%,
LAB 33%,
LDEM 9%,
UKIP 13%,
GRN 6%

Just about the most generic GE15 poll you can get.

 

[Visualante2]

Problem with arts funding is that it all goes to institutions run by white people in London.

 

[Hellers]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ro-credibility-on-tax-avoidance-10167369.html

I rarely find myself agreeing with David Cameron. But when he told Starbucks to “wake up and smell the coffee, because the public who buy from them have had enough”, and when he described aggressive tax avoidance schemes as “quite frankly, morally wrong”, I thought the tide was finally turning on the Tories’ approach to tax avoidance.
But I should have known better. Actions speak louder than words, and today’s revelations about Lynton Crosby, the Tories’ election chief, show the reality.

Few people in the Conservative party wield as much power as Lynton Crosby. Yet this is a man who appears to be up to his neck in tax avoidance. Looking at the sheer complexity of his network of offshore interests, it is difficult to see what purpose these arrangements can possibly serve other than to avoid tax.

 

[Dambrosi]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-10167369.html

Another scandal in the making?

And yeah, that ICM poll is bullshit.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Another scandal in the making?

And yeah, that ICM poll is bullshit.

It strikes me as a bit of a "westminster bubble" thing. I doubt very much anyone gives a shit about this person they've never heard of's tax affairs.

But we now need to know what his companies in Malta are for. We need to know why the Maltese company delayed filing accounts for 18 months. We need to know whether Crosby has personally gained from his status as a non-dom.

They're taking the definition of the term "need" to hitherto unconquered territory. I suspect I'll live.

 

[pulsemyne]

The weekly Ashcroft is also out:

CON 33%,
LAB 33%,
LDEM 9%,
UKIP 13%,
GRN 6%

Just about the most generic GE15 poll you can get.

This probably means it's also quite accurate.
Let's not forget that ICM had the scottish yes campaign winning by 8 percent with 6 days to go. They really aren't doing good polls these days.

 

[kmag]

Latest Sun/YouGov

Westminster Voting Intention: LAB lead by 1. CON 33, LAB 34, LD 8, UKIP 13, GRN 6.

il ne change pas

 

[Deleted member 231381]

It's worth remembering that the margin of error applies at the 95% confidence level. That means one in every twenty polls you get one even further away from the MoE. ICM's just looks like a particularly nasty outlier, but they happen, you can't do much about that.

 

[JonathanEx]

The main thing from Lord Ashcroft's poll you may have missed. The focus groups.

But what if the leaders were to come over for dinner? An evening with Mr Farage would be amusing, and his conversation perhaps “a bit close to the bone”. They would cook him roast beef and Yorkshire pudding, or bangers and mash. Would he bring a gift? “A big pack of ciggies.” Mr Clegg would bring a bottle of Chablis (spontaneous unanimity across both groups on this point) and flowers. The groups would give him salmon (“pink and flaky”) or “a family barbecue to cheer him up”. Of the four, “he would be the most interested in your family, and would ask lots of questions”. Who would Mr Miliband bring with him? “Two advisers”. Would he bring a gift? “One of his advisers would have sorted something out.” His conversation would either be “very intense”, or “he would tell knock-knock jokes.” Mr Cameron would arrive “holding hands tightly” with Sam. Like his deputy he would enjoy a barbecue (though with steak, rather than the usual burgers and sausages), or something Italian, and would bring good red wine. The conversation? “You wouldn’t get an answer on anything serious but you could talk to him. He’s not a textbook Tory, not a pompous git.”

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/04/ashcroft-national-poll-con-33-lab-33-lib-dem-9-ukip-13-green-6/

 

[Mama Robotnik]

Tuesday's front pages.

My favourite first, just because its such a hilariously crazy headline given that its talking about the Tories:

A lot are focusing on this story:

Bringing up someone as divisive as Thatcher galvanises the base, but I can't imagine it would help sway any undecideds. She is still toxic up North.

Finally, the Mirror ignores the housing story and goes with this:

 

[Jezbollah]

Good morning all.

Not only do we have the Conservatives manifesto coming out today, but the Greens too. I'll keep an eye out for them and will post links here asap.

 

[Hellers]

Aren't the housing associations who own most of the council housing stock now private companies most which had to go into very large amounts of debt to buy the things in the first place.

Won't having to sell off their stock at rock bottom prices pretty much bankrupt most of them?

 

[kitch9]

Problem with arts funding is that it all goes to institutions run by white people in London.

At what point should white people get offended that they are getting called white?

At what point do we scream racist at anyone who even mentions colour when referring to people?

 

[Hasney]

Christ, I was scrolling through those papers too quick and I thought Clegg had aged horribly and got himself a talking dog to win votes.

 

[brain_stew]

After right to buy created such a devastating legacy for my generation, I can't believe it's being trotted out again as a last ditch effort to save a Tory election campaign.

A select few win the lottery while generations to come all suffer because of it. What a disgusting policy.

I'm really not sure this policy will hit home with the working classes the way the Tories think either. Right to Buy bought working class votes for the Tories in its original form because we all lived in council houses back then. A huge swathe of society were given their first opportunity to own their own home. The younger generations are now far more likely to have to rent these old council homes from a private landlord at inflated rates than to have a coucil house of their own. Among this group, surey the policy will only create resentment as it makes the idea of gaining a council home an even more distant reality?

Then again, If you only need to move the polls a few percentage points anyway perhaps the estimated 1m+ that will benefit from the free giveaway is all you need to convince. Those paying high private rents for ex council houses probably weren't going to vote Tory anyway. Heck, if I was in a council house currently, being totally selfish, why wouldn't I vote for the party that was going to give me up to £100k free cash?? Fuck everyone else.

 

[kmag]

Aren't the housing associations who own most of the council housing stock now private companies most which had to go into very large amounts of debt to buy the things in the first place.

Won't having to sell off their stock at rock bottom prices pretty much bankrupt most of them?

Ssh, you're acting like there is any intention of following through on any of these "promises", the Tories are just throwing anything they can think of at the wall to see what moves votes to their column. They'll deal with the fall out under a new leader next election if they win.

 

[Maledict]

Funny how right to buy comes up just as we were talking about. Only in an even worse form than before. It's funded by local councils being forced to sell off homes as they become vacant, so you lose massive amounts of social housing from both sides. It's an utterly insane policy that will significantly worsen housing in the country, something that's already horrendously broken. It will also fuel a housing bubble even worse than the last decade.

The idea that the homes will be replaced by forcing councils to build on brownfield land is also balmy - brownfield land isn't the issue! It's the green belt that needs looking at. Also where does the money come from for building these new home?

Finally, can we at least agree that localism under the Tories is deader than a dodo? Forcing inner london boroughs which have literally thousands of families to sell off their current housing stock is the opposite of localism in every respect.

 

[Dougald]

The idea that the homes will be replaced by forcing councils to build on brownfield land is also balmy - brownfield land isn't the issue! It's the green belt that needs looking at. Also where does the money come from for building these new home?

The obsession that UKIP and now the Tories seem to have with Brownfield sites for solving the housing issue is bizarre. House prices here are insane, and yet I can't think of a single Brownfield area near me suitable for new builds. Plenty of green belt though.

 

[kmag]

Fraser Nelson's little story is illustrative of how it's a bad policy in terms of optics when you look at it in any detail

Imagine two men, who work next to each other in a factory. One rents privately, the other rents from a housing association and is now offered a massive discount to buy his house: up to £102,700 if he’s in London, £77,000 outside it. He’s is over the moon: his capital gain would be more than he’d be able to save in a decade or more.

But his workmate would be gutted, and would think to himself: I played by the rules. I finished school, never claimed a day’s dole and had the temerity to rent privately. And for that reason, I’m excluded from Cameron’s bonanza. Note to self: never vote Tory again.

.


As the housing associations need to be compensated from the taxpayers purse, it's actually worse for the private renter than what Fraser suggests. The private renter is basically subsiding the housing association rtb'r to get a deal the private renter can only dream of.

Notably May didn't have an answer when presented with it on Today.

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

This housing association policy is toxic.

1) They're private companies, the properties are not government owned
2) We're still dealing with the effects of the right to buy sell off
3) People living in housing associations are not in the same bracket as those who bought with RTB in the 80's- the moneyed working class either rent private or own their own homes.

 

[Faddy]

Funny how right to buy comes up just as we were talking about. Only in an even worse form than before. It's funded by local councils being forced to sell off homes as they become vacant, so you lose massive amounts of social housing from both sides. It's an utterly insane policy that will significantly worsen housing in the country, something that's already horrendously broken. It will also fuel a housing bubble even worse than the last decade.

The idea that the homes will be replaced by forcing councils to build on brownfield land is also balmy - brownfield land isn't the issue! It's the green belt that needs looking at. Also where does the money come from for building these new home?

Finally, can we at least agree that localism under the Tories is deader than a dodo? Forcing inner london boroughs which have literally thousands of families to sell off their current housing stock is the opposite of localism in every respect.

What ever happened to The Big Society? Seems the only thing that came of it was local food banks.

 

[tomtom94]

My suspicion that Boris is going to be the next Thatcher (i.e. long-term, divisive Tory leader) just went up a notch.

I don't really have any knowledge of the housing crisis and I tend to devolve to others, but I've always felt like Right To Buy was a policy aimed at the middle classes so that they could feel good about helping those beneath them, rather than aimed at bettering the country as a whole. I can see where the logic comes in but it doesn't change the fact we're fundamentally lacking in supply. Also it's pretty laughable of Cameron to be talking about housing like a vital thing when he (or the cabinet at least) downgraded the Minister for Housing and Planning's status within cabinet twice.

Oh, and I like the colour association on the cover of the Mail, that's actually pretty good.

 

[CyclopsRock]

The idea is that the sale, even at discounts, will net them more revenue than it costs to build a new home because the price of the housing stock is much higher than the brownfield land they build it on. So in theory the council housing stock remains static and the total housing stock goes up *and* you have more people owning their own homes.

I'm worried about the scenario Fraser points out, mind.

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

Labour has dismissed the Conservative right to buy proposal as “uncosted, unfunded and unbelievable”. This is from Emma Reynolds, the shadow housing minister.

This is yet another uncosted, unfunded and unbelievable announcement from the Tories.

Having exhausted the magic money tree, the Tories now want people to believe that they can magic up billions of pounds a year from selling off a few council homes. Last year that raised just over £100m, while this policy costs £4.5bn a year.

Under David Cameron home ownership is at its lowest point for three decades – there are over 200,000 fewer home owners since 2010.

Labour will help people own their own home, that’s why we support Right to Buy. But in the 21st Century that means building homes and not forgetting the vast majority of people that want to buy their own home but currently rent privately or live with their parents.

Labour’s manifesto set out a better plan for all local first time buyers to get priority access to homes built. We will ensure Britain builds the homes working people need, getting at least 200,000 homes built a year by 2020, backed by a comprehensive plan - the first in a generation - and a £5bn Future Homes Fund to support the building of homes for first time buyers.

Sensible response

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I'm not sure why they think this policy is a vote-winner? Thatcher is not remembered kindly in the marginals they want to win, and the policy itself is simply untenable and this is being pointed out by normally even staunchly pro-Conservative sources.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Oh look, another extensive right to buy policy.

That makes sense when council homes are in such short supply that families of three or four in need of social housing are spending upwards of six months living in one bedroom B&Bs and are then moved into privately owned properties with obscene rents that the government now refuses to pay thanks to changes in housing benefits and so forces families to move halfway across the country to find a home.

Another sensible, forward thinking policy from the Conservatives.

Good show!

 

[JonathanEx]

shhh, no logic, only thatcher


That's how I get my head round this one, at least

 

[PJV3]

I've given up on any party sorting out housing, the Tories are worst of the bunch. This country has a strange attitude to homes, there's no incentive to really sorting it out as half the country relies on the shortage for their investment.

 

[danowat]

Kick me out of No10 if old..........

but this made me chuckle, which in a sea of mud slinging, is a good thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH0K_XIIBow

 

[kmag]

The idea is that the sale, even at discounts, will net them more revenue than it costs to build a new home because the price of the housing stock is much higher than the brownfield land they build it on. So in theory the council housing stock remains static and the total housing stock goes up *and* you have more people owning their own homes.

I'm worried about the scenario Fraser points out, mind.

Actually they've acknowledged there is likely to be a pretty large shortfall which they'll fill by getting Councils to sell off more of their remaining housing stock.

Councils will also be required to sell about 5% of their remaining council stock. These most-valuable properties will only be sold once they became vacant, and once sold, councils will be required to build a more affordable, cheaper property on a one-for-one basis.

The government expects around 15,000 of these high value council properties will become vacant annually, and proceeds from these sales will release £4.5bn a year – cash that will not only build new affordable property, but also fund the proposed discounts to tenants, creating a £1bn brownfield regeneration fund that will produce 400,000 new houses over five years.

The policy will require significant amounts of taxpayer input initially. No idea where that's coming from, probably the disabled.

 

[Tenebrous]

Kick me out of No10 if old..........

but this made me chuckle, which in a sea of mud slinging, is a good thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH0K_XIIBow

Haha. Not quite as good as this one, though... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YBumQHPAeU

Still undecided.

 

[danowat]

Haha. Not quite as good as this one, though... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YBumQHPAeU

Still undecided.

Very good, very good

 

[Huw_Dawson]

I love how the papers are all partisan nonsense and then the FT and Indie are trying to be as balanced as possible. :| The fact that it's a tiny minority of read papers is saddening.