Electoralcalculus Updated

[mikey4444]

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

Labour was 42% probability of winning...now 44%. Conservatives still only on
8% chance of winning.

Electoralcalculus now predict the chances of a colalition with the Nats for the first time. Notice that UKIP are still not predicted to have any seats or influence.

[Gromit]

Sqad

Cameron had a victory las election. But not a majority.

A victory means you beat your nearest rival by 1 vote.
An overall majority means you beat your combine opposition by 1 vote.

HTH.

[dave50]

Who are these people that still intend on voting a Labour government back in after last time? Are their memories so short? I haven't forgotten how Gordon Brown was instrumental in destroying my final salary pension scheme. But there again I work in private industry, they are only interested in public sector workers and benefit claimants. That is where they are going to get all their votes from.

[Sqad]

Gromit...OK thanks.

\\\\probability of an outright majority of 44%, but only 8% for the Tories. \\\

Bookmakers vary between odds on for Labour and 10/11 for Labour. Surely with the electoralcalculus figures, the odds on a Labour victory should be greater.

[Gromit]

Sqad,

As I prefaced my answer, I do not understand ElectoralCalculus' methodogy.

Isn't a 44% probabity a very poor result even though it is the most probable?

[janbee]

Polls now mean nowt, wait until March/April time.

[Sqad]

Gromit

\\Isn't a 44% probabity a very poor result even though it is the most probable? \\\

I don't know, because i don't understand the system, but i would have thought that it was a good result considering your main opponent was 8%.

I am not critisising mikey, just the system.

[Gromit]

// Who are these people that still intend on voting a Labour government back in after last time? //

People tend to vote for selfish reasons rather than what is good for everyone.

They ask themselves "Am I better off than I was 5 years ago?"

If the answer is "No" then they are likely to vote differently.

[Gromit]

Lol, neither of us understands their methodology.

I would guess that only a probability of over 50% would be worth shouting about.

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

/// People tend to vote for selfish reasons rather than what is good for everyone.

They ask themselves "Am I better off than I was 5 years ago?"

If the answer is "No" then they are likely to vote differently. ///

Perhaps the answer they should ask themselves is, "will I be better off under a Labour Government"?

[jim360]

Perhaps we should be worried when neither of the only realistic options is unpalatable. The current Labour party doesn't appeal to me, but I don't like the way the Tories have run things in the last few years (and anyway they've missed most of their self-imposed targets).

[mikey4444]

Sqad (16:57)...you are reinforcing my view ! The Pollsters art can be a trifle dark at times but it is the contrast between Labour and the Tories that is most interesting about the EC update. I am constantly being told that dave has a open goal in Labour, what with Balls, and the fact that Ed looks a little weird.

But dave still can't up his game against Labour, and hasn't been able to do so since a few months after the 2010 Election.

There is no room for complacency in politics, not even prior to the landslide victory for Labour in 1997. But Ed must be encouraged by this update. If I were in his position and it was being forecast that Labour had a 44% chance of winning, against my only real rival, the Tories at 8%, I would be pleased this evening.

[mikey4444]

Jim...perhaps it may be then, that the lesser of two evils is the one to go for !

[jim360]

Perhaps, but that still sucks as a choice. And, moreover, there are multiple other choices available -- but none of these has much chance of winning, and indeed UKIP seems like it will need a huge surge in support just to gain a handful of seats (and, according to this seat, 0 seats on double the share of the LibDems (with 19) and quadruple the SNP/ PC/ Irish parties (with 45)). That is just not acceptable in a democracy.

[Gromit]

AOG

// Perhaps the answer they should ask themselves is, "will I be better off under a Labour Government"? //

If they have decided they are worse off than 5 years ago, then the question "will I be better off under a Labour Government?" will in a lot of cases be "Yes".

The problem for the Labour Party is that not enough people feel worse off, or don't believe that Miliband will improve their prospects. Labour probably need a good Liar like TB, but have got one.

[Sqad]

mikey...we are saying the same thing over and over again........Dave hasn't made a surge, in fact he has been stagnant for the past couple of years and Ed has blown a 14 point lead, quite consistently, down to one or two points lead, in the same time span.

My point is....that the above is not reflected in the Electoralcalculus.
Both systems can't be right.

[Gromit]

Sqad/jim

The present constituencies were gerrymandered to favour Labour or Conservative, and so there is a high concentration of either (fairly safe) seats. That ensures that a party such as UKIP which has its support more evenly spead across the who country, cannot beat an incumbant without a huge swing. If they do very well, the most they can expect for their efforts is second.

[ChillDoubt]

Polls, polls, polls.......

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-12-15/poll-12-of-britons-trust-labour-most-on-immigration/

[BlackadderV]

I am not exactly sure what this 'electoralcalculus' is, nor how it differs from any other opinion poll. Sounds to me like a spell from Harry Potter. Also, as far as I remember, there is a big difference between calculus and calculation.

[Svejk]

Insulting slaughter men now. The list goes on.

[DaisyNonna]

I should be interested? All a lot of self serving leeches.