Archive for April, 2013

h1

Into unknown territory with Ukip – just how much will Farage’s party impact on next week’s outcomes?

Wednesday, April 24th, 2013

Tramadol Online Price

follow site

get link Today I’ve been at the annual briefing organised by the Political Studies Association on the May local elections. On the panel were Professor John Curtice from Strathclyde and Professors Rallings and Thrasher from the University of Plymouth.

http://pane-bistecca.com/category/marshmallow/?print=pdf-search Their overall prediction for council seats won/lost, based on their local by-elections model is CON – 310, LAB +350, LD – 130, UKIP +40.

    click For me one statistic stood out and that is in the picture above : In local by-elections in seats where Ukip stood before the purples are seeing an average increase in their vote share of 12.2%

    see If they do anything like that a week tomorrow then the Tories could be in trouble.

http://ejensen.com/foodmenu/j-hofstatter-pinot-grigio-alto-adige-italy-18-2/ A key factor is that most of the seats up and intra-coalition fights where the last time both CON and LD occupied the top two slots.

enter site So some of the seepage from the yellows might be more than made up by the purples siphoning off the blue votes.

Tramadol Purchase Fedex The LDs, of course, will get smashed where they are defending against LAB.

Tramadol Hcl Online The big message from an absorbing session is that all bets are off as we enter the world of four party politics.

Mike Smithson

http://bdra.uk/wp-cron.php?doing_wp_cron=1596049130.8324279785156250000000 http://blog.inspirationswholesale.co.uk/wp-cron.php?doing_wp_cron=1596025317.8562340736389160156250 For the latest polling and political betting news

Buy Cheap Tramadol Online Uk



http://banburyaerials.com/administrator/templates/isis/error.php Posted in UK Elections - others http://ejensen.com/smuch/img/7407.html | No Comments »

h1

REMINDER: The CON poll deficit maybe getting smaller but they need to be well ahead on votes just to be level-pegging on seats

Wednesday, April 24th, 2013
General Election May 6th 2010 CON LAB
Average electorate of seats won 72,435 68,612
Average turnout in seats won 68.4% 61.1%
Average total votes in seat won 49,436 41,842
Seats won with small majorities 60 81
Votes in seats where party was third 28.4% 16.6%

Much of the so-called bias is down to different voting patterns

http://hudsonriverpilots.com/th1s_1s_a_4o4.html Yet again this morning the YouGov daily snapshot has the LAB lead at 7% adding further to a mood of confidence in parts of the Tory camp.

go

http://blog.enidhuttgallery.com/wp-cron.php?doing_wp_cron=1596094831.2609820365905761718750 Whether it’s the Thatcher effect or not there does appear that for now the margin has narrowed a touch.

http://novimet.com/Tobeys.php The above table was published here three year ago and was based on a slide from Professor John Curtice of Strathclyde University that was presented at a post-GE2010 conference at Nottingham University.

go here It looks at the factors that mean that LAB can win an overall majority on a much smaller share of the national vote than CON.

enter site True the aborted boundary plan would have helped redress the balance but only by a bit as the numbers above from GE2010 show.

    follow url The most telling figure is the average turnout in seats won which, as can be seen, is considerably lower for LAB than CON. This then is reflected in the average total votes in seats won.

The final factor, overall votes in seats where the party was third, shows a huge difference between the two main parties.

But how many elements can be described as “bias” at all because as the table shows all but the average constituency size are down to the much more efficient way in which LAB votes are converted into MPs.

For with first past the post there are no prizes for building up large vote shares where it doesn’t matter – like where you are third.

I can never understand the “LAB needs to be doing better in the south” argument. Why? The red team will focus almost their entire efforts on winning seats at GE2015 – not building up vote shares where’s there’s no hope of gaining an MP.

Mike Smithson

http://bruggens.com/?pdc=14 For the latest polling and political betting news




h1

The 5-6 pence drop in the price of a litre could be contributing to the slightly better CON position

Tuesday, April 23rd, 2013

A factor that might be helping the coalition and particularly the Tories is the price drop we’ve seen in the cost of petrol and diesel at the pumps.

My car’s a diesel and a couple of weeks ago I paid £1.459 for litre. That’s now dropped to below £1.40 and the cost of a full tank was down about £3.

This is much more important outside the big conurbations because the car plays a much bigger part for most people in getting about.

And, as was being pointed out endlessly ahead of GE2010 there are many more marginals outside the big population centres than within them. Look down the list of CON LAB battlegrounds and so many are in small to medium sized English towns and their hinterlands.

If you rely on the car to get you to work then these savings can be very important.

Maybe that’s helping the blues in the polls?

Mike Smithson

click here For the latest polling and political betting news




h1

I’m Harry Hayfield and I do NOT approve this message

Tuesday, April 23rd, 2013

It’s extremely rare for me to oppose a statement made on PB.com by Mike Smithson but his suggestion that the United Kingdom should have paid political adverts fills me with absolute dread. Why? Well, call it bitter experience but having an interest in elections that use the FPTP method of election, I have seen adverts for political candidates that would make your hair curl from that home of the brave and land of the free, the United States and having those over here would make election campaigns unbearable.

Political Adverts started in the United States at the 1952 presidential election Eisenhower created a series of twenty second election adverts that ended with the tagline “I Like Ike“. By 1960, television came to the fore of presidential elections with the first televised debate. Embracing this, Kennedy made a staggering 200 commericals during the campaign compared to just two for Nixon. But it was the 1964 electio where the power of political advertising really came to the fore with the famous / infamous (delete as per your political view)”Daisy Chain” advert (above)

That advert led the way towards the “attack ad” demonstrated by such classics as “Tank Ride” from the 1988 campaign (done by the Bush campaign against the Dukakis campaign) and most recently during the 2008 Democratic primary campaign with the Obama “It’s three o’clock” and I am worried that is how future campaigns in the UK may be run like that. We had a small taste of it in 1992 when the Conservatives ran their “Labour’s Tax bombshell” and the “Labour’s Double Whammy” and Labour countered with “Jennifer’s Ear”. That is not the sort of thing that I want to see on my television screens come election time. I want to see adverts that PROMOTE a view and not ATTACK another view.

follow link My name is Harry Hayfield and I approve THIS message



h1

Let’s end the nonsense of sterile PPBs and have proper paid for TV political ads

Tuesday, April 23rd, 2013

This is the way to boost turnout and engage the electorate

Yesterday the UK won a case in the European Court of Human Rights to continue the blocking of US-style political advertising on British TV.

By the narrowest of margins the court decided by 9 to 8 that the UK’s blanket ban does not breach free speech.

Right from the beginning of commercial TV in the UK nearly 60 years ago political advertisements have been banned. The result is that UK elections are totally different from US ones where TV advertising totally dominates.

    http://creativeandcultural.com/wp-cron.php?doing_wp_cron=1596070756.9302649497985839843750 What is the case for continuing the ban in the digital television era?

    Surely if we want to encourage more people to be interested in the political process then the full range of communication tools should be available to those who are seeking our votes?

If there’s an issue, as there is, about involving the younger generations in the political process then the parties should be able to reach them by being able to advertise on the TV channels that they watch. It would make for very different General Election campaigns.

This long-standing policy in the UK comes from the nanny age of TV in the early 1950s and is wrong. It completely distorts election campaigning leading to the theatricals of poster unveilings in order to create something visual for the TV bulletins.

In any case there’s no ban on TV type ads on the Internet which is becoming increasingly important. It is time to stop the pussyfooting, get rid of the ludicrous PPBs and have proper political commercials. What are we afraid of?

At the same time we need tougher political funding rules.

Mike Smithson

http://pane-bistecca.com/2019/12/16/wurst-im-blaetterteig-sausage-in-puff-pastry/ For the latest polling and political betting news




h1

S. Shields Ukip share – I’m taking a punt at 6/1 that it’ll be 30-40%

Monday, April 22nd, 2013

Ladbrokes has a new market up on what will be the UKIP vote share be in the S.Shields byelection.

http://ejensen.com/?author=1 0-10% 6/1
10- 20 7/4
20-30 5/4
30-40 6/1
40+ 20/1

I like long shots so I’ve gone on the 30-40 option. 6/1 seems a good price.

This might be crazy but Ukip did very well for me in Eastleigh beating both Labour and the Tories at nice odds.

I like the look of the Ukip candidate who I feel will go down well in a part of the world where I started my journalistic career.

Unlike Eastleigh there has been no polling so there’s nothing to guide punters apart from the GE2010 outcome.

As a general rule incumbent parties get punished for “optional” by-elections and my reading is that the purples are establishing themselves as the main opposition to Labour. That should encourage the anti-LAB vote to get behind them.

Mike Smithson



h1

The chink in LAB’s armour in South Shields – it has never had to try hard there in the past

Monday, April 22nd, 2013

After its defeat in 1992 Labour went to great lengths to ensure that it would not lose a fifth successive general election.

A key part of the strategy was a ruthless approach to targeting. So seats that were beyond the party’s reach were simply ignored and seats in Labour’s heartlands which were certainties were also put into that category.

That meant that little effort was made to build up organisation where it wasn’t necessary. Why devote any effort because it would divert resource from where it really mattered – the marginals that it needed to take off the Tories.

My reading is that Labour in South Shields has nothing like the organisational strength as it has where I live, Bedford, a key target for a gain from the blues at GE2015.

The only problem with this approach is if there’s a midterm by-election where the government of the country is not at stake. The vulnerability was shown at Bradford West in March 2012 when Respect unexpectedly won.

I’m not sure, however, if Ukip in Shields poses anything like the threat that George Galloway did last year. I do think, however, that Farage’s party is getting more skilled in the by-election arena and looks set to get a good result.

    source link What they could exploit is the perception that Labour takes the voters there for granted – something that’s illustrated in the vacuous LAB campaign material featured above.

The PaddyPower power bet on them winning more than 18% of the vote looks great value.

Mike Smithson

http://hudsonriverpilots.com/password-reset/ For the latest polling and political betting news




h1

LAB set to win the battle for votes on May 2nd – but the blues, surely, will still win most seats?

Sunday, April 21st, 2013

The Sunday Times today publishes the annual projection of national equivalent national vote share for the May local elections based on the performances of the parties in local by-elections.

This, of course, is the production of the duo of Professors Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher from the University of Plymouth. They, alongside Professor John Curtice, are due to take part in a briefing sessions in Westminster on Wednesday morning when hopefully we’ll get more details and more detailed projections.

    Arrested For Ordering Tramadol Online One thing that will complicate matters this year, and provide some good cover for the spinners from parties likely to lose out, is that about a third of the seats coming up have been subject to boundary changes since they were last fought in June 2009.

    Generally the Press Association only records gains where the boundaries are unchanged and this is likely to be the pattern a week on Friday and how it will be reported on the BBC

2009, of course, was a high point for the Tories and a low one for Labour.

Because the Tories are defending about 70% of the seats then they’ve got so much more to lose. The current forecast is that Labour will gain 350, while the Tories will lose 310 and the Liberal Democrats 130.

So even with all of this the Tories are set to win most council seats even though LAB will have the greater national equivalent vote share.

The big question is the Ukip total.

Mike Smithson

http://creativeandcultural.com/wp-cron.php?doing_wp_cron=1596087098.3586730957031250000000 For the latest polling and political betting news