British pollsters predict

Interestingly, the predictions of the pollsters are different from what their polls are predicting. Bit of personal bias, or do they see something that isn't obvious from the figures?

Ben Page, chief executive, Ipsos MORI: "It's a mug's game calling this election, with half the voters saying they may still change their minds."

11 April: Hung parliament with the Tories 25 seats short of a majority.
18 April: Conservative lead, from 20 short of a majority to a majority of 20 seats.
Now: Conservative lead, from 20 short of a majority to a majority of 20 seats.

Robert Salvoni, President, Harris Interactive: "Cameron is viewed as the strongest leader, but he only has a few days left to convince the electorate that he is in touch with the nation and that his policies are strong enough to deliver on the challenges ahead."

11 April: Conservatives win with 2-10 seat majority.
18 April: Conservatives win with 10 seat majority.
Now: Conservatives win with 10 seat majority.

Martin Boon, head of social & government research, ICM Research:"It's fairly apparent to all that the debates were a real game changer and the Lib Dem surge means it's fairly impossible to predict the share of the vote, never mind seats."

11 April: Conservatives win with 20 seat majority.
18 April: Conservatives win with 15 seat majority.
Now: Hung parliament with the Conservatives four or five seats short of a majority.

Andrew Cooper, founder and strategic director, Populus: "There is nothing that Gordon Brown can do to recover his position. They are rejecting him, his arguments and his government. Labour are likely to be not merely defeated, but purged."

11 April: Conservatives win with 10+ seat majority.
18 April: Conservatives win with 10+ seat majority.
Now: Conservatives win with an overall majority of 10+ seats.

Andrew Hawkins, executive chairman, ComRes: "Had Gordon Brown or David Cameron seen Michael Cockerell's excellent documentary 'How to win a TV debate' they would never have agreed to it."

11 April: Conservatives win with 32 seat majority.
18 April: Hung parliament with the Conservatives 11 seats short of a majority.
Now: Hung parliament with the Conservatives 11 seats short of a majority.

Andy Morris, research director, Vision Critical: "The first debate was the defining moment of the campaign. The Lib Dem surge that followed caused a redefinition of campaign tactics by all three parties."

11 April: Conservatives win with 40-50 seat majority.
18 April: Conservatives win with 30-40 seat majority.
Now: Hung parliament with the Conservatives between one and 10 seats short of a majority.

Johnny Heald, managing director, Opinion Research Business: "Labour's defence of their title never really got going ... and there must be slight questions over their strategy. The momentum appears to be with Cameron. "

11 April: Conservatives win with 40+ seat majority.
18 April: Conservatives win with 40+ seat majority.
Now: Conservatives win with a 20+ seat majority. (1)

If this is a reflection of what actually happens on polling day, then I am in despair. Not only because it will mean that the constitutional reforms that Britain needs will be deferred again, but because the British public will have elected the worst of all possible options.

Obviously, a Lib-Lab coalition (or a minority Labour government with confidence and supply support would have been the best option. A Labour or (don't snigger) Lib Dem majority would have been next best, followed by a Lib-Tory joint project. A Tory majority would have been the worst, and the pollsters seem to think this is what we will have, once Friday morning drags itself around.

I just can't imagine the Tories being anything other than awful. Look at how they have coped with the current enthusiasm for the Lib Dems - it has completely up-ended them. The Tories are hopeless. Since the first debate, they've been completely clueless. There campaign consists of "No More Gordon! Free Money! Um ... No More Gordon! Free Money!"

Can you imagine that shower of self wetting spineless wimps dealing with a crisis in the real world, rather than a hiccup in their friggin' campaign? "Terrorism in London? Well, at least we're not Gordon. Have some free money ..."

The Tories are promising tax cuts and, at the same time, deficit reduction, based on savings which can't really be taken very seriously, while at the same time promising services won't be affected. Hopeless. In fact, it's worse than that, it's completely delusional, the sort of crazed visionary stuff promised by the more out there religious sects. Ponzi would be embarrassed by the Osbourne theory of economic management. If David Cameron was Mohammed, he wouldn't be promising prospective martyrs seventy virgins on their entry to paradise, he'd be saying they didn't even need to worry about the nasty martyrdom bit first.

And the Tories want to start it now, while the economy is still scratching its head and wondering if it should just slump back into recession. Idiocy.

1 - "Tory lead widens to 10 points as Lib Dems slip," by Jane Merrick. Published in The Independent, 2nd of May, 2010. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-lead-widens-to-10-points-as-lib-dems-slip-1960371.html)

British polls

UK Polling report gives a rolling average figure, based on all polls, of ...

Conservative ... 35%
Labour ... 27%
Lib Dem ... 28% (1)

It's worth noting that one of these polls, Angus Reid, seems to consistently record lower levels of support for Labour than the other polls, usually placing it below 25%. So it is likely that - assuming Angus Reid is less accurate than the other polls - that the Tories have enjoyed a slight surge, and Labour have managed to claw their way back to the same level as the Lib Dems. Which means of, course, that absolutely nothing is predictable, due to the incalculable sin First Past The Post. Labour's support is probably substantially higher in Scotland, whereas the Tories will be doing well if the gain even a couple of seats there. Ditto in Wales. But both these countries have strong national parties. And so on ... so on ... the best thing that you can about FPTP is it gives bloggers a lot of stuff to think about, and everyone can have fun poking about in the entrails and seeing what they want to see.

(For what it is worth, I'm feeling glum and now expect the Tories to form the largest party, though probably still short of a majority.)

Stepping back from the steaming, bloody entrails, to look at the whole bloodied corpse of the British body politic, it has to be said that this is insanity. Britain has suffered 13 years of atrocious governance, broken promises, lies, a needless war in Iraq, the expenses scandal, and Gordon Brown calling an old biddy a bigot, and the Tories are still barely keeping their heads above water in the popular vote, and are likely dismally screwed in terms of seats. How much do people hate them?

People have had had 13 years to find reasons to hate Labour, and Labour have been generous in doling out reasons. The Tories should be looking for a 1997 result, but as it stands, they are struggling to be the largest party, never mind a majority of any sort. the people must hate the Tories with a deep and abiding loathing, and I suspect it won't fade until the faces from the 90s - Howard, Redwood, Hague and so on - are gone.

I think the polls are showing a slight increase in Tory support is because 'Don't Knows' are becoming 'Knows.' In part, this is just what happens during elections as people make up their minds. And, asurdly, it might actually be that Duffygate has given the Tories a 1 or 2 point boost - even though it doesn't seem to have damaged Labour, who have clawed back a point or two on the Lib Dems who, in turn, are starting to subside a bit. If they lose any more support, it is going to be vital where it goes. A single point drop off in Lib Dem support that transfers to Labour might have a huge impact, costing the Lib Dems a few seats and netting Labour a whole load more. Or the Tories, of course, if it goes that way ...

1 - The rolling average figure, as per UK Polling report blog, as of the 2nd of May, 2010. (http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/)

Warm winter ahead, lefthandpalm predicts scorcher year

Niwa forecast that the next three months will be above the seasonal average, with occasional cold snaps (1).

Lefthandpalm dares go further and predicts that 2010 will be a scorcher, globally. This breaks the usual trend of hot years such as 1998 or 2005 being followed by cooler years, a pattern which suggests seasonal variation (early/late winters, long/short summers) has played a significant role. But even though 2009 was a very hot year (2) globally, I suspect that 2010 will be almost as hot, if not as hot. I say: top five for sure, almost certainly top three.

To forestall any accusations of weaselling, later on, I'll say now 'll be using the GISS data set.

1 - "A mild start to winter, and the end of el nino," press release by NIWA, 29th of April, 2010. Reproduced on stuff.co.nz. (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1004/S00068.htm)
2 - "2009: 2nd warmest year on record: end of warmest decade," press release by NASA-GISS, 21st of January, 2010. (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/)

From arrogance to incoherence

Nick Clegg forgot the golden rule of politics - "Never apologise, never explain" - and compounded his "I won't work with Gordon" tantrum. Instead of clarifying the situation, he's made it even more incomprehensible and incoherent:

Clegg, however, has not been deterred from trying to set out the Lib Dem stance. He said: "I think, if Labour do come third in terms of the number of votes cast, then people would find it inexplicable that Gordon Brown himself could carry on as prime minister. As for who I'd work with, I've been very clear – much clearer than David Cameron and Gordon Brown – that I will work with anyone. I will work with a man from the moon, I don't care, with anyone who can deliver the greater fairness that I think people want." (1)

So he might work with Brown as PM - presumably, Brown is marginally less alien than a man from the moon - even though this will appear inexplicable to the British people. Is this man following the example of his predecessor, Charles "Buckfast" Kennedy, and hitting the bottle?

Clegg seems to be buying into the Cameronian delusion that Britain operates a presidential system. Or perhaps he thinks that he is vested with the authority to tell other parties who they should have as leader.

Which begs the question - if the Lib Dems were to finish in third place, as is entirely possible, and Labour were to demand Clegg step down as a precondition to coalition, would allow himself to be hoist by his own petard?

1 - "Nick Clegg: I could work with Labour, just not Gordon Brown," by Patrick Wintour. Published ion The Guardian, 26th of April, 2010. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/26/nick-clegg-hung-parliament-labour)

After the operation, they'll be this big ...

David Cameron extols the benefits of breast augmentation for middle aged men.



Or is he about the fondle his own man-breasts as part of a lurid strip tease to shore up his flagging popularity?

Image courtesy of Associated Press.

More stupid ...

In a clean sweep of the major British political parties, Nick Clegg has been stupid enough to indicate he would not form a coalition with Labour if they finished third in the popular vote, regardless of how many seats they won:

"It's just preposterous, the idea that if a party comes third in terms of the number of votes, it still somehow has the right to continue swatting at Number 10 [Downing Street] and continue to lay claim to having the prime minister form the government," he said.

"What I'm saying here is pointing at a very, very irrational possible outcome of our potty electoral system, which is that a party which has spectacularly lost the election because fewer and fewer people are voting for it than any other party, can nonetheless, according to constitutional tradition and convention, still lay claim to providing the prime minister." (1)

This is foolish as if constitutional reform is so essential, the Liberal Democrats should use any opportunity to force it through, even if it means forming a coalition with the third placed party. If the system is potty and irrational, the sensible thing would be to change it as quickly as possible - and it is hard to see the Tories agreeing to strategic catastrophe that electoral reform would mean for them.

The more sensible approach would be to say, bluntly, that some things are important enough to justify almost any means necessary to achieve them - even putting Gordon Brown back in Downing Street. At least, if a pragmatic dalliance with Labour produces PR, Clegg can say, "Well, that sucked for me, too, but now we never need to do that again."

Instead, in a weird fit of scruple, he's decided to put principles first and go with the numbers. This is one time, probably, when the generally holier-than-thou Lib-Dems won't thank him for it. They've been suffering from the unfairness of First Past the Post since the party was formed. They've done enough of the principles, and they'd like something to show for it, thank you.

After all, it isn't like anyone is likely to thank him if he puts David Cameron in. The country will be worse of, as Cameron and his chancellor seem absolutely clueless. Given that an alliance with the Tories is unlikely to yield up the reforms the liberal Democrat voters want, they'll be even more unimpressed than the rest of us.

A further complication is the position this places the leftwing of the Liberal Democrats in. The social democrats, like myself, who can move quite comfortably between the Liberal Democrats and (old) Labour are left with no reason to support him.

Under First Past the Post, a strong liberal showing might produce an unlikely Labour victory from third place. So social democrats such as myself win twice over - economic progressive policies from Labour, and the Lib-dems (hopefully) curbing their coalition partner's authoritarian impulses, and forming Labour to make good on electoral and constitutional reform.

Now, if the social democrats vote Lib-Dem, it increases the likelihood of the party coalescing with the Tories, which in turn means a reduced likelihood of electoral reform and the end of progressive politics for a decade or so.

What would be the point of that?

1- "Clegg hints at Conservative coalition," by Phillip Williams. Published by ABC News, 26th of April, 2010. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/26/2882683.htm?section=world)

With stupid ...

Good god, what were they thinking?

After the PM left the stage following a speech at a rally paying tribute to NHS staff, Elvis impersonator Mark Wright came on singing The Wonder of You. (1)

In all seriousness, are both major parties trying to lose the election/ Cameron makes vacuous sound bites about people getting to elect prime ministers, suggesting that he doesn't understand the very basic ideas that inform British democracy, and now Brown is ritually humiliated like this.

1 - "Gordon Brown joined on the General Election campaign trail by Elvis," unattributed article. Published in the Daily Mirror, 25th of Arpil, 2010. (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/general-election/2010/04/25/gordon-brown-joined-on-the-general-election-campaign-trail-by-elvis-115875-22211658/)
2 - As described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2010/04/stupid.html